Heerz a question 4 both Yanks and Brits:

http://www.web-frog.com/pics/dubya-blair-grin.jpg


I'll go with the grin....even though Tony Blair is to smart to try and get away with a 'fake' grin.

http://www.nojohnkerry.org/imagemedia/counterpunch/terrorism-kerry.jpg

My personal favorite:
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/john_kerry_half_cocked.jpg

''Sportsmen for Kerry are like: Jews for Hitler, PETA babes for Nuge, Parents for Jeffery Dahmer, Babysitters for John Wayne Gacey, Nurses for Richard Speck, Worms for Robins, Pinocchio for Woodchippers, etc etc etc. sheesh!!  Retards.'' -Ted Nugent

I think there has been an exaggeration, too - a humungous one.  Kerry is 100% right.

Seeing as you're many times more likely to be killed in a road accident, by a smoking related disease, by a drinking-related disease (or a drink-related road accident), by non-terrorist homicide.. even by accident (and in every year except one by being struck by lightning) than you are to be killed in a terrorist incident: don't you think that killing tens of thousands of civilians, not to mention more than a thousand of your own army dying, and spending tens of billions of dollars on it might be considered a teensy-weensy bit of an overreaction? 

..except that (as has been argued elsewhere), the plans for invading Iraq had already been discussed *before* 9/11, which makes it a useful excuse, it's not the reason.

Can America afford Kerry?  You're going to have huge difficulties affording what Bush has spent already and committed you to spend over the coming years.

I think there has been an exaggeration, too - a humungous one.  Kerry is 100% right.

Seeing as you're many times more likely to be killed in a road accident, by a smoking related disease, by a drinking-related disease (or a drink-related road accident), by non-terrorist homicide.. even by accident (and in every year except one by being struck by lightning) than you are to be killed in a terrorist incident: don't you think that killing tens of thousands of civilians, not to mention more than a thousand of your own army dying, and spending tens of billions of dollars on it might be considered a teensy-weensy bit of an overreaction? 

..except that (as has been argued elsewhere), the plans for invading Iraq had already been discussed *before* 9/11, which makes it a useful excuse, it's not the reason.

Can America afford Kerry?  You're going to have huge difficulties affording what Bush has spent already and committed you to spend over the coming years.


So 3,000 people should be cast aside?  Do you agree with Kerry that terrorism should be a police matter?  Do you think it is just a minor problem?  Do you think we should outsource our national security to the United Nations and the corrupt leaders at the EU who force their people to be apart of the European Union (EU)?  57% of Europeans according to an opinion poll done over there say they want America to be ''weaker.''  Why do you think these people support John Kerry?  Because he is a lying Massachusetts socialist loser who plans on doing just that.

3,000 people here.  Another 17 there.  191 here.  Over 300 children in Russia.  Maybe these deaths aren't frequent enough for some liberals and EU scum, who have already folded to the Islamic fascists, but this cannot go on.  You can't let people die needlessly like that, ignore it, and expect the families of the victims to just accept it like you would with someone who has been struck by lightning.

Now we are killing terrorist in Afghanistan and Iraq, murdering bas****s, and we got little babies like this Amber women, who is a plant from the DNC calling her mommy telling her to raise pure hell.  She should be court marshalled and thrown into jail for 15 years, quite frankly I think she should be hung.  Back in WWII we had soldiers who were fighting at the Battle of the Bulge, vastly outnumbered, cold as hell because they had summer clothing when they needed winter clothing, not enough ammo., and forced to dig with shovels.  Did they throw down there shovels, call mommy and the next day she get on that traitor network NBC!?  This war is no different, she commited pure mutiny, and lied about it saying here fuel trucks were not armored.  FUEL TRUCKS ARE NEVER ARMORED, they can't move when they are!  Liar.  Did NBC do the first rule in news and investigate to see if her charges were true?  Nope they pulled a CBS/Dan Rather and went ahead with the story.  Even Clinton's former Sec. of Defense said what they did should not be accepted.

If you were to spend that kind of money in social/welfare programmes, you'd save hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives - that's why it's disproportionate.  Ignoring that Iraq had fudge all to do with terrorism in the first place.  Though that certainly ain't the case now: your precious president is making things worse for you in the long term, not better.

And before you talk through your arse about "liberals and EU scum", GET A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE - nobody has said that they want people to be killed, only narrowminded bigots like yourself could come up with that kind of asinine remark.  If anyone is a death-monger around here, it certainly ain't coming from this side of the Atlantic (certain Labour politicans excepted).