dxAce wrote:

"R.F. Burns" wrote:

Brian Hill wrote:

It's never their fault Steve. It's always somebody else's.
Well, I see you and the fake ace have kissed and made up. Thought you
were too smart to be a dxDingleberry sock puppet again. How disappointing.

P.S.

I said nothing about 'fault'; however, seeing as -you- brought it up,
tell us then, whose fault you think it is that after almost 4 years,
Baghdad is -still- not under control.

I believe Bush is the "Commander-in-Chief", that the buck was supposed
to stop with him and that he made the BIG show (eyewash for the
sheeple?) of saying "mission accomplished".

The Bushevik-in-Chief really underestimated what was going to happen
after the invasion and that lies right on his square head. Invading
troops to be greeted with flowers and candy? Get a grip on reality.

I think that Curious George needs to go work at a morgue or two in
Baghdad to realize just how badly he screwed up.

JB


You Liberal 'tards sure are hung up on that "mission accomplished" thing, aren't
you?

The DNC needs a new playbook.

dxAce
Michigan
USA

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 03:26:50 GMT, John Barnard wrote:



I think that Curious George needs to go work at a morgue or two in
Baghdad to realize just how badly he screwed up.

His erection would get in the way. The man has a death fetish.

John Barnard wrote in
news:_XUzg.305331$Mn5.273150@pd7tw3no:

dxAce wrote:

"R.F. Burns" wrote:

Brian Hill wrote:

It's never their fault Steve. It's always somebody else's.
Well, I see you and the fake ace have kissed and made up. Thought you
were too smart to be a dxDingleberry sock puppet again. How
disappointing.

P.S.

I said nothing about 'fault'; however, seeing as -you- brought it up,
tell us then, whose fault you think it is that after almost 4 years,
Baghdad is -still- not under control.

I believe Bush is the "Commander-in-Chief", that the buck was supposed
to stop with him and that he made the BIG show (eyewash for the
sheeple?) of saying "mission accomplished".

The Bushevik-in-Chief really underestimated what was going to happen
after the invasion and that lies right on his square head. Invading
troops to be greeted with flowers and candy? Get a grip on reality.

I think that Curious George needs to go work at a morgue or two in
Baghdad to realize just how badly he screwed up.

JB


Screwed up? No. He would see that the morgues have fewer people now that
Sadam is gone. I really wish you dip****s north of the border had more
than one working brain cell.

sc

John Barnard wrote:

Slow Code wrote:
John Barnard wrote in
news:_XUzg.305331$Mn5.273150@pd7tw3no:

dxAce wrote:
"R.F. Burns" wrote:

Brian Hill wrote:

It's never their fault Steve. It's always somebody else's.
Well, I see you and the fake ace have kissed and made up. Thought you
were too smart to be a dxDingleberry sock puppet again. How
disappointing.

P.S.

I said nothing about 'fault'; however, seeing as -you- brought it up,
tell us then, whose fault you think it is that after almost 4 years,
Baghdad is -still- not under control.

I believe Bush is the "Commander-in-Chief", that the buck was supposed
to stop with him and that he made the BIG show (eyewash for the
sheeple?) of saying "mission accomplished".
The Bushevik-in-Chief really underestimated what was going to happen
after the invasion and that lies right on his square head. Invading
troops to be greeted with flowers and candy? Get a grip on reality.

I think that Curious George needs to go work at a morgue or two in
Baghdad to realize just how badly he screwed up.

JB


Screwed up? No. He would see that the morgues have fewer people now that
Sadam is gone. I really wish you dip****s north of the border had more
than one working brain cell.

sc

Hussein was bad - no doubt about it. But there sure as hell wasn't any
sectarian violence, car bombers, people being pulled from their cars and
executed. Don't even try and convince me that the level of violence is
the same as when he was in power. Everyone from the average person to
American military officers realizes that what is happening now is
essentially a civil war.

I wish that you 29% had a grip on reality!

I wish 99.9% of you ****in dumbass Canucks would get a clue, boy!

LMFAO

dxAce
Michigan
USA

John Barnard wrote:
Slow Code wrote:
John Barnard wrote in
news:_XUzg.305331$Mn5.273150@pd7tw3no:


sc

Hussein was bad - no doubt about it. But there sure as hell wasn't any
sectarian violence, car bombers, people being pulled from their cars and
executed. Don't even try and convince me that the level of violence is
the same as when he was in power. Everyone from the average person to
American military officers realizes that what is happening now is
essentially a civil war.
depends on what you see as violence Saddams Butchers did their killing
in a tidier fashion than the various factions are now but SADDAM killed
10 k plus per year

the body is lower if messier as they try to sort out a new order

I wish that you 29% had a grip on reality!

JB

Nawwwwww,,,, I wont say that one either.
cuhulin

On 2 Aug 2006 18:16:11 -0700, "an_old_friend"
wrote:
SADDAM killed
10 k plus per year
How many do you think are being killed these days? What's 100 X 365?

David wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 18:16:11 -0700, "an_old_friend"
wrote:
SADDAM killed
10 k plus per year
How many do you think are being killed these days? What's 100 X 365?
but those aren't the numbers dave

On 2 Aug 2006 20:18:08 -0700, "an old feind"
wrote:


David wrote:
On 2 Aug 2006 18:16:11 -0700, "an_old_friend"
wrote:
SADDAM killed
10 k plus per year
How many do you think are being killed these days? What's 100 X 365?
but those aren't the numbers dave

Are too.

http://news.netscape.com/story/2006/...raqis-per-day/

John Barnard wrote in
news:uGbAg.307567$Mn5.204424@pd7tw3no:

Slow Code wrote:
John Barnard wrote in
news:_XUzg.305331$Mn5.273150@pd7tw3no:

dxAce wrote:
"R.F. Burns" wrote:

Brian Hill wrote:

It's never their fault Steve. It's always somebody else's.
Well, I see you and the fake ace have kissed and made up. Thought
you were too smart to be a dxDingleberry sock puppet again. How
disappointing.

P.S.

I said nothing about 'fault'; however, seeing as -you- brought it
up, tell us then, whose fault you think it is that after almost 4
years, Baghdad is -still- not under control.

I believe Bush is the "Commander-in-Chief", that the buck was
supposed to stop with him and that he made the BIG show (eyewash for
the sheeple?) of saying "mission accomplished".
The Bushevik-in-Chief really underestimated what was going to happen
after the invasion and that lies right on his square head. Invading
troops to be greeted with flowers and candy? Get a grip on reality.

I think that Curious George needs to go work at a morgue or two in
Baghdad to realize just how badly he screwed up.

JB


Screwed up? No. He would see that the morgues have fewer people now
that Sadam is gone. I really wish you dip****s north of the border had
more than one working brain cell.

sc

Hussein was bad - no doubt about it. But there sure as hell wasn't any
sectarian violence, car bombers, people being pulled from their cars and
executed. Don't even try and convince me that the level of violence is
the same as when he was in power. Everyone from the average person to
American military officers realizes that what is happening now is
essentially a civil war.

I wish that you 29% had a grip on reality!

JB



We do grasp reality. It's just that you KKKanadians have your
heads so far up your ass you can't see it.

Sc