So, the war on terror is over when Osama is deep sixed? We've neutralized him. He's hiding in a hole in the mountains or he's deep in hiding in Iran. We're strangling al Qaeda's money supply, killing, capturing and arrresting hundreds of his soldiers. We've had regime change in Iraq and Lebanon with Syria and maybe even Egypt not far behind.
OBL is a non-player in the terror game. He's a convenient symbol used by people like you and your buddies the jihadists to bash Bush.
If this is failure, I'd hate to see your definition of success.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.07.2005 @ 11:42
"Nearly 4 years after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese still occupy much of Asia and are killing our soldiers on Okinawa with impunity."
You are a defeatist.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.07.2005 @ 11:30
Yes, it is a coincidence. Since the date for these attacks are set months in advance, it's more likely it was timed in concert with the G8 summit than London's Olympic bid (that no one knew would be successful until yesterday).
As for OBL, he's so far underground that it's extremely doubtful he had anything to do with the planning or execution of this attack. And the fact that we could TRIPLE our troop strength in Afghanistan and not catch him seems to be lost on those who push the "concentrate on OBL" meme.
I'll go back to the point of putting that quote at the top - a point you seem to agree with. We are at war with an implaccable, dangerous enemy who is currently flooding Iraq with soldiers. The question unanswered by you and others:
"Where would these terrorists be if they weren't in Iraq?"Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.07.2005 @ 07:21
The comment was meant to show that you and the lickspittles who believe the terror war is a figament of Bush's imagination designed to instill fear in the American people IS DEAD WRONG.
The fact that you won't admit it makes you more dangerous than the terrorists - that's the point I was trying to make.
As for making us safer...where did it happen. Since when did London become part of the US?
Maybe you should have paid attention in geography class when you were in school.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 7.07.2005 @ 06:07
The old hag is not a corrupt kleptocrat so your reasoning is not only not germane, its idiotic.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 6.07.2005 @ 03:08
Go away troll. The chickenhawk argument is much more apropos of your position than mine. You're the one who wants to "save" Africa.
I say let the Africans overthrow their despots (with out help) and begin to live like most of the rest of the world.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 5.07.2005 @ 20:09
I'm very happy that you support regime change in countries where children are being starved as a result of some kleptocratic despot's deliberate policy.
If you think more western aid placed into the pockets of these crooks is going to feed starving children (who are being deliberately killed as a result of state policy) then you are a ninny.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 5.07.2005 @ 19:00
Anyone who equates the elections in Iran with elections here is a certifiable loon.
And this focus on applause from the troops, who were ordered by their superiors to sit on their hands because the major networks would have refused to carry the speech otherwise, is equally loony.
Too bad you didn't read the comments from the troops following the speech. Or the explanations given by the commander of the base. Or any other "reality based" reaction that seems not to have penetrated the tin foil hat you wear.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 30.06.2005 @ 18:16
I've written many times that if you think Bush lied about WMD you must think him the stupidest politician in history. Lying about WMD's and then deliberately invading knowing full well that there are none there and none will be found? In an election year?
President's may be dumb but there has never been a dumb politician as President. Why would Bush hand his opponent a potential election winning issue like that? (A few tens of thousands of votes in Ohio and he would have lost).
As for the 9/11 - Iraq connection I should have been clearer in connecting the dots between 9/11 and the potential for catostrphic harm Saddam could have done us not any known involvement of Saddam's in 9/11. The war in Iraq is a direct result of 9/11 - even the Downing Street minutes say that. In that respect, Iraq and 9/11 are connected.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 29.06.2005 @ 12:56
Have you lost your mind?
I certainly hope not.
My reasoning is simple. It's a drag on the war effort. Anything that's a drag on the war effort must be eliminated.
It hurts us at home and abroad. And Bush is the only one who can make the issue go away.Comment Posted By Rick Moran On 29.06.2005 @ 08:23
Pages (132) : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122  124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132