🚀 go-pugleaf

"Charlie Wilkes"
> Sure.  That's the reassuring talk, and that may be how it works out.
> But don't kid yourself with your partisan crap.

What partisan crap? Granted I used the term "hot air" but Clinton's threats
& token bombing following Saddams breech of the cease-fire agreement
qualify....empty threats are hot air.

>These guys -- Cheney,
> Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz -- are congenital warmongers who very much want
> a war.  Hell, Wolfowitz pushed for war against the Soviets in the
> Reagan administration.

You know this because they have lead us into multiple unjustified wars?
Here you have made extreme claims but presented zero foundation.....In
otherwords lots of blather.

> And as for George W., he's a different kind of leader, alright.  He's
> a fucking dunce, with his workout routine and his stage-managed act as
> Chief Executive.  And he's got lots of confidence in the way his veep
> is running things.

Its takes a small and rather ignorant mind to think someone who mangles a
few words is a dunce.... people have different abilities but I know of  no
correlation between "public speaking" and intelligence...unless you truly
feel the "best and the brightest" are represented by used car salesmen and
actors. Since Bush has a Masters degree in Business and was a jet fighter
pilot, became reasonably wealthy and has executed both his Govenorship and
Presidency quite decently....the actual evidence dispels your insults.

Finding fault with a workout routine is downright silly.....A stage-managed
chief executive claim is puzzling since he in both private and public
appears quite consistent. Indeed Cheney is a competent vice President and I
truly believe he does have a active participatory role...contrasted to the
normal VP figurehead....but I fail to see this as a negative.

> I don't think these assholes will get their war, BTW.  The reason I
> don't think so is because taking out Saddam will not be a pinpoint
> operation; it will require huge mobilization, made more cumbersome by
> the fact that we won't have a coalition backing us like last time.

Other than staging areas and territorial flyovers the previous coalition was
largely political.....it was our arms and troops that defeated Saddam's
invading force. Our force of the day was overwhelmingly superior and much
larger than actually needed. Saddam's force today is less than half and not
nearly as well equipped.....Before he had a decade of serious Russian help
and arms, not this time. Besides Saddam is not loved nor respected in the
Middle-east and will not actually be supported significantly by either
neighboring governments nor the populous as a whole.

> And as soon as that mobilization gets under way, that's when the
> pedestrian suicide bombers will start blowing up in Midtown, and
> that's when Pakistan will crumble into civil war and we have to go in
> and take 100,000 casualties to keep nukes off U.S. soil.  Events will
> overtake the U.S. long before the U.S. puts grunts in Baghdad.

What an imagination.....Your scenario has more holes than Swiss cheese. Why
would Pakistan crumble into civil war because of anything going on in Iraq?
The Pakistan people would have supported the Taliban considerably more than
a secular Iraq......Whom are these suicide bombers ?

> So you like this fine crew of Texas Republicans who rented the White
> House for cash, eh?

When you allow Dem talking points masquerade as thinking you pretty much get
pap......Please present any evidence, legislation or proof that Bush has
sold the Whitehouse?

>You think ol' Clinton was the worst piece of shit
> that ever floated down the stream, eh?

I don't know about that but inept and reasonably bad for the country and
possibly the worse president of the century is not a hard act to
prove.....germane to this topic .....he should have enforced the Iraq peace
keeper presence.

>Well if your good boys get
> their precious war, 9-11 will seem like a fireworks show and the whole
> country will be hiding under the fucking bed.  Because Saddam will hit
> our civilians hard INSIDE our borders, with the creme-de-la-creme of
> his nightmare toolkit.  And he's a hell of a lot better equipped than
> Osama bin Laden ever was, with a germ arsenal that definitely includes
> smallpox.
> Charlie

Amazing.......If Saddam indeed possesses such abilities you just made a
strong case to take him out and aptly demonstrated how negligent Clinton was
to let him off the inspection hook. Your apparent appeasement desire has a
strong correlation to WW2 and Chamberlain's rather failed policies.  Soggy