"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bill McKee wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:53:35 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


Sometimes, just sometimes, I wonder if we benefit from a strong
military. ;-) Bullets or butter? World's policeman doesn't come
without a cost.
It keeps your from harm.
Does it? And at what cost? It seems to me, since WWII, this
country has
been at peace . . . Well, at least a couple of years. Perhaps, if
our
military wasn't so strong, we wouldn't be using them as much.
By the simple fact that our military is strong, very strong, we are
generally safe within our own borders.
Unless George W. Bush was president and you happened to be in the WTC
on 11 September 2001.

We're not generally safe within our own borders. Any small group of
dedicated and bright terrorists can create a huge killing event in any
of our major cities any time they want.
Did not matter who was POTUS 11 September 2001. We would still have a
cleared spot where the WTC stood.
Prove that.

You are stupid at times, but not that stupid. OBL trained pilots and
planned this total operation in 9 months. You want to buy a bridge?


You and others like you who cannot think in the abstract believe that just
because something is planned it has to be implemented.

Let's see. You say 9-11 was planned in nine months. Let's count back...
Why, that takes us back to just about when the Supremes decided Bush would
be POTUS.

Think there's a connection between Bush "winning" (ha!) and al Qaeda
deciding the US must pay a price?


Send me the check for the bridge. Abstract. Your brain can not envision
the concept.