Bush Covering for an Invasion of Iraq?

The same applies for non-VPs.

Well Smith?

I’m still waiting for the quoting of my stance on tech, as you so arbitrarily claimed existed.

@F_alk:

Why do the US have to implement another CIA funded (former?) really violent man/terrorist as a president? … that does not sound like a steep learning curve.

You referring to Bush or Zahwar?

Bush nor any other prez is CIA funded as Far as I know… Why would they?

So I assume you mean Zahwar?

GG

@F_alk:

Ohmmm……

what is ESL ? … and is it a compliment or insult to be compared to americans in that way ;)?

English as a Second Language
and your choice.

in circles?

[blackest sarcasm]
Well, probably, you don’t mind the sporadic terror attacks targeted against the US then either
[\blackest sarcasm]

@T_6:

. . . the people who had a terrible time?

They are divided into two main groups. First, there are those chosen
to visit and believe they had a bad time. Second there are those who believe they were born there and escaped, visited and were captured/tortured, or visited and saw terrible things. This second group
helps fund the control program. Some of the other groups that fund the
brainwashing are the Christian Children’s Fund, the ACLU. the NRA, and the American Red Cross. Of course the plan is so pervasive I only have clues to part of the plot. :P :wink:

“All conservatives are such from personal defects. They have been
effeminated by position or nature, born halt and blind, through luxury
of their parents, and can only, like invalids, act on the defensive.
But strong natures, backwoodsmen, New Hampshire giants, Napoleons,
Burkes, Broughams, Websters, Kossuths, are inevitable patriots, until
their life ebbs, and their defects and gout, palsy and money, warp them.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson, essayist. “Fate,” The Conduct of Life (1860).

Thank you for those words of bias.
We no longer have to ask, “Where’s Waldo?”. - Xi

And you don’t think we oppose them too? But so far, no hate crimes have been committed or buildings exploded. I say that would be Democracy at work.

On 2001-12-09 17:31, Yanny wrote:
if Us takes a Japan first strategy russia can put his head between his legs and kiss his butt goodbye.

I agree. For logistic reasons it is far easier for Japan to defend itself than it is for the US to attack it. Japan should be able to destroy most of the USs initial navy in round 1 while retaining most of its own fleet. There is no reason for Japan to build a navy to confront the USs navy if the US goes after Japan. Japan should be building a force of tanks to go after Russia and if the US wants to go after Japan that force can easily be turned on the US if Japan has to defend NE Asia. Japan should retain several fighters that are great for defense as well and one round of buying infantry can go a long way towards providing a defense against the US if they are foolish enough to go after Japan. Remember, it only costs Japan 3 ipcs for a unit of infantry in Asia and 5 for an armor plus a one shot 15 or so for an IC or two. It costs the US 7 for a unit of infantry ((3+3+8)/2) that only attack at a 1, and 13 for a tank (5+8).

Germany would love to have to contend with two countries rather than three. US goes after Japan is a very bad move IMO.

[ This Message was edited by: xenophobe on 2001-12-10 10:42 ]