"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
The CIA manufactured and mailed the tape to Aljezerra.

Content of tape calls for more attacks on USA. So theyu released this dangerous
material so more people could die?


Yes, more Iraqi Saddam supporters can be flushed out so THEY
can die. More intelligence can be gathered to further locate and
destroy them. In the long run it is better to squash the resistance
now than let then drag things out.

Yes, more Iraqi Saddam supporters can be flushed out so THEY
can die.

So Bush' statement that Saddam is probably alive is yet another lie to the US
people.

RB

"Bobsprit" wrote in message ...
So Bush' statement that Saddam is probably alive is yet another lie to the US
people.


A CIA spokes man said Saddam's is probably the voice on the
tape. This may or may not be a lie because the word 'probably'
makes it to vague and this is on purpose.

You are not too bright there, fatboy!

Anybody that has a degree from Princton, a Masters from Harvard, been
elected governor of the State of Texas, presently the President of the
USA

Yeah and we all know you can't get any of those things with money and
connections. Bush is REAL smart! The man can't even speak!

Bwahahahahahaha!

RB

I'll take that as a no.


"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
Is there anybody you're NOT jealous of

Man, what an angry dude!!! Try actually sailing some day!


RB

Scotty wrote:

I'll take that Neal for a blow.

If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended
military a needed rest.

Gilligan


"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...

"Bobsprit" wrote in message
...
The CIA manufactured and mailed the tape to Aljezerra.

Content of tape calls for more attacks on USA. So theyu released this
dangerous
material so more people could die?


Yes, more Iraqi Saddam supporters can be flushed out so THEY
can die. More intelligence can be gathered to further locate and
destroy them. In the long run it is better to squash the resistance
now than let then drag things out.

Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over extended
military a needed rest.

George Washington must be an idiot then:

http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.

George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:

http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.