Mr. Laden! Kiss your evil ass goodbye.

[Jon Ford]

Good points, Roger--  this is a war in which it will be hard to even clearly 
define what winning means. Today we will doubtlessly wipe out Taliban 
military headquarters, quite a few aging Afghani batteries of mini-missiles 
and dust up a few  recent "camps" reputedly of Bin Laden. "They cannot 
currently gauge the success of the mission" the current message on my TV 
reads; but will they ever be able to? This serpent has a hundred heads!

Jon


>
>But screw all; we're now bombing Kabul!!!
>
>"Operation enduring freedom"
>
>Britain is tagging along, characteristically. And we aren't
>about to wait around to clear our war against evil with the
>United Nations, which is filled with enough peaceniks and
>bleeding hearts to make telebob throw up.
>
>Now all we have to do is figure out how we know when we've won.
>Maybe we've won when a sudden lack of new newspaper interviews
>proves Mr. Laden is dead? Or until our buildings stop getting
>blown up? Or until we have installed a pro-Bush government? Or
>until the 7 million plus Afghans said to be on the verge of
>starvation and their friends stop hiding in their cowardly caves?
>Or until just shy of whenever the Pakistan domino topples?
>
>Did you hear when Bush read from the letter from the four year
>old girl who is willing to make the supreme sacrifice, by
>offering up her father because she "realizes what America is
>all about".
>
>-- Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>US opposes United Nations on dealing with terrorism:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/07/international/07COAL.html
>
>
>"...A sign of Washington's insistence that its hands not be tied was
>its rejection of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's
>entreaties that any American military action be subject to Security
>Council approval, administration officials said.
>
>At the same time, the Bush administration decided it was not necessary
>to make public its evidence against Osama bin Laden. The White House
>seemed pleased that the British publicly unveiled their version instead.
>
>At first, the Pentagon was even unwilling to have NATO invoke the
>alliance's mutual defense clause requiring members to defend each other
>against an armed attack, senior administration and European officials said.
>
>"The allies were desperately trying to give us political cover and the
>Pentagon was resisting it," said one senior administration official.
>"It was insane. Eventually Rumsfeld understood it was a plus, not a minus,
>and was able to accept it."...
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp