We can "win" many more wars than just three at the same time
by landing on a flight deck and declaring 'mission accomplished.'
Why haven't the troops come home if we have 'won' the war.?
Or is it that from now on frontal engagements will not be fought anymore and
where we build a defensive position down town and only venture out in
daylight when CNN passes by.
Art

"Jack Painter" wrote in message
news:0fi7d.6539$%t3.712@lakeread01...

"Reg Edwards" wrote


Tongue-in-cheek, Jack,

There's no need to tell ME what the British are like.

After 79 years I know!

It's just that YOU are better at it than we EVER were.

But, 8 years too late, WE are now taking care of puppy-dog Tony.

Just make sure YOU do likewise with George.

And we will BOTH get on fine with each other.

Only three more to sort out - Teheran, Pyongyang and finally Beijing.

Your Coalition and Tea Party Colleague -
----
Reg.


Hi Reg, I suppose I understand what you meant, although I do not agree
that
the United States is or was imperialistic the way England was, and we were
never as vile to each other, even in our own short Civil War. The most
land
we ask for from our conqured or liberated is enough to bury our dead on.
That is certainly not Britain's history. And I am absolutely sure that
neither you nor any Brit has any idea how you could be so absolutely vile
to
each other in your own country, Christian against Christian (yeh right!).
Only the Africans behave as badly to each other as the Irish Protestants
and
Catholics do.

Just so you know, conservatives have already sent President Bush a strong
message, and he is aware that a large majority of his supporters expect
*major* changes in his policies, *after* he is re-elected. In my opinion,
nothing that Kerry said sounded convincing with regard to the nuclear
proliferation problem. Of course the United States is strong enough to
fight
and win two major wars on separate continents at the same time. We could
fight and win three in fact. Just don't expect the kind of compassion in
avoiding civilian casualties or surgical strikes that target structural
rather than human assets in that event. No sane people in the world want
to
see things come to that, especially the Chinese. There are however several
insane people in the world, namely the leader of North Korea, and the
entire
nation of islam. "Friends" like France would still be useful enough, if
for
just one time, they could protect their *own* land in a world war, and not
require more help at that from the US and Great Britain.

;-) Jack