AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2pn9agFmdml6U1@uni-berlin.de>...

R.Schenck wrote:

AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2pl4ftFl8659U1@uni-berlin.de>...

Glenn wrote:

"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:ch328m$tvl$0@pita.alt.net...

Użytkownik "Ferrous Patella" <mail125797@pop.net> napisał w wiadomoci news:Xns9556A552E82F1mail125797popnet@199.45.49.11...

news:ch30a0$ncb$0@pita.alt.net by "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>:

[...]

We need to win this war on terror.

But W just got done saying it can't be done. He should know.

Then we need a new President of your country, one that can actually

finish

what they start.

As for this, it is "like father, like son".

Davey, President Bush is a realist. You don't think all terrorist acts
can be eliminated from the world, do you?

Bush has certainly tried to intimate he's the man for the job. Of
course, the unlawful invasion of Iraq based upon,

Why is it unlawful? oh yeah, what was

Invading a foreign country on trumped up charges that it was a direct
threat, without a mandate from the UN certainly sounds unlawful to me.

Do you think that a [AC]"mandate from the UN" should be obtained
before any country commences a war?

Do you think Israel should obtain a [AC]"mandate from the UN" before
it engages in a war against terrorism?

So where are the WMDs? Where's the links to Al Qaeda? The whole thing
was a lie, or, if you prefer, a collosal mistake by the world's
mightiest superpower. Lie or mistake, the US is dug in, and with damn
little sympathy from many of the important countries (no, I do not think
Poland is a major power, sorry).

Which, if any, of these countries do you consider [AC]"important
countries"?:
China, Russia, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran,
Iraq, Libya, England, Japan, Mexico, Canada

Assuming you picked any of the above countries: can you think of any
more-[AC]"important" countries than the countries you identified, and
if so, what are their names?

snip

strike out at international terrorism by marching an army into Sudan.

Why not Iran?

Because they've got the bomb, and while the US might conceivably produce
some sort of defeat, it would be at the cost of millions of lives in
Central Asia. It's called lighting the fuse on the powder keg.

Except
he can't, as the botched expedition into Iraq appears to have had the
nasty effect of straining US military power. Who woulda thunk it
possible five or six years ago that the US could actually have
overextended itself?

Keep in mind that this is based on a volunteer army, and that, should
things realyl heat up, there most certainly will be a draft like in
WWII

It still takes time to produce soldiers, and I have a hard time
believing that Congress is going to give the okay to a draft for an
expedition into Sudan.

The fact is that the US cannot leave Iraq, as no one else with any
meaningful number of troops is interested in reducing its commitments.
There aren't even enough soldiers there right now to do the job properly.

If Bush was going to manipulate data and lie to enter Iraq, the least he
could have done is assure that the invasion forces were going to be
sufficient to maintain order. He's probably the shittiest imperialist
since Mussolini.

Which, if any, of the following individuals do you consider a
[AC]"shitt[y] imperialist"?:
Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chairman Mao, Hitler, Castro, Osama bin
Laden.