Discussion:
Fucktard Bush is About to Make Himself an Even BIGGER FUCK-UP
(too old to reply)
Möbius Pretzel
2007-01-03 00:59:09 UTC
Permalink
The American President seems keen to repeat his country's mistakes

01 January 2007

Last November 17, as George W Bush visited Hanoi for the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit, the US president had some philosophical
thoughts to deliver about the lessons he said the United States had
learned from the Vietnam War, the longest conflict in US history.

"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush told reporters. "We tend to want
there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going
to take awhile."

It is questionable what lessons the president took away from Vietnam,
where nearly 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were
wounded in more than 14 years of hot and cold conflict before the
Americans gave up. But if history is any yardstick, he probably ought
to take careful consideration of ordering a surge in American troops in
Iraq.

With US troop deaths in Iraq just having passed the 3,000 mark at the
end of 2006, the president is reportedly about to order a "surge"
in troop strength, by as many as 30,000.


CLICK LINK TO SEE GRAPH SPELLING OUT HOW IGNORANT, FUCKTARD WAR
CRIMINAL BUSH REALLY IS!

http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=35
stork
2007-01-03 01:01:50 UTC
Permalink
Bush Jr. got Saddam.

USA wins.
bushlied
2007-01-03 01:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Lost

Lost big

The execution is universally condemned

The execution prompts more violence in Iraq

Lost
stork
2007-01-03 02:37:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by bushlied
The execution is universally condemned
Universally? A pope that liberals hate anyway, and a few european
nations? They aren't world powers any more. What did China say?
Hmm... it was up to the Iraqi people?
Post by bushlied
The execution prompts more violence in Iraq
Lost
More Iraqis killing each other is not an American concern. Besides,
how much worse could it really get?
P.K.
2007-01-07 03:02:10 UTC
Permalink
It could get worse: 3,000Americans killed could turn to 4,000 then to
5,000 ..............etc. I think that's what is going to happen,
unfortunately.
Post by stork
Post by bushlied
The execution is universally condemned
Universally? A pope that liberals hate anyway, and a few european
nations? They aren't world powers any more. What did China say?
Hmm... it was up to the Iraqi people?
Post by bushlied
The execution prompts more violence in Iraq
Lost
More Iraqis killing each other is not an American concern. Besides,
how much worse could it really get?
Sid9
2007-01-03 01:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
You've "Declared Victory"

bush,jr should do the same.

Lets bring our guys home!


NOW!
stork
2007-01-03 02:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
You've "Declared Victory"
bush,jr should do the same.
Lets bring our guys home!
NOW!
Agreed! COMPLETELY! Declare Victory, bring them home.
Sid9
2007-01-03 02:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Sid9
You've "Declared Victory"
bush,jr should do the same.
Lets bring our guys home!
NOW!
Agreed! COMPLETELY! Declare Victory, bring them home.
bush,jr, arrogant, ignorant, a liar,
and incompetent will increase
the number of troops this
recreating our failure in Vietnam.

*The "Surge" = The "Vietnamization" of Iraq*
P.K.
2007-01-07 03:08:12 UTC
Permalink
The word that is out now on the various political talk shows is that the
Bush administration actually knows and recognizes that Iraq is a lost
cause but this so called "surge" lasting maybe 18 months, is really
designed to last almost to the end of the Bush administration. That way
the pullout or "retreat" from Iraq will happen under the next President
and Bush never has to admit that he was wrong. He can then point the
finger at the new President and accuse him/her of losing the war and
giving up on Democracy. I just about believe that this is what is really
taking place.
Post by Sid9
Post by stork
Post by Sid9
You've "Declared Victory"
bush,jr should do the same.
Lets bring our guys home!
NOW!
Agreed! COMPLETELY! Declare Victory, bring them home.
bush,jr, arrogant, ignorant, a liar,
and incompetent will increase
the number of troops this
recreating our failure in Vietnam.
*The "Surge" = The "Vietnamization" of Iraq*
Deaf Power
2007-01-03 02:57:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Bah, Bush was too chicken to fight Saddam. A true chickenhawk.


--
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2791/Rep_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment
Callisto
2007-01-03 03:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
Got Saddam and instead put a government in place that has the Iraqis
pining for the "good old days" before the US invaded.

Got Saddam who was contained and kept from making serious trouble, and
replaced it with an ongoing religion war that threatens to spill over
the region.

Got Saddam, and now it is ready to hand the country to a bunch of
ayatollahs who cannot wait until they get together with the ones in
Iran.

If that is winning, I would hate what you call losing.

Ah, yes. Saddam is dead.

And American soldiers keep dying with no end in sight.

Got Saddam.

Big fat, hairy, deal.
Post by stork
USA wins.
stork
2007-01-03 07:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Callisto
Got Saddam and instead put a government in place that has the Iraqis
pining for the "good old days" before the US invaded.
The Iraqis put in their own government. They failed themselves.
Post by Callisto
Got Saddam who was contained and kept from making serious trouble, and
replaced it with an ongoing religion war that threatens to spill over
the region.
The Iraqis put in their own government. They failed themselves.

And, containment of Saddam was at the price of a genocidal set of
sanctions against the Iraqi people.
Post by Callisto
Got Saddam, and now it is ready to hand the country to a bunch of
ayatollahs who cannot wait until they get together with the ones in
Iran.
Oh bigotry. We'll make friends with the Iranians and all will be good.
Post by Callisto
If that is winning, I would hate what you call losing.
Hey, check this out. The UK and France declared war on Germany to
guarantee Polish territorial integrity and freedom. Poland didn't
become independent until 40 years after the war.

But, that doesn't top the pointlessness of Roosevelt. Roosevelt
engineered the USA into a war with Japan, by stridently trying to
defend China from the Japanese. Barely a decade after Pearl Harbor,
300,000 Chinese Soldiers attacked American soldiers in North Korea, and
60 years later, the USA is siding with the Japanese against China.

Yep.
P.K.
2007-01-07 03:10:03 UTC
Permalink
We also now consider Viet Nam an ally and close trading partner.
Post by stork
Post by Callisto
Got Saddam and instead put a government in place that has the Iraqis
pining for the "good old days" before the US invaded.
The Iraqis put in their own government. They failed themselves.
Post by Callisto
Got Saddam who was contained and kept from making serious trouble, and
replaced it with an ongoing religion war that threatens to spill over
the region.
The Iraqis put in their own government. They failed themselves.
And, containment of Saddam was at the price of a genocidal set of
sanctions against the Iraqi people.
Post by Callisto
Got Saddam, and now it is ready to hand the country to a bunch of
ayatollahs who cannot wait until they get together with the ones in
Iran.
Oh bigotry. We'll make friends with the Iranians and all will be good.
Post by Callisto
If that is winning, I would hate what you call losing.
Hey, check this out. The UK and France declared war on Germany to
guarantee Polish territorial integrity and freedom. Poland didn't
become independent until 40 years after the war.
But, that doesn't top the pointlessness of Roosevelt. Roosevelt
engineered the USA into a war with Japan, by stridently trying to
defend China from the Japanese. Barely a decade after Pearl Harbor,
300,000 Chinese Soldiers attacked American soldiers in North Korea, and
60 years later, the USA is siding with the Japanese against China.
Yep.
GoMavsGo
2007-01-03 03:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
ohhh careful... you will make the saddam lovers like bushlied mad.
Gogarty
2007-01-03 14:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
I find it awfully hard to believe the level of stupidity some people
exhibit. USA lost -- big!
stork
2007-01-04 04:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
I find it awfully hard to believe the level of stupidity some people
exhibit. USA lost -- big!
You can say that the USA loses because we have not succeeded in the
stated goal of uniting the Iraqi people into a democratic, pro-Israel
government. However, that goal is so ridiculously high, that you may
as well have said that the USA lost World War II because China
ultimately went red and we wound up having to ally with Japan. It's a
stupid argument.

At the end of the day, the USA identified an enemy in Saddam Hussein,
removed him from power, and controlled the country long enough to
cajole the Iraqi people into executing their own leader for us. All of
this was at a cost lives that is rather small when compared against the
cost in lives of most previous wars.

All of the arguments about an increase in terror, the unintended
consequences, the worsening of relations with Iran, are as beside the
point as the failed promises of World War I and World War II. Just
because we did not achieve a neutral Poland at Yalta does not mean we
did not ultimately gain, and, ultimately, for each unintended
consequence of the invasion of Iraq, the USA has a path forward to gain
relative to the rest of the world.

Consider :

a) The invasion increased terrorism and destabilized the middle east.

The USA gains in this scenario because a destabilized middle east
simultaneously threatens Europe, Russia and China far more than it does
the USA. They have to worry about spillover effects, refugee
crossings, and damage to their fuel supplies needed for living. The
USA merely would have to cut its consumption of oil down by 50% and we
can be fine with our own rather massive domestic production. In real
terms, if we make everyone drive 4 cylinder hybrid engines, build mass
transit, and make more ethanol, biodiesel and electric cars, we can get
off the oil habit in a decade, and even sooner, if economics dictate it
so - just look at how fast we build the internet. The rest of the
world, though, has no domestic oil production, and would be completely
screwed.

b) The invasion strengthened the hand of Iran.

Let's not forget one thing. We killed the guy that killed one million
Iranians, and removed Iran's biggest rival from the picture. A strong
Iran threatens Europe and Russia, and holds a big oil card over China.
So, again, guess what? Even though we completely don't get along with
Iran, we do have common geopolitical interests, and we can probably
work with them on some level. I would be shocked if there was not
some aspect of theater to the present US - Iranian tiff.

A strong Iran works for us in a number of other ways too. First off, Al
Qaeda is a Sunni movement, and having a strong shiite government, or a
better regional block, offsets those nations that dump their
petrodollars into Sunni terrorist causes.

And finally, if Iran does do something stupid and attack us, we will
have national unity to attack Iran back, and we would, by eliminating
the state that frankly sponsors the Iraqi militias, put ourselves in a
good position to control Iranian oil ourselves and thus hold China by
the short ones.

The bottom, realpolitik line is this. No matter if Iraqi democracy
succeeds or fails, the USA gains geopolitically from the outcome. There
was never a scenario where the USA would not gain from the Invasion of
Iraq, otherwise, smart people on both sides of the aisle that did
consider the twin failure possibilites of a ruined Iraq and an
inability to find WMD would not have voted for it.
Jebus Saves
2007-01-04 05:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
I find it awfully hard to believe the level of stupidity some people
exhibit. USA lost -- big!
You can say that the USA loses because we have not succeeded in the
stated goal of uniting the Iraqi people into a democratic, pro-Israel
government. However, that goal is so ridiculously high, that you may
as well have said that the USA lost World War II because China
ultimately went red and we wound up having to ally with Japan. It's a
stupid argument.
At the end of the day, the USA identified an enemy in Saddam Hussein,
removed him from power, and controlled the country long enough to
cajole the Iraqi people into executing their own leader for us. All of
this was at a cost lives that is rather small when compared against the
cost in lives of most previous wars.
All of the arguments about an increase in terror, the unintended
consequences, the worsening of relations with Iran, are as beside the
point as the failed promises of World War I and World War II. Just
because we did not achieve a neutral Poland at Yalta does not mean we
did not ultimately gain, and, ultimately, for each unintended
consequence of the invasion of Iraq, the USA has a path forward to gain
relative to the rest of the world.
a) The invasion increased terrorism and destabilized the middle east.
The USA gains in this scenario because a destabilized middle east
simultaneously threatens Europe, Russia and China far more than it does
the USA. They have to worry about spillover effects, refugee
crossings, and damage to their fuel supplies needed for living. The
USA merely would have to cut its consumption of oil down by 50% and we
can be fine with our own rather massive domestic production. In real
terms, if we make everyone drive 4 cylinder hybrid engines, build mass
transit, and make more ethanol, biodiesel and electric cars, we can get
off the oil habit in a decade, and even sooner, if economics dictate it
so - just look at how fast we build the internet. The rest of the
world, though, has no domestic oil production, and would be completely
screwed.
b) The invasion strengthened the hand of Iran.
Let's not forget one thing. We killed the guy that killed one million
Iranians, and removed Iran's biggest rival from the picture. A strong
Iran threatens Europe and Russia, and holds a big oil card over China.
So, again, guess what? Even though we completely don't get along with
Iran, we do have common geopolitical interests, and we can probably
work with them on some level. I would be shocked if there was not
some aspect of theater to the present US - Iranian tiff.
A strong Iran works for us in a number of other ways too. First off, Al
Qaeda is a Sunni movement, and having a strong shiite government, or a
better regional block, offsets those nations that dump their
petrodollars into Sunni terrorist causes.
And finally, if Iran does do something stupid and attack us, we will
have national unity to attack Iran back, and we would, by eliminating
the state that frankly sponsors the Iraqi militias, put ourselves in a
good position to control Iranian oil ourselves and thus hold China by
the short ones.
The bottom, realpolitik line is this. No matter if Iraqi democracy
succeeds or fails, the USA gains geopolitically from the outcome. There
was never a scenario where the USA would not gain from the Invasion of
Iraq, otherwise, smart people on both sides of the aisle that did
consider the twin failure possibilites of a ruined Iraq and an
inability to find WMD would not have voted for it.
Saddam Hussein was a 100% ally of the United States until he invaded Kuwait,
threatened Saudi Arabia and pissed off Daddy Bush's benefactors in Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia. It amazes me how incredibly poor the average American's
knowledge of history is. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac before he was
our Ally, while he was our Ally and not as much after he fell out of favor.
We have lost 3000 poor American Soldiers in Iraq and ALL that has been
accomplished is billionaires have made billions, Al Qaeda has become 1000
times stronger and OSAMA BIN LADEN LIVES. GODDAMN! Can your pissant brain
understand that the man responsible for 9/11 is still alive and laughing at
America more than 5 years afterwards? How fucking incompetent can Bush get?
Pull your head out of your ass, you fucking idiot.
stork
2007-01-04 07:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
Saddam Hussein was a 100% ally of the United States until he invaded Kuwait,
threatened Saudi Arabia and pissed off Daddy Bush's benefactors in Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... whatever... why not tell us about the Aliens in
Hangar 18, while you are at it. Saddam was only an ally in the sense
that it was more convenient for westerners to understand Baathist
Fascism than it was to actually try and understand the ins and outs of
what we call a horrifying Iranian theocracy.

If you ask me, the whole mess in the middle east could have been
averted if Jimmy Carter would have just handed the Shah back to the
Iranian people for trial. The Shah was nearly as cruel to the Iranian
people as Saddam was to the Iraqis, and, so, had we just done the right
thing after the Iranian revolution, we could have averted the embassy
capture and the resulting decades of emnity between the USA and Iran.
Post by Jebus Saves
It amazes me how incredibly poor the average American's
knowledge of history is. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac before he was
It amazes me that you consider your politicized pap to be history.

The ultimate rap on Bush's foreign policy is that he is a Wilsonian
adventurist, thinking in idealistic terms and not realpolitik. The
whole idea was to bring Democracy to the middle east and they would be
able to take their own destiny into their hands. Unfortunately, as
soon as we liberated the Iraqis, instead of pulling together, they
decided to start killing each other. So, its back to realpolitik.
Post by Jebus Saves
We have lost 3000 poor American Soldiers in Iraq and ALL that has been
accomplished is billionaires have made billions, Al Qaeda has become 1000
How has Al Qaeda gotten 1000 times stronger? Seriously. Quit
listening to your liberal dogma and actually think about what you are
saying. Do some zen meditation, or whatever it is you do to put
yourself in a rational frame of mind. Mathematically speaking, if Al
Qaeda were a thousand times stronger, don't you think they would be
attacking the USA?

You know why? Organizationally, Al Qaeda is finished. If Al Qaeda
could be anywhere, they would either be attacking the USA, Israel, or
US forces in Iraq, and, right now, they aren't. Every service man that
I've talked to tells the same story - Al Qaeda is seen by the Iraqis as
another occupier - they don't like Al Qaeda any more than they like the
USA. You'll see Sunni and Shiite militia men take a pause from killing
each other to go after Al Qaeda.... how else do you think we got
Zarqawi? He got dimed out by the Iraqi people.
Post by Jebus Saves
OSAMA BIN LADEN LIVES.
True. But, the problem is, you invade a country, and he runs to
another one. Now he's hiding in Pakistan - assuming he's alive. Could
we invade them? Sure, but, then what? Chasing after Bin Laden is like
chasing after Pancho Villa. How many countries do you invade to try
and get this guy?
Post by Jebus Saves
GODDAMN! Can your pissant brain
understand that the man responsible for 9/11 is still alive and laughing at
America more than 5 years afterwards? How fucking incompetent can Bush get?
Pull your head out of your ass, you fucking idiot.
Quit your raging and grow up. Besides, if you are so patriotic, why
don't you go catch Bin Laden yourself? He's only one man. Be a hero.
You want me to enlist to go fight the war in Iraq. Why don't you hop
on a plane to Pakistan and go find Bin Laden.
Jebus Saves
2007-01-04 14:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
Saddam Hussein was a 100% ally of the United States until he invaded Kuwait,
threatened Saudi Arabia and pissed off Daddy Bush's benefactors in Kuwait
and Saudi Arabia.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.... whatever... why not tell us about the Aliens in
Hangar 18, while you are at it. Saddam was only an ally in the sense
that it was more convenient for westerners to understand Baathist
Fascism than it was to actually try and understand the ins and outs of
what we call a horrifying Iranian theocracy.
Aliens? You are a goddamned idiot. I stated fact and your tiny brain cannot
comprehend
Post by stork
If you ask me, the whole mess in the middle east could have been
averted if Jimmy Carter would have just handed the Shah back to the
Iranian people for trial. The Shah was nearly as cruel to the Iranian
people as Saddam was to the Iraqis, and, so, had we just done the right
thing after the Iranian revolution, we could have averted the embassy
capture and the resulting decades of emnity between the USA and Iran.
Actually I agree with returning the Shah but that would not have repaired
the problem in Iran, the problem was spliting up the region in the first
place and putting the Shah in power. Still even that would not have made the
problems any better. Ever hear of the Crusades? Well putting military bases
on Islamic Holy Land is what Al Qaeda was mad about. You need to read more
and listen less to your neocon propagandists.
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
It amazes me how incredibly poor the average American's
knowledge of history is. Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac before he was
It amazes me that you consider your politicized pap to be history.
The ultimate rap on Bush's foreign policy is that he is a Wilsonian
adventurist, thinking in idealistic terms and not realpolitik. The
whole idea was to bring Democracy to the middle east and they would be
able to take their own destiny into their hands. Unfortunately, as
soon as we liberated the Iraqis, instead of pulling together, they
decided to start killing each other. So, its back to realpolitik.
There is not one person with a competent brain that didn't know that was
going to happen.
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
We have lost 3000 poor American Soldiers in Iraq and ALL that has been
accomplished is billionaires have made billions, Al Qaeda has become 1000
How has Al Qaeda gotten 1000 times stronger? Seriously. Quit
listening to your liberal dogma and actually think about what you are
saying. Do some zen meditation, or whatever it is you do to put
yourself in a rational frame of mind. Mathematically speaking, if Al
Qaeda were a thousand times stronger, don't you think they would be
attacking the USA?
75 Al Qaeda members on 9/11 at 8AM
56 Members of Al Qaeda at 10AM after 19 die in their attacks

25000 members according to the CIA and FBI as of Jan 2006. Hmmmm.... seeems
stronger, don't it? The main reason for the increase in membership? THE IRAQ
WAR. Seems like when you kill a few hundred thousand innocent people that a
bunch of them will become angry.
You are an idiot that believes anything your daddy Bill
O'VibratoruphisassReilly, Sean Crossdresser Hannity or Rush Oxycontin
Limbaugh
Post by stork
You know why? Organizationally, Al Qaeda is finished. If Al Qaeda
could be anywhere, they would either be attacking the USA, Israel, or
US forces in Iraq, and, right now, they aren't. Every service man that
I've talked to tells the same story - Al Qaeda is seen by the Iraqis as
another occupier - they don't like Al Qaeda any more than they like the
USA. You'll see Sunni and Shiite militia men take a pause from killing
each other to go after Al Qaeda.... how else do you think we got
Zarqawi? He got dimed out by the Iraqi people.
Post by Jebus Saves
OSAMA BIN LADEN LIVES.
True. But, the problem is, you invade a country, and he runs to
another one. Now he's hiding in Pakistan - assuming he's alive. Could
we invade them? Sure, but, then what? Chasing after Bin Laden is like
chasing after Pancho Villa. How many countries do you invade to try
and get this guy?
Dec 2001, Toro Bora. Look it up idiot.

Iraq war had ZERO to do with 9/11, it is about money, if it weren't about
money then Bush would not have given out BILLIONS to his criminal buddies
then, he could justify his war by eliminating these no bid contracts and
investigating Halliburton's constant overcharging and all of them not
fullfilling their contractual duties. You are a child and a stupid one at
that.
stork
2007-01-04 15:20:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
Aliens? You are a goddamned idiot. I stated fact and your tiny brain cannot
comprehend
Your facts are made up to suit your politics.
Post by Jebus Saves
problems any better. Ever hear of the Crusades? Well putting military bases
on Islamic Holy Land is what Al Qaeda was mad about. You need to read more
and listen less to your neocon propagandists.
Hey, check your history. The crusades were a response to the Islamic
armies taking over the CHRISTIAN lands of the Byzantine Empire. In
fact, Islamic people had been attacking Christian countries for some
300 years BEFORE Richard the Lionheart set sail. Do you remember the
Islamic invasion of Spain and then France? What provoked that?
Post by Jebus Saves
There is not one person with a competent brain that didn't know that was
going to happen.
At the time, it was reasonable to think that your dismal view of the
Iraqi people was racist.
Post by Jebus Saves
25000 members according to the CIA and FBI as of Jan 2006. Hmmmm.... seeems
stronger, don't it? The main reason for the increase in membership? THE IRAQ
You are an idiot that believes anything your daddy Bill
O'VibratoruphisassReilly, Sean Crossdresser Hannity or Rush Oxycontin
Limbaugh
And you're an idiot that believes the CIA and FBI. 25,000 members?
What are they all doing? Where are the attacks on the USA?
Post by Jebus Saves
Dec 2001, Toro Bora. Look it up idiot.
Maybe he was there. Maybe he wasn't. Probably should have nuked him.
But then you would have been whining about that. Either way, if you
are so hell bent on catching Bin Laden, why not go get him? Coward.
Post by Jebus Saves
Iraq war had ZERO to do with 9/11, it is about money, if it weren't about
money then Bush would not have given out BILLIONS to his criminal buddies
then, he could justify his war by eliminating these no bid contracts and
investigating Halliburton's constant overcharging and all of them not
fullfilling their contractual duties. You are a child and a stupid one at
that.
Stop it with the Halliburton UFO conspiracy crap. Good lord. Can't
you think critically? If it was about anything economic, it was about
oil, and having that oil under American control would have benefited
this nation enormously.
Gogarty
2007-01-04 16:12:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Hey, check your history. The crusades were a response to the Islamic
armies taking over the CHRISTIAN lands of the Byzantine Empire.
Well, no. It's much, much more complicated than that. It was about the muslims
taking over the Holy Land, i.e., Palestine, where the Crusaders did in fact
set up short-lived Christian kingdoms. The Crusades were a different set of
religious wars from the wars of conquest that the muslims waged that
eventually got them all of Spain and far up into France and to the gates of
Vienna. Different muslims, though. Ottoman Turks at Vienna and the Moors in
Spain. And did the Crusaders protect Christian lands? The inhabitants of
Constantinople would say not. A bunch of Crusaders on their way to rescue the
Holy Land, offered a resting place in Constantinople, sacked the place, thus
ensuring it would eventually fall to the Ottomans. A fine Christian lot they
were.
stork
2007-01-04 16:34:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
The Crusades were a different set of
religious wars from the wars of conquest that the muslims waged that
eventually got them all of Spain and far up into France and to the gates of
Vienna. Different muslims, though. Ottoman Turks at Vienna and the Moors in
Spain.
True, except that, to me, a war is a war. In other words, even the
original islamic wars of conquest had a religious aspect to them. The
way Islam moved so quickly was pretty enlightened for its day. They
would move an army up to a city, demand that they surrender and convert
to islam, or be destroyed. However, if they did convert, they would
guarantee access to trade routes, have lower taxes, and, also a less
corrupt government. It was a fairly good mix of carrot and stick and
few cities actually -fought- them. To most people used to 92 different
sets of religions, switching from Osiris to Allah wasn't such a big
ordeal,given that it was both profitable and lifesaving to do so.
Gogarty
2007-01-04 22:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
The Crusades were a different set of
religious wars from the wars of conquest that the muslims waged that
eventually got them all of Spain and far up into France and to the gates of
Vienna. Different muslims, though. Ottoman Turks at Vienna and the Moors in
Spain.
True, except that, to me, a war is a war. In other words, even the
original islamic wars of conquest had a religious aspect to them. The
way Islam moved so quickly was pretty enlightened for its day. They
would move an army up to a city, demand that they surrender and convert
to islam, or be destroyed. However, if they did convert, they would
guarantee access to trade routes, have lower taxes, and, also a less
corrupt government. It was a fairly good mix of carrot and stick and
few cities actually -fought- them. To most people used to 92 different
sets of religions, switching from Osiris to Allah wasn't such a big
ordeal,given that it was both profitable and lifesaving to do so.
Hmmm. When is a war not a war? Trouble is, they switched from Osiris to Jesus
to Allah. The rise of the muslims (or mohamadins {spelling optional} as we
called them when I was a youngster) was quite extraordinary. The Crusdares
really did little to hinder them, partly because the Crusaders were fixated on
the Holy Land and with pillaging the Christian countries they passed through.
The Ottoman and muslim high point was the capture of Constantinople in 1453,
which, some say, led to Columbus's search for another route to the riches of
the East and the exploration of western Africa. The Med was bottled up by the
Turks and their allies and not unlocked until the Venetians defetaed the
Turks at the battle of Lepanto (which is why Venetians could eat meat on
Friday when everyone else had to eat fish.)

If you travel the Marches, basically the route of the Danube, you will find a
castle on every hilltop. But if you go down the lands that were once
Yugoslavia and formed the border between the Ottoman Empire and Europe, you
will see few castles in equally hilly country. I asked my wife why that was
so. "Who were we afraid of?" said she, a native of Istanbul.

As to the present war, we had no business being there. Nor should there have
been any sanctions. Hussein was back in his box, out of which he was lured in
the first place by the Bush I adminstration. Clinton';s error was in
continuing a policy that had no purpose and achieved no good results. We
should have just let everyone alone. No good whatever is going to come of more
escalation. None!
stork
2007-01-05 11:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
As to the present war, we had no business being there. Nor should there have
been any sanctions. Hussein was back in his box, out of which he was lured in
the first place by the Bush I adminstration. Clinton';s error was in
continuing a policy that had no purpose and achieved no good results. We
should have just let everyone alone. No good whatever is going to come of more
escalation. None!
I think in there is a gem of a real agreement. The real mistake was
Gulf War I. Had we not intervened to stop Saddam, then, there would
have been no need for either the sanctions or the second Gulf War and
the present endless (and pointless) occupation.

I don't think our government is handling Iran with any degree of
realism or political skill.

We need to have a two fold FP strategy. One is a general military
disengagement from the world. Everybody is going to have the bomb and
having conventional forces everywhere on the planet makes us an obvious
target. The longer we disengage, the more likely it is that regional
differences will surface and they will have regional nuclear wars -
like Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan, North and South Korea,
Germany and Russia, France and Germany. There's absolutely no reason
for the USA to be in the middle of any of that. NATO or any other
defense organization that the USA is a part of has to be put to an end.

The second is to continue to invest in Star Wars and pray that
scientists can actually get it to work. While we're at it, lets get
neutron detectors at all the border crossing points. And, purely for
political purposes, we need to very loudly indicate our intention and
ability to make more nuclear weapons, so our policy will be one of
massive nuclear retaliation.

Pretty much, the old USA game of fighting the war in someone else's
turf is up. A proliferation of small arms and explosives means that
the old game of empire is impossible until a technology is available to
counter both, so imperialism as an anti-nuclear proliferation strategy
isn't going to work. Since every government is going to have nukes,
there's no way we will be able to do the original game of sending in a
few thousand marines to do a regime change. Regime change means
nuclear war.

So, keep a low profile, build lots of bombs, guard the borders like
hell and be aggressive about guarding the seas. We should probably
build artificial islands off the cost for international flights to
land, too.
Gogarty
2007-01-05 15:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
As to the present war, we had no business being there. Nor should there have
been any sanctions. Hussein was back in his box, out of which he was lured in
the first place by the Bush I adminstration. Clinton';s error was in
continuing a policy that had no purpose and achieved no good results. We
should have just let everyone alone. No good whatever is going to come of more
escalation. None!
I think in there is a gem of a real agreement. The real mistake was
Gulf War I. Had we not intervened to stop Saddam, then, there would
have been no need for either the sanctions or the second Gulf War and
the present endless (and pointless) occupation.
"Gem" or "germ?" Much more than that in any case.
Post by stork
I don't think our government is handling Iran with any degree of
realism or political skill.
That's for sure.
Post by stork
We need to have a two fold FP strategy. One is a general military
disengagement from the world. Everybody is going to have the bomb and
having conventional forces everywhere on the planet makes us an obvious
target. The longer we disengage, the more likely it is that regional
differences will surface and they will have regional nuclear wars -
No such thing as a regional nuclear war. One can only hope that nuclear
proliferation, which is inevitable no matter how much Washington blusters,
also breeds caution, restraint and comon sense. Perhaps too much to hope for.
But MAD did work.
Post by stork
The second is to continue to invest in Star Wars and pray that
scientists can actually get it to work.
Utter waste of time, talent and money. Any such system must work 100% of the
time every single time or it fails 100%. To date after zillions spent it has
never worked in even simualted real world circumstance.

While we're at it, lets get
Post by stork
neutron detectors at all the border crossing points. And, purely for
political purposes, we need to very loudly indicate our intention and
ability to make more nuclear weapons, so our policy will be one of
massive nuclear retaliation.
Doesn't matter whether you have 10,000 of the things or only ten. Once people
start throwing them around it's all over. So don't waste money making more of
them.
Post by stork
Pretty much, the old USA game of fighting the war in someone else's
turf is up. A proliferation of small arms and explosives means that
the old game of empire is impossible until a technology is available to
counter both, so imperialism as an anti-nuclear proliferation strategy
isn't going to work. Since every government is going to have nukes,
there's no way we will be able to do the original game of sending in a
few thousand marines to do a regime change. Regime change means
nuclear war.
Depends on the regime you are trying to change. Iran? We are all dead. Aruba?
Piece of cake.
Post by stork
So, keep a low profile, build lots of bombs, guard the borders like
hell and be aggressive about guarding the seas. We should probably
build artificial islands off the cost for international flights to
land, too.
There is a poorly written but very readable book about the next nuclear war
called "The Last Ship." Read it.
stork
2007-01-05 16:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
No such thing as a regional nuclear war. One can only hope that nuclear
That's not really true. The world has survived quite a few nuclear
tests and two atomic bombs used in combat. If there was an off
continent nuclear war, cancer rates would go up, but, overall, humanity
would survive. The whole key of US strategy should be to avoid being a
nuclear target, but, be willing to take a few cancer hits if the rest
of the world makes itself a nuclear target.

Seriously, 100 million people have died from AIDS so far, and it
doesn't really affect our daily lives.
Post by Gogarty
proliferation, which is inevitable no matter how much Washington blusters,
also breeds caution, restraint and comon sense. Perhaps too much to hope for.
But MAD did work.
Ah, but there's the ultimate game theory problem. It's called, sneak a
nuke. If you've got 100 countries with nukes, and someone sneaks a
nuke into some else's country and detonates it, the victim nation has
no legitimate retaliatory course. So, the only strategy that is viable
for deterrance is to be able to either win a nuclear war with all of
them, or, to sneak a nuke back to a random target.

MAD is just not going to work on a planetwide scale.
Post by Gogarty
Utter waste of time, talent and money. Any such system must work 100% of the
time every single time or it fails 100%. To date after zillions spent it has
never worked in even simualted real world circumstance.
Actually, theater level stuff is working quite well. And, it doesn't
have to have a 100% reliability rate.
Post by Gogarty
Doesn't matter whether you have 10,000 of the things or only ten. Once people
start throwing them around it's all over. So don't waste money making more of
them.
Nah, keep building them.
Post by Gogarty
Depends on the regime you are trying to change. Iran? We are all dead. Aruba?
Piece of cake.
If Aruba gets the bomb, what then? See my point?
Gogarty
2007-01-05 18:16:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
No such thing as a regional nuclear war. One can only hope that nuclear
That's not really true. The world has survived quite a few nuclear
tests and two atomic bombs used in combat.
The two atomic bombs were pigmies. The MIRVed bombs in today's arsenals are a
whole other thing. Testing went undserground a long time ago when it became
apparent that people in New York were suffering ill effects from testing in
Nevada. Then testing stopped altogether. Even North Korea did its test
underground. That it apparently fizzled is immaterial. The next one won't and
NK has the delivery systems to hold a big chunk of Asia hostage. For that
matter, so do India and Pakistan and Israel, not to mention Russia, former
bits of the USSR and our presumably restrained friends France and the UK. The
world has not survived unrestrained nuclear exchanges of any kind. Let's hope
it never has to.

If there was an off
Post by stork
continent nuclear war, cancer rates would go up, but, overall, humanity
would survive. The whole key of US strategy should be to avoid being a
nuclear target, but, be willing to take a few cancer hits if the rest
of the world makes itself a nuclear target.
Seriously, 100 million people have died from AIDS so far, and it
doesn't really affect our daily lives.
What has that to do with anything? The Black Death caused a huge labor
shortage in the Middle Ages when it killed two-thirds of the world's
population. The Spanish flue killed -- what? 25 milliuon people? -- worldwide
in less than a year (my grandfather among them). At the time it certainly did
affect people's lives. In the aggregate AIDS has killed 100 million (I am
accepting your figure) and it is affecting people's lives in the countries
hardest hit. I personally do not know anyone who has died of AIDS. But I have
known an awful lot of people close to me who have died untimely deaths. Life
goes on. In the long run, as Keanes is purported to have said, we are all
dead.
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
proliferation, which is inevitable no matter how much Washington blusters,
also breeds caution, restraint and comon sense. Perhaps too much to hope for.
But MAD did work.
Ah, but there's the ultimate game theory problem. It's called, sneak a
nuke. If you've got 100 countries with nukes, and someone sneaks a
nuke into some else's country and detonates it, the victim nation has
no legitimate retaliatory course. So, the only strategy that is viable
for deterrance is to be able to either win a nuclear war with all of
them, or, to sneak a nuke back to a random target.
MAD is just not going to work on a planetwide scale.
Post by Gogarty
Utter waste of time, talent and money. Any such system must work 100% of the
time every single time or it fails 100%. To date after zillions spent it has
never worked in even simualted real world circumstance.
Actually, theater level stuff is working quite well. And, it doesn't
have to have a 100% reliability rate.
Yeah, right. Like the Patriot missile in the first Gulf War. After all the
hype they turned out to be, apparently, zero percent effective under
battlefield conditions and pretty good at shotting down friendlies in the 2nd
war. In any case, when discussing nukes "theater level" is an oxymoron.
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
Doesn't matter whether you have 10,000 of the things or only ten. Once people
start throwing them around it's all over. So don't waste money making more of
them.
Nah, keep building them.
Post by Gogarty
Depends on the regime you are trying to change. Iran? We are all dead. Aruba?
Piece of cake.
If Aruba gets the bomb, what then? See my point?
Then we don't invade Aruba. Simple. You don't think we would have invaded Iraq
if we really believed thay had WMDs? No way.
Sid9
2007-01-05 19:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
No such thing as a regional nuclear war. One can only hope that nuclear
That's not really true. The world has survived quite a few nuclear
tests and two atomic bombs used in combat.
The two atomic bombs were pigmies. The MIRVed bombs in today's
arsenals are a whole other thing. Testing went undserground a long
time ago when it became apparent that people in New York were
suffering ill effects from testing in Nevada. Then testing stopped
altogether. Even North Korea did its test underground. That it
apparently fizzled is immaterial. The next one won't and NK has the
delivery systems to hold a big chunk of Asia hostage. For that
matter, so do India and Pakistan and Israel, not to mention Russia,
former bits of the USSR and our presumably restrained friends France
and the UK. The world has not survived unrestrained nuclear exchanges
of any kind. Let's hope it never has to.
If there was an off
Post by stork
continent nuclear war, cancer rates would go up, but, overall,
humanity would survive. The whole key of US strategy should be to
avoid being a nuclear target, but, be willing to take a few cancer
hits if the rest of the world makes itself a nuclear target.
Seriously, 100 million people have died from AIDS so far, and it
doesn't really affect our daily lives.
What has that to do with anything? The Black Death caused a huge labor
shortage in the Middle Ages when it killed two-thirds of the world's
population. The Spanish flue killed -- what? 25 milliuon people? --
worldwide in less than a year (my grandfather among them). At the
time it certainly did affect people's lives. In the aggregate AIDS
has killed 100 million (I am accepting your figure) and it is
affecting people's lives in the countries hardest hit. I personally
do not know anyone who has died of AIDS. But I have known an awful
lot of people close to me who have died untimely deaths. Life goes
on. In the long run, as Keanes is purported to have said, we are all
dead.
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
proliferation, which is inevitable no matter how much Washington
blusters, also breeds caution, restraint and comon sense. Perhaps
too much to hope for. But MAD did work.
Ah, but there's the ultimate game theory problem. It's called, sneak
a nuke. If you've got 100 countries with nukes, and someone sneaks a
nuke into some else's country and detonates it, the victim nation has
no legitimate retaliatory course. So, the only strategy that is
viable for deterrance is to be able to either win a nuclear war with
all of them, or, to sneak a nuke back to a random target.
MAD is just not going to work on a planetwide scale.
Post by Gogarty
Utter waste of time, talent and money. Any such system must work
100% of the time every single time or it fails 100%. To date after
zillions spent it has never worked in even simualted real world
circumstance.
Actually, theater level stuff is working quite well. And, it doesn't
have to have a 100% reliability rate.
Yeah, right. Like the Patriot missile in the first Gulf War. After
all the hype they turned out to be, apparently, zero percent
effective under battlefield conditions and pretty good at shotting
down friendlies in the 2nd war. In any case, when discussing nukes
"theater level" is an oxymoron.
Post by stork
Post by Gogarty
Doesn't matter whether you have 10,000 of the things or only ten.
Once people start throwing them around it's all over. So don't
waste money making more of them.
Nah, keep building them.
Post by Gogarty
Depends on the regime you are trying to change. Iran? We are all
dead. Aruba? Piece of cake.
If Aruba gets the bomb, what then? See my point?
Then we don't invade Aruba. Simple. You don't think we would have
invaded Iraq if we really believed thay had WMDs? No way.
There are factors that make a North Korean use of a neuclear weapon
unlikely.

1. China, NK's lifeline wont allow it
2. For NK it's a lose/lose situation.

This is a threat CREATED by bush,jr's ill advised "Axis of Evil" speech
stork
2007-01-05 20:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
There are factors that make a North Korean use of a neuclear weapon
unlikely.
1. China, NK's lifeline wont allow it
2. For NK it's a lose/lose situation.
There's absolutely no reason for NK to not sell or use a nuclear
weapon. Ok, what if NK nukes South Korea. That means, the USA is
dragged into a nuclear war with North Korea? And then China with the
USA? Is that worth it? Not for the USA and not for China.

Nope, the thing to do is let NK and SK have a nuclear war, while the
USA and China sit on the sidelines and argue about how much more dough
we have to borrow from them to fill up our walmarts with more imported
junk.
Sid9
2007-01-05 20:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Sid9
There are factors that make a North Korean use of a neuclear weapon
unlikely.
1. China, NK's lifeline wont allow it
2. For NK it's a lose/lose situation.
There's absolutely no reason for NK to not sell or use a nuclear
weapon. Ok, what if NK nukes South Korea. That means, the USA is
dragged into a nuclear war with North Korea? And then China with the
USA? Is that worth it? Not for the USA and not for China.
Nope, the thing to do is let NK and SK have a nuclear war, while the
USA and China sit on the sidelines and argue about how much more dough
we have to borrow from them to fill up our walmarts with more imported
junk.
China will not allow NK
mess up it's good business
arrangement with the USA.

China can deal with the flea
in its side if it causes an itch.

NK is bigger threat to China,
Japan, and South Korea than
to us.

Just get loser bush,jr out of the
loop and NK's neighbors and the
world communit will deal with
Kim Jong Il
stork
2007-01-05 20:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
China can deal with the flea
in its side if it causes an itch.
NK is bigger threat to China,
Japan, and South Korea than
to us.
Yep. As is the case around the globe. NK, Russia, Iran, there's no
need for the USA to be projecting power to any region of the globe.
Let the villagers fight it out, let everyone get nukes and blow each
other way, and move in with our dudes in space suits to claim the land
when no one is left on it.

By the way, this also includes NATO.
stork
2007-01-05 19:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gogarty
The two atomic bombs were pigmies. The MIRVed bombs in today's arsenals are a
whole other thing.
The MIRV bombs in today's arsenal are a magnitude smaller than the
super H-bombs that were tested during the megaton contests of the
1950s. One of those chumpies, of which I think we have some 100 listed
in the inventory but not presently "commissioned", could irradiate an
area from New York to Boston.
Post by Gogarty
The next one won't and
NK has the delivery systems to hold a big chunk of Asia hostage. For that
matter, so do India and Pakistan and Israel, not to mention Russia, former
bits of the USSR and our presumably restrained friends France and the UK. The
world has not survived unrestrained nuclear exchanges of any kind. Let's hope
it never has to.
Well, see, that's what I'm saying. EVERYONE is going to get the bomb,
and all the conflicts are on their side of the world. Since we both
agree that we can't take over the world and stop proliferation (oh, if
only Iraq had worked), the best we can accept is a dodgy but hope we
get lucky Star Wars in case someone takes a shot at us, and, an almost
certain life of radioactive exposure because of some nuclear conflict
in Eurasia.
Post by Gogarty
Yeah, right. Like the Patriot missile in the first Gulf War. After all the
hype they turned out to be, apparently, zero percent effective under
battlefield conditions and pretty good at shotting down friendlies in the 2nd
war. In any case, when discussing nukes "theater level" is an oxymoron.
Actually no, theater level is not an oxymoron. A 100kt yield tactical
nuke is about where third world proliferation stands. It's about 5x
Hiroshima, but, that works out only be about twice the blast radius - a
fairly effective area weapon but not a global thing.

And, when I say theater level, I mean, the Navy has successfully shot
down ICBMs launched in boost phase with the Aegis system, the Israeli
Arrow System has shot down SCUDS, and, it works.

Finally, in the case of PATRIOT in GW1, the missiles -did hit the
incoming target-. Just, they did it when the missile being engaged was
already over its own target area, so the warhead just fell like it was
already doing. The appeal of boost phase intercept is that you get the
nuke to fall back on the guy that launched it, sort of a sweet little
bonus.

People have also developed systems that can shoot down incoming rocket
propelled grenades. It's rumoured that these will be deployed to Iraq
if the war lasts long enough for them to be built in numbers.

So, for defense against missiles, the elements of success are there,
we just need to keep plugging away at it - more powerful lasers, faster
computers, higher resolution radars, better telescopes...all of which
is doable. Yes, Star Wars does demand that we upgrade our knowledge of
physics across the board, but it certainly can be done.
Post by Gogarty
Then we don't invade Aruba. Simple. You don't think we would have invaded Iraq
if we really believed thay had WMDs? No way.
Very true. But for me, I never really cared if there were WMD in Iraq.
I was so pissed off after 9/11, that, I saw, and most pro-war people
saw 9/11 as the opportunity to finally clean house in the middle east -
just go in there, shoot up the joint, maybe a nuke a few cities and get
these people to chill out. Saddam could have been accused of trying to
summon demons, and I would have been on the usenet arguing that he had,
in fact, been trying to summon demons. I chalked all that up to the
dumb propaganda that goes with wars like Saddam killing babies in GW1,
Noreiga personally selling cocaine to children, death camps in the
Balkans, North Korean plans to invade Boston, Vietnamese plans to
subjugate San Fransisco, Japanese plans to invade L.A. or German plans
to invade New York.

NONE OF WHICH WERE TRUE.

Fact is, there has not been a war waged by any administration EVER in
the history of the United States whose war aims were true. Even our
own Revolution had its share of lies - just at look at how much Sam
Adams trumped up the so-called Boston Massacre. The War of 1812 was a
total fraud, and even the civil war was sold as a "keep the union
together" when in reality it was to free the slaves. I see the Left
wing complaining about Bush lying, I just shake my head and wonder
where all of this morality is coming from now. You guys have lied your
rears off on all your wars too.

Lying to start a war is more American than apple pie.

Bin Laden mouthed off, we ignored him. Booom. Saddam mouthed off, and
we had been ignoring him. With the whole country ready to genocidally
wipe out the entire islamic world, taking out Saddam was just a decent
house keeping compromise. The war was never about the weapons, it was
about the man, and, had Iraq not fallen into civil war, I would have
cheered as Bush moved into to dispatch Assad in Syria, and why not take
out the mullahs in Iran. Just get rid of all of these jerks in one
shot, put in the American way, and move on.

That's how you build empires. But, Bush f--- it up.
Jebus Saves
2007-01-06 22:56:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
Aliens? You are a goddamned idiot. I stated fact and your tiny brain cannot
comprehend
Your facts are made up to suit your politics.
Post by Jebus Saves
problems any better. Ever hear of the Crusades? Well putting military bases
on Islamic Holy Land is what Al Qaeda was mad about. You need to read more
and listen less to your neocon propagandists.
Hey, check your history. The crusades were a response to the Islamic
armies taking over the CHRISTIAN lands of the Byzantine Empire. In
fact, Islamic people had been attacking Christian countries for some
300 years BEFORE Richard the Lionheart set sail. Do you remember the
Islamic invasion of Spain and then France? What provoked that?
Post by Jebus Saves
There is not one person with a competent brain that didn't know that was
going to happen.
At the time, it was reasonable to think that your dismal view of the
Iraqi people was racist.
Post by Jebus Saves
25000 members according to the CIA and FBI as of Jan 2006. Hmmmm.... seeems
stronger, don't it? The main reason for the increase in membership? THE IRAQ
You are an idiot that believes anything your daddy Bill
O'VibratoruphisassReilly, Sean Crossdresser Hannity or Rush Oxycontin
Limbaugh
And you're an idiot that believes the CIA and FBI. 25,000 members?
What are they all doing? Where are the attacks on the USA?
Post by Jebus Saves
Dec 2001, Toro Bora. Look it up idiot.
Maybe he was there. Maybe he wasn't. Probably should have nuked him.
But then you would have been whining about that. Either way, if you
are so hell bent on catching Bin Laden, why not go get him? Coward.
Post by Jebus Saves
Iraq war had ZERO to do with 9/11, it is about money, if it weren't about
money then Bush would not have given out BILLIONS to his criminal buddies
then, he could justify his war by eliminating these no bid contracts and
investigating Halliburton's constant overcharging and all of them not
fullfilling their contractual duties. You are a child and a stupid one at
that.
Stop it with the Halliburton UFO conspiracy crap. Good lord. Can't
you think critically? If it was about anything economic, it was about
oil, and having that oil under American control would have benefited
this nation enormously.
It's not a conspiracy you idiot, IT'S FACT!! You are one of the dumbest
idiots alive. I'll be checking JAMA next month for an article on how
incredible morons like you remember to breathe.
b***@yahoo.com
2007-01-06 23:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
Aliens? You are a goddamned idiot. I stated fact and your tiny brain cannot
comprehend
Your facts are made up to suit your politics.
Post by Jebus Saves
problems any better. Ever hear of the Crusades? Well putting military bases
on Islamic Holy Land is what Al Qaeda was mad about. You need to read more
and listen less to your neocon propagandists.
Hey, check your history. The crusades were a response to the Islamic
armies taking over the CHRISTIAN lands of the Byzantine Empire. In
fact, Islamic people had been attacking Christian countries for some
300 years BEFORE Richard the Lionheart set sail. Do you remember the
Islamic invasion of Spain and then France? What provoked that?
Post by Jebus Saves
There is not one person with a competent brain that didn't know that was
going to happen.
At the time, it was reasonable to think that your dismal view of the
Iraqi people was racist.
Post by Jebus Saves
25000 members according to the CIA and FBI as of Jan 2006. Hmmmm.... seeems
stronger, don't it? The main reason for the increase in membership? THE IRAQ
You are an idiot that believes anything your daddy Bill
O'VibratoruphisassReilly, Sean Crossdresser Hannity or Rush Oxycontin
Limbaugh
And you're an idiot that believes the CIA and FBI. 25,000 members?
What are they all doing? Where are the attacks on the USA?
Post by Jebus Saves
Dec 2001, Toro Bora. Look it up idiot.
Maybe he was there. Maybe he wasn't. Probably should have nuked him.
But then you would have been whining about that. Either way, if you
are so hell bent on catching Bin Laden, why not go get him? Coward.
Post by Jebus Saves
Iraq war had ZERO to do with 9/11, it is about money, if it weren't about
money then Bush would not have given out BILLIONS to his criminal buddies
then, he could justify his war by eliminating these no bid contracts and
investigating Halliburton's constant overcharging and all of them not
fullfilling their contractual duties. You are a child and a stupid one at
that.
Stop it with the Halliburton UFO conspiracy crap. Good lord. Can't
you think critically? If it was about anything economic, it was about
oil, and having that oil under American control would have benefited
this nation enormously.
It's not a conspiracy you idiot, IT'S FACT!! You are one of the dumbest
idiots alive. I'll be checking JAMA next month for an article on how
incredible morons like you remember to breathe...
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
stork
2007-01-06 23:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?

Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?

And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
DG
2007-01-06 23:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?
Can't do much worse that bushie...
Post by stork
Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?
And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
Probably after the bushies are gone. Their ties to the binladens are
legendary. Why let the binladens leave the USA?
stork
2007-01-07 00:01:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by DG
Can't do much worse that bushie...
Well, go ahead and go get him then. Move along now. America is
waiting for the victory that the Democrats promised. Democrats said
that they could catch Bin Laden, now it is day 2 of them being in
power, and where is he?
Post by DG
Probably after the bushies are gone. Their ties to the binladens are
legendary. Why let the binladens leave the USA?
Blah blah blah. Legendary in your own head.
DG
2007-01-07 00:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by DG
Can't do much worse that bushie...
Well, go ahead and go get him then. Move along now. America is
waiting for the victory that the Democrats promised. Democrats said
that they could catch Bin Laden, now it is day 2 of them being in
power, and where is he?
If you are so outraged after two days then how do you feel after five
years?
Post by stork
Post by DG
Probably after the bushies are gone. Their ties to the binladens are
legendary. Why let the binladens leave the USA?
Blah blah blah. Legendary in your own head.
Might want to google it...
P.K.
2007-01-07 02:50:37 UTC
Permalink
At this point the worse guy you can think of in government would be better
than Bush. Bush has become a double lame duck President.
Post by DG
Post by stork
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?
Can't do much worse that bushie...
Post by stork
Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?
And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
Probably after the bushies are gone. Their ties to the binladens are
legendary. Why let the binladens leave the USA?
Demosthenes
2007-01-07 04:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Well, the obvious first step is to impeach Bush.
R***@no.address
2007-01-06 23:57:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?
Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?
And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
Isn't it a bit late?
Osama's capture would have ZERO effect on terrorism.
Besides the Democrats don't control the military or the CIA.

Impeaching Bush however would help the war on terror immeasurably. That is what the
Dems should do.
stork
2007-01-07 00:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@no.address
Isn't it a bit late?
Osama's capture would have ZERO effect on terrorism.
Besides the Democrats don't control the military or the CIA.
Au contraire, Democrats DO control the CIA, in case you haven't noticed
the power struggle between CIA and the Bush administration over the
last 4 years (that Bush lost).
Post by R***@no.address
Impeaching Bush however would help the war on terror immeasurably. That is what the
Dems should do.
And, um, how would that help. What would President Pelosi do
differently. What's her plan to catch Bin Laden. Is there a plan? Do
tell me. If Bin Laden is in Pakistan, how does she propose to get him?
What about Iran?
P***@revolution.net
2007-01-07 00:08:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
Isn't it a bit late?
Osama's capture would have ZERO effect on terrorism.
Besides the Democrats don't control the military or the CIA.
Au contraire, Democrats DO control the CIA, in case you haven't noticed
the power struggle between CIA and the Bush administration over the
last 4 years (that Bush lost).
LOL! You're a fucking lunatic. Screw that tin foil hat on a little
tighter the rays are getting through!!!

LOL!! You're such a loon.
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
Impeaching Bush however would help the war on terror immeasurably. That is what the
Dems should do.
And, um, how would that help. What would President Pelosi do
differently. What's her plan to catch Bin Laden. Is there a plan? Do
tell me. If Bin Laden is in Pakistan, how does she propose to get him?
What about Iran?
R***@no.address
2007-01-07 00:09:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
Impeaching Bush however would help the war on terror immeasurably. That is what the
Dems should do.
And, um, how would that help.
No single man has done more to encourage terrorism than GWBush.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush.
Terrorism has escalated since Bush became president.
stork
2007-01-07 00:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@no.address
No single man has done more to encourage terrorism than GWBush.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush.
Terrorism has escalated since Bush became president.
Those are great campaign slogans, but, what are the Democrats actually
going to do now? Are they going to legislate a special anti-terrorism
task force to get Bin Laden? Are they going to hire UN police to put
these guys behind bars? What's the plan, Stan?

And, what's the completion date. Can we have a date as to when the
Democrats to make terrorism go away?
R***@no.address
2007-01-07 00:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
No single man has done more to encourage terrorism than GWBush.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush.
Terrorism has escalated since Bush became president.
Those are great campaign slogans, but, what are the Democrats actually
going to do now?
Look for solid grounds to impeach Bush. That would be best way to start tackling the
causes of terrorism.
Morton Davis
2007-01-07 04:42:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by R***@no.address
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
No single man has done more to encourage terrorism than GWBush.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush.
Terrorism has escalated since Bush became president.
Those are great campaign slogans, but, what are the Democrats actually
going to do now?
Look for solid grounds to impeach Bush.
NOne exist.
Post by R***@no.address
That would be best way to start tackling the causes of terrorism.
Not as much as hanging you.
George Grapman
2007-01-07 05:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by R***@no.address
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
No single man has done more to encourage terrorism than GWBush.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush.
Terrorism has escalated since Bush became president.
Those are great campaign slogans, but, what are the Democrats actually
going to do now?
Look for solid grounds to impeach Bush.
NOne exist.
Post by R***@no.address
That would be best way to start tackling the causes of terrorism.
Not as much as hanging you.
Why do you hate the Constitution?
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
George Grapman
2007-01-07 05:05:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by R***@no.address
Post by stork
Post by R***@no.address
No single man has done more to encourage terrorism than GWBush.
There were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush.
Terrorism has escalated since Bush became president.
Those are great campaign slogans, but, what are the Democrats actually
going to do now?
Look for solid grounds to impeach Bush.
NOne exist.
Post by R***@no.address
That would be best way to start tackling the causes of terrorism.
Not as much as hanging you.
Hey Morton, still claiming that impeachment is a criminal proceeding
and that there is no legal way to remove Bush before Jan.,2009?
--
To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell
Roger
2007-01-07 00:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?
Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?
And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
You're right.

We don't need Bush anymore, since the Congress will run everything.

Send him to Crawford and cut off his communication. Pelosi will mail him a
State of the Union speach he can give in a couple weeks.
P.K.
2007-01-07 02:48:56 UTC
Permalink
I don't think anybody cares if we catch Osama or not. What's the difference
??? All the shit that's going on now will continue or get worse
regardless. I don't really think that Bin Ladin is calling the shots
anymore. It would have the same effect as catching Saddam.
Post by stork
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?
Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?
And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
stork
2007-01-06 23:51:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?

Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?

And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
Rocinante
2007-01-07 00:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by b***@yahoo.com
osama 2 bush 0
osama got away with 911 and eludes bush, bush 0, bush is a complete
loser
So, since you are so much better than Bush, when are you going to catch
Osama? You can do it, can't you? In fact, where's the Democratic Plan
to capture Osama?
Democrats promised that they could win the war on terror... so, when
are they going to get Osama? Where's the legislation to enact their
ideas?
And, you know, what's the time table. Can we have a date as to when
Osama will be captured by?
The Democrats have only one agenda: bash Bush.
Nothing more.
--
"We speak your names"
"O-Qua Tangin Wann... Kwa-un Sa, Laji-wan"

***@gmail.com
1/6/2007 7:20:38 PM
stork
2007-01-06 23:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
It's not a conspiracy you idiot, IT'S FACT!! You are one of the dumbest
idiots alive. I'll be checking JAMA next month for an article on how
incredible morons like you remember to breathe.
It's an imaginary conspiracy. Don't spend too much time at your UFO
sites on the way to JAMA. Besides, why should I even take you
seriously. You said wanted to capture Osama Bin Laden but then you
wimped out when the given opportunity to do so.

You're just a bag of paranoid hot air.

GET THAT FOIL OFF YOUR HEAD AND PUT YOUR HELMET BACK ON.
Gogarty
2007-01-04 16:03:08 UTC
Permalink
In article <j%7nh.95$***@news01.roc.ny>,
***@drunkencokeheadedTraitorousAWOLCOWARDBITCHES.com says...
.
Post by Jebus Saves
Aliens? You are a goddamned idiot. I stated fact and your tiny brain cannot
comprehend
Stork is not an idiot. His arguments are well constructed. Unfortunately, they
also mostly come to the wrong conclusions.

This war was totally wrong and anyone with common sense knew that before
Bush started it.
stork
2007-01-04 16:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Stork replied to;
Post by Gogarty
This war was totally wrong and anyone with common sense knew that before
Bush started it.
I disagree with that, becuase, honestly, I never believed the WMD
argument, but I do believe that sanctions are just as evil as open
warfare. I think that it is criminal to starve an entire nation just
because it its leader has policies which you oppose. Sanctions are an
act of war, and to have Iraq starving indefinitely, at the time, seemed
to me far more damaging than a quick war to depose him. However,
Iraq, unlike Panama or Haiti or any number of places where we've
successfully deposed a government, which really served as my mental
model, fell into civil war. On anticipating that score, those that
predicted as much were right, and I was wrong. But even then I felt
that "arabs need a dictator" was a racist statement.

With that said, the whole thing that I argue is that predictions of
doom for the world and the USA if we withdraw from Iraq are completely
unfounded. There's a good few thousand miles of water and air between
us, and what's left of Iraq doesn't have a Navy. There is no security
threat to the USA from a failed Iraq. And, I wouldn't even see a
withdrawal from Iraq as a surrender or a loss. What is it? We lose if
the Iraqi people don't love us and their streets aren't paved with
gold? The criteria itself is ridiculous. Bottom line is, we got
Saddam, there's no security threat from Iraq to the USA, and gave them
a chance at freedom and democracy, which they blew.

At this point, what goes on in Iraq is up to the Iraqi people. They've
had three years to put together a government, and, honestly, we've done
everything that can be militarily done. We've arrested most of the
former regime. We put in a framework that the Iraqis can negotiate
from. It's up to them.

Bring the troops home now.
Kope
2007-01-04 15:42:11 UTC
Permalink
i am a radical muslim please read my blog.

http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
P.K.
2007-01-07 03:21:39 UTC
Permalink
The big loss is going to occur when we do pull out and the place finally
goes to shit. When that happens, how is anybody going to justify all
those American (and other country's) troops who died in vain ?????
Back to Viet Nam .......... all those people died for nothing, we lost
and got out, the Commies took the whole country, and now 20+ years
later, we are friends with them. The Communists who took Viet Nam are
now doing business with us and everybody is happy.
Post by Gogarty
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
I find it awfully hard to believe the level of stupidity some people
exhibit. USA lost -- big!
Joseph Welch
2007-01-03 17:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Yes, we have won the right to spend billions of dollars and thousands of
American lives on an unnecessary war that has made America less safe.

Yippee.
--
____________________

George W. Bush has made the terrorists stronger, their influence wider,
their numbers larger, and their motivation to attack the U.S. and other
western interests greater. He has repeatedly abused his authority and
violated his Oath of Office by turning his back on the United States
Constitution; thereby surrendering to the terrorists by undermining American
freedoms,values, and the very foundations of our system of government.
Supporting Bush is treason.
_____________________

JW
***************
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have
you left no sense of decency?"
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
P***@revolution.net
2007-01-03 17:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
The US lost.
Max
2007-01-03 20:12:18 UTC
Permalink
"stork" wrote in message
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Mindless drivel....

So wise one, tell us the prize the USA won.
Sid9
2007-01-03 20:31:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
"stork" wrote in message
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Mindless drivel....
So wise one, tell us the prize the USA won.
Let's see.

(It's "prizes", booby prizes)

A sink hole for American lives.
A toilet for American money
Our country's reputation ruined with exposures of torture.
The enmity of the entire world.
A mess in the Middle East that wasn;t there before bush,jr
j***@aim.com
2007-01-03 22:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Please send me spam and large files! I want my account to be unusable!

jw66m at aim.com

Thanks!
Post by Sid9
Post by Max
"stork" wrote in message
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Mindless drivel....
So wise one, tell us the prize the USA won.
Let's see.
(It's "prizes", booby prizes)
A sink hole for American lives.
A toilet for American money
Our country's reputation ruined with exposures of torture.
The enmity of the entire world.
A mess in the Middle East that wasn;t there before bush,jr
stork
2007-01-04 04:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Max
So wise one, tell us the prize the USA won.
You can say that the USA loses because we have not succeeded in the
stated goal of uniting the Iraqi people into a democratic, pro-Israel
government. However, that goal is so ridiculously high, that you may
as well have said that the USA lost World War II because China
ultimately went red and we wound up having to ally with Japan. It's a
stupid argument.

At the end of the day, the USA identified an enemy in Saddam Hussein,
removed him from power, and controlled the country long enough to
cajole the Iraqi people into executing their own leader for us. All of
this was at a cost lives that is rather small when compared against the
cost in lives of most previous wars.

All of the arguments about an increase in terror, the unintended
consequences, the worsening of relations with Iran, are as beside the
point as the failed promises of World War I and World War II. Just
because we did not achieve a neutral Poland at Yalta does not mean we
did not ultimately gain, and, ultimately, for each unintended
consequence of the invasion of Iraq, the USA has a path forward to gain
relative to the rest of the world.

Consider :

a) The invasion increased terrorism and destabilized the middle east.

The USA gains in this scenario because a destabilized middle east
simultaneously threatens Europe, Russia and China far more than it does
the USA. They have to worry about spillover effects, refugee
crossings, and damage to their fuel supplies needed for living. The
USA merely would have to cut its consumption of oil down by 50% and we
can be fine with our own rather massive domestic production. In real
terms, if we make everyone drive 4 cylinder hybrid engines, build mass
transit, and make more ethanol, biodiesel and electric cars, we can get
off the oil habit in a decade, and even sooner, if economics dictate it
so - just look at how fast we build the internet. The rest of the
world, though, has no domestic oil production, and would be completely
screwed.

b) The invasion strengthened the hand of Iran.

Let's not forget one thing. We killed the guy that killed one million
Iranians, and removed Iran's biggest rival from the picture. A strong
Iran threatens Europe and Russia, and holds a big oil card over China.
So, again, guess what? Even though we completely don't get along with
Iran, we do have common geopolitical interests, and we can probably
work with them on some level. I would be shocked if there was not
some aspect of theater to the present US - Iranian tiff.

A strong Iran works for us in a number of other ways too. First off, Al
Qaeda is a Sunni movement, and having a strong shiite government, or a
better regional block, offsets those nations that dump their
petrodollars into Sunni terrorist causes.

And finally, if Iran does do something stupid and attack us, we will
have national unity to attack Iran back, and we would, by eliminating
the state that frankly sponsors the Iraqi militias, put ourselves in a
good position to control Iranian oil ourselves and thus hold China by
the short ones.

The bottom, realpolitik line is this. No matter if Iraqi democracy
succeeds or fails, the USA gains geopolitically from the outcome. There
was never a scenario where the USA would not gain from the Invasion of
Iraq, whether or not the country was trashed or not. You don't judge
the success of a war by how well its politicians say it achieves its
stated goals. You judge the success of a war by how well the nation
that wages it gains relative to the rest of the world, and in the case
of Iraq, the USA will gain no matter what.
Jebus Saves
2007-01-04 05:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
you are an idiot
stork
2007-01-04 07:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
you are an idiot
So how much money did you steal from the government today, oh
self-indulgent exploiter of crippled vets.
Jebus Saves
2007-01-04 14:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
you are an idiot
So how much money did you steal from the government today, oh
self-indulgent exploiter of crippled vets.
I don't steal money from the government, I provide travel from and to vet
hospitals for veterans, I have not made 1 cent since gas topped over $2 a
gallon and I have provided this service for nearly 20 years and will not
give it up because I enjoy helping them. You on the other hand are a coward
that hates America because you believe in this war and are too much of a
coward pussy wimp to get in a uniform and go fight for what you believe in.
Put on a uniform pussy, go lose an arm and I'll provide you transportation
to your cut benefits from the Bush Administration. I have about 5 old guys
sitting behind me right now wondering what I'm laughing at and all of them
want to kick your stupid coward ass.
stork
2007-01-04 15:14:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
I have about 5 old guys
sitting behind me right now wondering what I'm laughing at and all of them
want to kick your stupid coward ass.
LOL. You have 5 imaginary friends in your head. You aren't providing
transportation to anyone. It's an entertaining story though.

Besides, aren't you supposed to be looking for Bin Laden?
Jebus Saves
2007-01-06 22:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Jebus Saves
I have about 5 old guys
sitting behind me right now wondering what I'm laughing at and all of them
want to kick your stupid coward ass.
LOL. You have 5 imaginary friends in your head. You aren't providing
transportation to anyone. It's an entertaining story though.
Besides, aren't you supposed to be looking for Bin Laden?
Why should I look for Bin Laden? Am I the president? If I were president,
Osama would have been dead within at least a year. How long has it been? 5+
years and Osama still breathes. And I don't give a flying batshit whether
you believe me about anything in my personal life because losers like you
make up tales of being C++ programmers just to try to impress halfwits on
the internet. Bottom line, you support the war in Iraq but you are so much
of an America hating coward pussy wimp that you won't put your ass in a
uniform and go fight the war. You are a disgrace to all Americans and all
humans.
stork
2007-01-06 23:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
Bottom line, you support the war in Iraq but you are so much
of an America hating coward pussy wimp that you won't put your ass in a
uniform and go fight the war. You are a disgrace to all Americans and all
humans.
Bottom line. You support the war against Al Qaeda, but you won't put
on a uniform to go fight it. Hey, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11,
as you say. But, obviously, you have no desire to go fight Osama Bin
Laden. You big pussy. You are a disgrace to all of humanity.

LOL!
stork
2007-01-06 23:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jebus Saves
Why should I look for Bin Laden? Am I the president? If I were president,
Osama would have been dead within at least a year. How long has it been? 5+
years and Osama still breathes.
Why do you need to be President to look for Bin Laden? What's so hard
about you taking a rifle and heading off to Pakistan. One man. One
shot. One kill. You big loser. Get cracking. If you know how to get
Osama Bin Laden, then go do it.
Logician
2007-01-04 15:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Where's bin Laden?

LOL.

Bin Laden: 1, Bush 0;
stork
2007-01-04 15:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Logician
Where's bin Laden?
LOL.
Bin Laden: 1, Bush 0;
So far, yes.
Gogarty
2007-01-04 22:10:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Logician
Where's bin Laden?
LOL.
Bin Laden: 1, Bush 0;
So far, yes.
Is this a cricket game? It's been going on an awfully long time.
Logician
2007-01-08 04:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Logician
Where's bin Laden?
LOL.
Bin Laden: 1, Bush 0;
So far, yes.
Need another 5 years?
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
2007-01-04 23:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Preach on.

Terrible news for Libs.

Remember when they said it was a huge failure we didn't nab Saddam?
Now they cry over his death, like he was Ghandi.

Libs - spineless cowards.
-=New and Improved=-
2007-01-05 00:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
So I guess that means the troops start coming home tomorrow.
Mission accomplished, right?
Morton Davis
2007-01-05 04:40:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by -=New and Improved=-
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
So I guess that means the troops start coming home tomorrow.
Mission accomplished, right?
If your mission was to identify yourself as a FUCKTARD - your mission is
accomplished.
Sid9
2007-01-05 04:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by -=New and Improved=-
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
So I guess that means the troops start coming home tomorrow.
Mission accomplished, right?
If your mission was to identify yourself as a FUCKTARD - your mission
is accomplished.
*Oh, you're still*
*around defending*
*the loser in the*
*White House*

Only a few Americans
still doing that.
-=New and Improved=-
2007-01-05 06:18:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
Post by Morton Davis
Post by -=New and Improved=-
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
So I guess that means the troops start coming home tomorrow.
Mission accomplished, right?
If your mission was to identify yourself as a FUCKTARD - your mission
is accomplished.
*Oh, you're still*
*around defending*
*the loser in the*
*White House*
Only a few Americans
still doing that.
Those defending bush at this point can hardly be considered
Americans. They are traitors and war criminals just as the shit
stain in the white house is.
stork
2007-01-06 02:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by -=New and Improved=-
Those defending bush at this point can hardly be considered
Americans. They are traitors and war criminals just as the shit
stain in the white house is.
20 years from now, the Left Wing will be celebrating Bush's left
leaning gestures, such as no child left behind, immigration reform
(which cost Republicans their own base), and will come to view the war
as misguided but well intentioned Wilsonian effort to reshape the
middle east. Bush will go down as the Wilson of this age, an idealist
in a time where cynicism is required.
Sid9
2007-01-06 02:37:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by -=New and Improved=-
Those defending bush at this point can hardly be considered
Americans. They are traitors and war criminals just as the shit
stain in the white house is.
20 years from now, the Left Wing will be celebrating Bush's left
leaning gestures, such as no child left behind, immigration reform
(which cost Republicans their own base), and will come to view the war
as misguided but well intentioned Wilsonian effort to reshape the
middle east. Bush will go down as the Wilson of this age, an idealist
in a time where cynicism is required.
bush,jr an idealist?

bush,jr is a provincial.

bush,jr is an ignorant asshole.

bush,jr is only interested in self aggrandizing.
stork
2007-01-06 23:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid9
bush,jr an idealist?
bush,jr is a provincial.
bush,jr is an ignorant asshole.
bush,jr is only interested in self aggrandizing.
Blah blah blah. You should be building a statue to George Bush, but
I'll settle for one of me.
Sid9
2007-01-07 05:43:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by stork
Post by Sid9
bush,jr an idealist?
bush,jr is a provincial.
bush,jr is an ignorant asshole.
bush,jr is only interested in self aggrandizing.
Blah blah blah. You should be building a statue to George Bush, but
I'll settle for one of me.
You have moments of lucidity and then you revert.
Does that happen when the drugs wear off?
Deaf Power
2007-01-05 11:37:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by -=New and Improved=-
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
So I guess that means the troops start coming home tomorrow.
Mission accomplished, right?
If your mission was to identify yourself as a FUCKTARD - your mission is
accomplished.
Why do I see Moron Davis everytime he posts in here.


--
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2791/Rep_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment
stork
2007-01-06 02:16:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by -=New and Improved=-
So I guess that means the troops start coming home tomorrow.
Mission accomplished, right?
Damn straight. Victory. Bring the troops home. We helped the Iraqi
people put their own government in, and now, any sectarian conflict is
their business, not ours.
P.K.
2007-01-07 02:58:44 UTC
Permalink
The "victory" happened when we defeated the Iraqi army and captured
Saddam. We should have gotten out then. The "victory" turned into a
civil war and now we are stuck and Bush doesn't want to admit that it's
a lost cause. When somebody says we "won" or that we should stay until
we "win". What did we really win ???? A fucking piece of dry dessert
filled with a bunch of religious fanatics that want to kill each other,
and anybody who gets in the way. Do really want to be in procession of
this damn place ????
Post by stork
Bush Jr. got Saddam.
USA wins.
Morton Davis
2007-01-07 04:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.K.
The "victory" happened when we defeated the Iraqi army and captured
Saddam. We should have gotten out then. The "victory" turned into a
civil war and now we are stuck and Bush doesn't want to admit that it's
a lost cause. When somebody says we "won" or that we should stay until
we "win". What did we really win ???? A fucking piece of dry dessert
filled with a bunch of religious fanatics that want to kill each other,
and anybody who gets in the way. Do really want to be in procession of
this damn place ????
Pay attention, dpshit, we're not taking posssion of the place.
Deaf Power
2007-01-08 02:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Morton Davis
Post by P.K.
The "victory" happened when we defeated the Iraqi army and captured
Saddam. We should have gotten out then. The "victory" turned into a
civil war and now we are stuck and Bush doesn't want to admit that it's
a lost cause. When somebody says we "won" or that we should stay until
we "win". What did we really win ???? A fucking piece of dry dessert
filled with a bunch of religious fanatics that want to kill each other,
and anybody who gets in the way. Do really want to be in procession of
this damn place ????
Pay attention, dpshit, we're not taking posssion of the place.
Yes we are, dumbshit. We have our army in there occupying the country.


--
Impeach Bush!
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2791/Rep_McKinney_Files_Articles_of_Impeachment
Tony Elka
2007-01-08 03:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Deaf Power
Yes we are, dumbshit. We have our army in there occupying the country.
Yeah, how's that working out so far?

Tony
Morton Davis
2007-01-08 04:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Elka
Post by Deaf Power
Yes we are, dumbshit. We have our army in there occupying the country.
Yeah, how's that working out so far?
Real good.
P.K.
2007-01-08 06:28:39 UTC
Permalink
We are in possession of the place, we are in charge of their government. They
don't make a move unless they ask us first. They just now are trying to act
like they are independent of us but they really aren't yet.
Post by Morton Davis
Post by P.K.
The "victory" happened when we defeated the Iraqi army and captured
Saddam. We should have gotten out then. The "victory" turned into a
civil war and now we are stuck and Bush doesn't want to admit that it's
a lost cause. When somebody says we "won" or that we should stay until
we "win". What did we really win ???? A fucking piece of dry dessert
filled with a bunch of religious fanatics that want to kill each other,
and anybody who gets in the way. Do really want to be in procession of
this damn place ????
Pay attention, dpshit, we're not taking posssion of the place.
Tony Elka
2007-01-08 07:44:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by P.K.
We are in possession of the place, we are in charge of their government. They
don't make a move unless they ask us first. They just now are trying to act
like they are independent of us but they really aren't yet.
THEY kill our soldiers every day.

Tony

Möbius Pretzel
2007-01-03 01:10:58 UTC
Permalink
P.K.
2007-01-03 01:55:04 UTC
Permalink
How the fuck is that even possible ??????
Post by Möbius Pretzel
The American President seems keen to repeat his country's mistakes
01 January 2007
Last November 17, as George W Bush visited Hanoi for the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit, the US president had some philosophical
thoughts to deliver about the lessons he said the United States had
learned from the Vietnam War, the longest conflict in US history.
"We'll succeed unless we quit," Bush told reporters. "We tend to want
there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going
to take awhile."
It is questionable what lessons the president took away from Vietnam,
where nearly 58,000 American soldiers died and more than 300,000 were
wounded in more than 14 years of hot and cold conflict before the
Americans gave up. But if history is any yardstick, he probably ought
to take careful consideration of ordering a surge in American troops in
Iraq.
With US troop deaths in Iraq just having passed the 3,000 mark at the
end of 2006, the president is reportedly about to order a "surge"
in troop strength, by as many as 30,000.
CLICK LINK TO SEE GRAPH SPELLING OUT HOW IGNORANT, FUCKTARD WAR
CRIMINAL BUSH REALLY IS!
http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=324&Itemid=35
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...