In alt.conspiracy, Ben Cramer
<>
wrote
on Sun, 8 Jan 2006 23:38:44 +1000
<dpr4l5$1d4s$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>
> "Dave Hazelwood" <the_big_kahuna@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:m002s1t57mcr84fhjugitu5k9r2n4eprq2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 20:50:00 -0800, "taluga" <spitfire@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>as everyone told us (russia, france, saudi arabia....) our going in
would
>>>de-stabilize the region. of course we know it all and will not listen
to
>>>those with better knowledge. we had our (or is that israel's?) agenda
to
>>>follow. no, the "leftists" don't think all will be well. but at least
>>>american troops won't be being killed in an ill thought out invasion.
if
>>>you
>>>are concerned about what ever is left of iraq becomes a haven for
>>>terrorists, maybe we would have to shoulder the blame for that. it
wasn't
>>>a
>>>haven prior to our arrival.
>>>
>>
>>
>> What do you mean "if" the usa fails in iraq ?
>>
>> The only way to win was to stay out.
>
> The coalition of the conned can never win in Iraq.
>
Oh, we'll win all right. It's a simple process:
[1] Get into a mess.
[2] Lower bar for the definition of "victory".
[3] Repeat [2] until we achieve "victory".
[4] Go home and reelect.
I would wish for more consistency, though. :-/
(And fewer American deaths.)
Followups.
--
#191, ewill3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
's still legal to go .sigless.
|
