Kurt Ullman writes:

In article ,
(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.

Count total American losses and then figure out how
well this is working.

It's not working, whether you count losses
as bodies or losses as dollars.
In fact it's a total disaster.

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and hasnt been replaced by someone who is just as bad.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.

"Rod Speed" writes:

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.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier
he would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

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.

Try to follow along.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.
What does replacing one dictator with another have to
do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to
dictatorship when we leave.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.
Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Dan Espen wrote
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.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

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.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
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.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

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.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in
Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic
elections.
You mean like Bush?

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we
leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.
But NATO doesn't want to play any more and attacks are on the rise.
Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...1jan31,1,66067
33.story
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
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.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

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.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

15 of 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudi

What matters is who lead each particular hijacking,
and that certainly wasnt exclusively saudis.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm
two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt and one from Lebanon.

Those numbers arent universally accepted.

Your original is just plain wrong.

Number of terrorists from Iraq were zero.

Iraq did financially support a number of terrorists, particularly in Palestine etc.

What does replacing one dictator with another

The current top monkey isnt a dictator, he was elected in democratic elections.

You mean like Bush?

Yep, he aint a dictator either.

have to do with this?

Any fool can see that Iraq will immediately revert to dictatorship when we leave.

You're so stupid that you havent even noticed that they had elections
and most likely will have more of those when the US leaves.

In fact it's a total disaster.

Nope. Nothing like one either.

Still a repressive monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Not enough troops to find the nuts in Afghanistan.

Nothing like a total disaster tho.

Total, complete, utter failure.

Nothing like that. The talibums no longer run Afghanistan
and afghanistan is no longer a base for terrorist training.

But NATO doesn't want to play any more

Pig ignorant lie.

and attacks are on the rise.

And they arent in Iraq.

Afghanistan report warns of 'failed state'

Still nothing like a total disaster. The talibums got the bums rush, very comprehensively
indeed and even you should have noticed that Saddam ended up dead.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6606733.story

Just the usual mindless pig ignorant silly stuff. And it doesnt even say that its a total disaster anyway.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote
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.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

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.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.
By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1). The problem is
that Rod is a vacuous, anacephalic, and a waste of space, who never gets
it right.
Mohammed ATTA (11) (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1,
1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his
middle-class family. Atta was the ONE and ONLY Egyptian in the 9/11
attacks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts
Numb-nuts, this is a citation showing my source for information. This is
what intelligent people do when making an argument. Of course it would
take time away from your whacking-off, and it is so much quicker to make
stuff up. It's up to you if you want to project an image of intelligence
or be seen as just another dumb dick.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Dan Espen wrote

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.
By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1). The problem is
that Rod is a vacuous, anacephalic, and a waste of space, who never gets
it right.
Mohammed ATTA (11) (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1,
1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his
middle-class family. Atta was the ONE and ONLY Egyptian in the 9/11
attacks.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts
Numb-nuts, this is a citation showing my source for information. This is
what intelligent people do when making an argument. Of course it would
take time away from your whacking-off, and it is so much quicker to make
stuff up. It's up to you if you want to project an image of intelligence
or be seen as just another dumb dick.

Aw Jeez. I was in a different news group. I should have read the header.
Sorry.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dan Espen wrote
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.

Huh?

You're trying to say, if that bomb hadn't killed that soldier he
would have died in a traffic accident with the same frequency?

Yes, that is what I am actually saying. There is no 'trying' involved.

I must have misread what you posted.
It makes no sense at all.

Its a fact, quite surprising tho that fact is.

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.

Try to follow along.

Try retaking Bullshitting 101.

We were attacked by Saudis.

Nope, quite a few of them were egyptians.

By quit a few you mean more than none? There was one (1).

Depends on how you count them, those that ended up dead,
or those involved, including those that didnt end up dead.

reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

Mohammed ATTA (11) (also known as Mohammed al-Amir) Born September 1,
1968 in Kafr al Sheikh, Egypt. ATTA grows up in Cairo with his middle-class family.

Who just happened to be the main organiser that ended up dead.

Atta was the ONE and ONLY Egyptian in the 9/11 attacks.

Pity about the others that didnt end up dead.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts

Just one source of info on that.

reams of your juvenile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

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

Billy wrote
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?

What happens in many civil wars.

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).

Yes, I clearly said that their circumstances are much worse than it was
under Saddam, and I personally dont think that Iraq should have been
invaded, essentially because they are so stupid that once Saddam was
deposed, they started enthusiastically ripping each others throats out.

Thats nothing like a total disaster tho.