🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <f7eg65$7i0$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
 Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:35:13 -0500, Al <albert.finney000@geemail.coom>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <f7ec74$rs8$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
> > Joeseph P. Blow <jpblow@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >>Let the neocon dupes deny the fact that had we not invaded iraq, the
> >> >>dead us soldiers could be defending our airports and train stations.
> >> 
> >> I note you couldn't answer that point.
> >
> >Maybe he was being kind. But, I'm not, so, I'll give it a shot.
> >
> >Aside from little details like posse comitatus, were your recommendation 
> >followed, the most likely result would be complaints from the same 
> >people who came up with the brilliant idea.
> 
> You should have tried harder.  You surely could have come up with a
> better argument.

There is no real need to "try harder."
> 
> The armed forces could provide far better screening and security at
> airports than the clowns there now.

You are suggesting a latin america model, military control - after the 
necessary adjustment to the constitution of course.

> The national guard could be here
> to help in case of natural disaster.  The navy could be protecting our
> borders by checking cargo ships before they arrive here.   But no,
> instead they're overseas dying and all we hear now about border
> protection is stopping mexicans crom crossing.

A wealth of brilliant policy intitiatives.

> 
> Please feel free to give another try at arguing your side.   Don't you
> think alive soldiers here would be better than dead soldiers there?

Yes, which is why i resent that the French do not speak German.