OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

Enough said.....

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

On 21 Jul 2004 12:32:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Enough said.....

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

:-(

You're so transparent, you'll be reincarnated as a window.

I'm sure those were your exact sentiments every time a handful of soldiers died
in isolated incidents during the previous presidency. Oh so sure.

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

On 22 Jul 2004 14:54:24 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

:-(

You're so transparent, you'll be reincarnated as a window.

I'm sure those were your exact sentiments every time a handful of soldiers died
in isolated incidents during the previous presidency. Oh so sure.


Yes, it was, so? If nothing else, I'm consistent. Playing the moral
equivalency fallacy doesn't change the here and now.

Dave

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jul 2004 12:32:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Enough said.....

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

wow, what a narrow minded piece of crap.....
why do you insist, in almost all of your posts, to compare apples and
oranges? WWII wasn't a war just to appease oil hungry big business
maniacs.

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

On 22 Jul 2004 11:17:38 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jul 2004 12:32:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Enough said.....

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

wow, what a narrow minded piece of crap.....
why do you insist, in almost all of your posts, to compare apples and
oranges? WWII wasn't a war just to appease oil hungry big business
maniacs.

And neither was Iraq, your biased and myopic opinions notwithstanding.

Dave

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jul 2004 11:17:38 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jul 2004 12:32:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Enough said.....

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

wow, what a narrow minded piece of crap.....
why do you insist, in almost all of your posts, to compare apples and
oranges? WWII wasn't a war just to appease oil hungry big business
maniacs.

And neither was Iraq, your biased and myopic opinions notwithstanding.

Dave

At least NOYB admits it was for the oil. What's your take? The WMD's?
The power that Rumsfield helped him achieve?

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

On 23 Jul 2004 11:04:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jul 2004 11:17:38 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jul 2004 12:32:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Enough said.....

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

wow, what a narrow minded piece of crap.....
why do you insist, in almost all of your posts, to compare apples and
oranges? WWII wasn't a war just to appease oil hungry big business
maniacs.

And neither was Iraq, your biased and myopic opinions notwithstanding.

Dave

At least NOYB admits it was for the oil. What's your take? The WMD's?
The power that Rumsfield helped him achieve?

It never was about stealing oil. It's about ridding the world of an
unstable and potentially threatening influence, and paving the way for
democratizing the region, and ultimately taking away the sentiment
that fuels terrorism.

Dave

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 23 Jul 2004 11:04:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jul 2004 11:17:38 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jul 2004 12:32:08 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Enough said.....

So what's you point? We've lost more men than that in a single battle
in WWII. War=Death. Deal with it.

Dave

wow, what a narrow minded piece of crap.....
why do you insist, in almost all of your posts, to compare apples and
oranges? WWII wasn't a war just to appease oil hungry big business
maniacs.

And neither was Iraq, your biased and myopic opinions notwithstanding.

Dave

At least NOYB admits it was for the oil. What's your take? The WMD's?
The power that Rumsfield helped him achieve?

It never was about stealing oil. It's about ridding the world of an
unstable and potentially threatening influence, and paving the way for
democratizing the region, and ultimately taking away the sentiment
that fuels terrorism.

Dave

Then what do you say about the fact that many of the people in power
in Iraq right now, were former officers for Saddam?

OT BushCo death watch reaches 900
 

basskisser wrote:

Dave Hall wrote in message . ..
On 23 Jul 2004 11:04:29 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:


It never was about stealing oil. It's about ridding the world of an
unstable and potentially threatening influence, and paving the way for
democratizing the region, and ultimately taking away the sentiment
that fuels terrorism.

Dave



Please cite the names of any Arab countries that are democracies.
No?

There are 121 countries listed by Freedom House in its annual report.
Not one is Arab. Arab countries, according to Freedom House, Arab
countries are not only strikingly less free than their counterparts
elsewhere in the world, but are slightly less so today than they were a
quarter of a century ago. During this interim, nowhere in the Arab world
has a head of state been removed from office through the ballot box.

Paving the way for democracy in the Arab world? Simple-minded
neoconservatism.

Taking away the sentiment that fuels terrorism?

Perhaps having a POTUS fully engaged in the peace process between Israel
and the so-called Palestinians would be a start. The POTUS we have now
doesn't give a ****.








--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.