Wow, the first troll I've seen here in ages and I'm late to the party. God bless you for coming, it makes me look better after my little whoopsies (remember the shooting in london? Silly me forgot that people lie to cover their backsides). I hate having to email people to apologise
.
Right, first off, invasion plans for the bahamas probably exist too. The military plans for every scenario they can think of. They update these as the disposition of forces alters. They'd already had to pop over to that part of the world once or twice in recent history so it would be plain common sense to plan what to do if they had to do it again. They'd be incompetent if they didn't. Bush, I hate to say this, wasn't lying when he said he had no plans to invade. He was talking about his intentions not the super secret folder marked "get one up on my daddy".
Sod it, losing the will to type and behave in a mature manner. You disappoint me, Bush has said and done many things that are easier to criticise and second guess yet you pick that statement as proof of his lack of truthfullness
. Mikey Moore's books would give you a head start, you'd still lose the argument but you'd at least have a veneer of reasoning to your argument.
My personal theory is that Bush is a Nascar fan and that Cheney has to keep invading these countries to keep the little fella occupied in the off season. Gives him something on the telly with loud explosions that Bush junior can watch leaving Cheney in peace to run things. Just think, if Arnie and Stallone were still making movies then the world could be so much more peaceful.
You bring nothing new to the table, you have no measurable debating skills, you have nothing other than insinuation, gossip, and innuendo to "support" your claims, you're insulting while whining that others insult you, etc., ad nauseum.
None of this is original.
Edited to add: I always wondered, despite the fact that Iraq invaded Kuwait, why they picked them and not Iran as the major threat that needed to be dealt with first. Iran has the "form" when it comes to state sponsered terrorism after all. This makes the cynical part of my brain think that maybe they just picked the country in the gulf that they could get away with invading rather than the one that needed invading. It meant they could have a garrison in the gulf without being anywhere near Mecca and causing trouble for the Saudi Arabians. Nobody in the region really liked Saddam and he didn't have close ties to the russians and the chinese like Iran has. It's nicely next door to Iran, should the need arise. It's sitting on a lot of oil, which is nice. Along with afghanistan it helps secure an overland route for oil that neatly circumvents the gulf that Iran has lined with anti ship missiles, which is also nice. US companies get to build that overland pipe too, also nice. Do you think Cheney plays risk?
Pass me my tinfoil hat. May I also state that if the above is close to the truth I don't mind. We need that stuff and like a crackhead we'll mug an old lady or two if we have to. If entire countries are laid waste to to keep my GSXR in go juice that really is fine with me. Bombings and hijackings? Well, we're nicking their family silver, they're going to get a bit upset aren't they? It happens. It's not right, it's not fair but since when has that been in the "interests of national security"?
O/T: Barbara, Where did you first hear the term "asshat"? I'm curious because until a year ago I'd never heard it. On a par with F***wit for the way it rolls off the tongue.
