Jim Brady enters the fray:
> Pardon me Major Pain if I take exception to
> your pseudo-intellectual drivel, but I seem
> to remember that nearly 3,000 innocent
> Americans were incinerated and ground to
> death on 9/11 because being a "non-believer"
> apparently gives Islamists the obligation to
> kill us.
I remember the same thing. And your point, or exception, to my "pseudo-intellectual drivel" is what, exactly?
> Last time I checked, radical Islam is a belief
> that transcends Europe, the Middle East, Africa
> and much of the Asian sub-continent. It is not
> a country with defined boarders. Many of the
> "19 Saudi's" had been trained as al Qaeda
> in Afghanistan with the consent of the Taliban.
So. Your position is, since Bush is ruining the country, we should bomb... Harvard? Don't you think bombing his home in Texas is more likely to make an impression?
> "very weak"? As I remember, the Republican Guard
> was reputed to be one of the most well armed and
> powerful ground forces in the Middle East.
Well, yes. If you ride a camel and carry an old Springfield. We don't ride camels, and we annihilated the entire Republican Guard without any
trouble in one timely swirl of infrared penetrated dust and depleted uranium sabots. Plus a few hellfire missiles from the occasional Apache.
Or did you get your information from Faux News? Did you really
think Iraq had an army that could be described as anything but
"weak" as compared to even the fraction of the force we could have brought (but didn't even bother) to bear? Didn't you see us dropping smart weapons right down ventilation ducts? Didn't you see us destroy entire hardened bunkers with single weapon deployments, captured for your amusement on video?
Man, now you
are what I call gullible
. Our attacking Iraq was like you picking up a 1-week old baby and simply shaking it to death. It was more difficult to leave enough intact to have somewhere for people to rebuild than it was to actually trounce them.
> "non-Muslim"? Please explain to me sir,
> what are Sunni's and Shiites? Iraq seems
> to be full of them.
Don't be intentionally dense. They weren't running the country. They were free to worship, but then again, so are we. Saddam kept them from controlling the country. He no longer does that; and in case you haven't noticed, NOW THEY DO.
> No, I don't see. Can you reference a reputable
> source for this statement?
Sorry. I keep forgetting you're a Faux News fan. here you go:http://www.google.com/sea...nistration
Have a picnic. No charge for me doing your research at Google. I'm just nice like that.
> Terrorists are terrorists no matter where the nest is.
Terrorists aren't terrorists unless they attack. You do remember that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing, right? Trials, international borders, respect, finding the actual guilty party, that stuff? Or is that just old hat to you, like it is to our president and a good portion of our criminal judiciary? Is it your position that half of South America should be bombing us right now for the clandestine CIA ops we run, or do you think diplomacy might be a better idea, with the responsible folks identified and remanded? Go on, take your time, think it over. (whistles)
> The world is a better place with Hussein and
> the psycho-sadist sons in the grave.
Well, the question is, would the astonishing number of Iraqi people who died in order for us to put him down, and raise up the Muslims into power, agree? Somehow, I still find room to ponder that question. That one thing is bad may be without question; but if you cannot ensure that something worse will not take its place, should you destroy it anyway? This is probably why no one has shot Bush, even though most of us know he's a cast iron, dangerous, foolish idiot. There isn't a sane person in this country who would want Cheney for president. That man is Bush's insurance policy.
Unfortunately, Bush ignored the best advice offered him, and crapped all over Iraq like a very spoiled child, and now we have to pay for it, to the estimated tune of about a trillion dollars (conservatively... some are estimating as high as five trillion. Not counting Afghanistan, of course.) For which we get a bunch of really, really angry Muslims angry at us
instead of angry at Saddam's secular, if iron fisted, rule. Yeah. That
was a great improvement.
> People need to wake up, take the "I hate
> George Bush" blinders off and understand
> what is at stake here.
You mean, our national economy and the tax burden for the next 20 years or so? Or do you mean the fact that Bush's war has killed more Americans than the terrorists did? Or do you mean the erosion of our liberties? Or the uncounted dead Iraqis? Or the destruction of our country's international reputation? Really, you need to be more specific.
> If Bush was right on anything it was
> to start killing terrorists where they
> live and those who enable them.
Oh. You mean in Saudi Arabia? Where they live? Where they are primarily funded from? Like I said in the first place?
Keep on posting, sparky; your shoe leather will only taste better after you chew on it for a while.
[This message has been edited by Major Pain (edited 8/19/2008).]