In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:
Dan Espen wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote
(Don Klipstein) wrote
I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!
Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has
gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!
The horror! Of course the fact that there hasn't been a (successful)
attempt on US soil since then is all outweighed by not finding OBL.
Come on guys.
There's no need for an attack on US soil.
Plenty of American's right there in the middle east as easy targets.
Yes, but its a lot harder to ensure that they dont get targetted in a place
like Saudi etc.
Count total American losses and then figure out how well this is working.
The death toll isnt any higher than with accidents if Iraq hadnt been
invaded.
It's not working, whether you count losses as bodies or losses as dollars.
Depends on how you define working. Saddam has been eliminated
and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.
The personal circumstances for most Iraqis is much worse than it was under
Saddam tho.
It remains to be seen whether it can ever be better for those than it was
under
Saddam, but it certainly is for some of them, most obviously with the Kurds.
In fact it's a total disaster.
Nope. Nothing like one either.
What would you call the displacement of 15% of the population from their
homes? Those who do have homes face 60% unemployment, continuing
blackouts and, the constant threat of terrorism by people who don't want
peace (not necessarily arabs).
--
Billy
Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush