http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4719169.stm

 

They seem to want to emphasize that it's as much an ideological fight as a military fight.

 

My thoughts:

 

1. I want to give them some credit for at least acknowledging that guns and airstrikes won't win this "war" by themselves, but for Christ's sake, wasn't that obvious to pretty much EVERYBODY about four years ago?

2. Even though I'm spending time talking about it, I'm not entirely convinced that issues of terminology are really that important, and I think this whole issue might be sort of a red herring.

 

What do you think?

 

 

aaahhh, it never ends.....

still Bush and his "wars" :shifty:

 

I agree - the guns aren't treatment

we all know that, but as you can see - he doesn't....

unique, isnt the right word. crying out loud. its too common in this world for incompetent people to lead nations. i mean if chiraq got elected thats saying alot.

 

Suuuurreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee dude...

yeah so your saying the leaders of france, kenya, sudan, north korea, iran and other nations arent incompetent?

if bush could and did run a third time' date=' i wouldnt vote for him again.[/quote']

 

This is comforting to know. :rolleyes:

only because i believe no president should be in more then 2 terms, no matter how good or bad he is.

I agree with you on this one issue