On Aug 25, 4:49*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:06:43 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 4:01*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:18:52 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 7:08*am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:37:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:03*pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

hey idiot...

you guys are amazing.

uh...questions for you:

1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president

take your head out of your diaper...

What difference does either question make?

Obama has had plenty of time to pull out of Afghanistan, and Iraq for
that matter.

Why are we still in Afghanistan. What does Obama hope to get out of
our involvement there?
--

disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important

What state sponsored terrorism did the Taliban conduct? They've not
attacked us.
--

ever hear of 9/11? you guys keep saying the taliban is like the girl
scouts. when i point out the date of 9/11

i never hear from you again. whatsamatter? dont remember that day?

The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11.

yes, they did. i realize, as president of the 'neville chamberlain'
society you're required to tow the party line, but i think your
umbrella has some holes in it

not unlike your head.


A while back, the liberals were blaming Saudia Arabia and Bush for
9/11. Now you're using it as a rationale for staying in Afghanistan.
Y'all need to make up your minds.
--

ROFLMAO!! i guess you think bush is still president!! don't they give
you an alzheimer's test in your rest home?