Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam, there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would obey
what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for us to lose to and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can
achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the
country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless to do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army' doesn't seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while we still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all thought of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people. As it stands now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a viable
option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E. is to leave now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've already poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have something to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab obsolete for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there, safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you know. Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to be bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
Charly
.
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 11:41:25 AM |
|
|
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4567CF5E.8F53C01C@worldnet.att.net...
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam,
there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with
a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would
obey
what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon
immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for us to lose to
and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we
can
achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the
country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each
other's
neighborhoods.
CITE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
26 Nov 2006 06:17:22 AM |
|
|
Morton Davis wrote:
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4567CF5E.8F53C01C@worldnet.att.net...
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam,
there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with
a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would
obey
what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon
immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for us to lose to
and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we
can
achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the
country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each
other's
neighborhoods.
CITE.
CNN, Friday 24 NOV 2006, "Lou Dobbs Tonight". Reported live from Baghdad. You
really need to stop watching Faux Nooz there Mort, you might find out what's
really happening in the world.
Charly
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Lemke" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 06:37:01 AM |
|
|
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4567CF5E.8F53C01C@worldnet.att.net...
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam,
there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with
a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would obey
what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for us to lose to
and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can
achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the
country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each
other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless to
do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army' doesn't
seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while we
still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our
hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three
plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all thought
of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people. As it stands
now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a viable
option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E. is to leave
now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've already
poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have something
to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab obsolete
for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of
them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there,
safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you know.
Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to be
bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
Charly
The Bush Administration thinking that they can have a real impact on events
in Iraq is simply more delusion. It was delusion that sent them in, and
delusion that led them thru the conversion to democracy in Iraq.
The president's statements during his trip to Viet Nam bring home the
totality of the delusion that can posses the sons of the wealthy elite in
this country who try to remake the world according to their own twisted
vision.
Hopefully the center in this country has learned it's lesson.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 10:50:16 AM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "John Lemke"
<jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4567CF5E.8F53C01C@worldnet.att.net...
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam,
there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi
with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would
obey what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon
immediately after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for
us to lose to and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we
can achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn
the country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each
other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless
to do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army'
doesn't seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while
we still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our
hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three
plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all
thought of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people. As it
stands now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a
viable option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E.
is to leave now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've
already poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have
something to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab
obsolete for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of
them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there,
safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you
know. Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to
be bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
Charly
The Bush Administration thinking that they can have a real impact on
events in Iraq is simply more delusion. It was delusion that sent them
in, and delusion that led them thru the conversion to democracy in Iraq.
The president's statements during his trip to Viet Nam bring home the
totality of the delusion that can posses the sons of the wealthy elite
in this country who try to remake the world according to their own
twisted vision.
Hopefully the center in this country has learned it's lesson.
Many of the old Bush supporters are still hoping for the best
in Iraq, but ready to jump ship and start calling themselves
'liberals'. Did you notice just before the recent election how
Stephne Douglas started trying to affiliate himself with the
Democrats ? How amusing it was. The wheel comes full circle...
the liberals are taking power.
Your second paragraph was right on the money. They're trying to
bend other cultures to the 'American' way, a sort of hard sell,
instead of the more successful 'soft sell' of acceptance of other
cultures and by dialog. Given enough time I'm sure we can pervert
even the most die-hard of muslim fanatics to the American way of
physical abundance and bureaucratic control (it might take 1200
years).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 11:03:24 AM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
Many of the old Bush supporters are still hoping for the best
in Iraq, but ready to jump ship and start calling themselves
'liberals'. Did you notice just before the recent election how
Stephne Douglas started trying to affiliate himself with the
Democrats ?
I'm not affiliating myself with today's Democrats. Maybe you haven't
noticed, but I have always referred to myself as a Truman/JFK/Scoop
Jackson Democrat. This is nothing new. Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson were
the liberals of their day, but today they would be referred to as
"neocons" by lefties like you.
How amusing it was. The wheel comes full circle...
the liberals are taking power.
You'll have to take a closer look at the results of the election to see
that "liberals" did not win the majority for the Democrats. The
difference between majority and minority for the Demcrats were all the
"Joe Lieberman" Democrats who are about to take office. But since
lefties like you seem to think they have just swept into power, it will
be very interesting to watch the Democratic leadership walk the
tightrope of trying to keep both its moderate majority makers and its
leftist base happy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 06:20:49 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
Many of the old Bush supporters are still hoping for the best
in Iraq, but ready to jump ship and start calling themselves
'liberals'. Did you notice just before the recent election how
Stephne Douglas started trying to affiliate himself with the
Democrats ?
I'm not affiliating myself with today's Democrats. Maybe you haven't
noticed, but I have always referred to myself as a Truman/JFK/Scoop
Jackson Democrat. This is nothing new. Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson were
the liberals of their day, but today they would be referred to as
"neocons" by lefties like you.
How amusing it was. The wheel comes full circle...
the liberals are taking power.
You'll have to take a closer look at the results of the election to see
that "liberals" did not win the majority for the Democrats. The
difference between majority and minority for the Demcrats were all the
"Joe Lieberman" Democrats who are about to take office. But since
lefties like you seem to think they have just swept into power, it will
be very interesting to watch the Democratic leadership walk the
tightrope of trying to keep both its moderate majority makers and its
leftist base happy.
.... but since I'm not really a 'lefty', nothing you've said here
makes any sense... and of course you claim to not be a 'righty'
so I'll just state what I do know about you.
You support the party which advocates naked agression using a massive
military assault to get the bad guys before they can get us... and if
that means killing a lot of innocent civilians then what the hell.
Does this accurately describe your position Stephne ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 06:35:16 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Perseid wrote:
Many of the old Bush supporters are still hoping for the best
in Iraq, but ready to jump ship and start calling themselves
'liberals'. Did you notice just before the recent election how
Stephne Douglas started trying to affiliate himself with the
Democrats ?
I'm not affiliating myself with today's Democrats. Maybe you haven't
noticed, but I have always referred to myself as a Truman/JFK/Scoop
Jackson Democrat. This is nothing new. Truman/JFK/Scoop Jackson were
the liberals of their day, but today they would be referred to as
"neocons" by lefties like you.
How amusing it was. The wheel comes full circle...
the liberals are taking power.
You'll have to take a closer look at the results of the election to see
that "liberals" did not win the majority for the Democrats. The
difference between majority and minority for the Demcrats were all the
"Joe Lieberman" Democrats who are about to take office. But since
lefties like you seem to think they have just swept into power, it will
be very interesting to watch the Democratic leadership walk the
tightrope of trying to keep both its moderate majority makers and its
leftist base happy.
... but since I'm not really a 'lefty', nothing you've said here
makes any sense... and of course you claim to not be a 'righty'
so I'll just state what I do know about you.
You support the party which advocates naked agression using a massive
military assault to get the bad guys before they can get us... and if
that means killing a lot of innocent civilians then what the hell.
Does this accurately describe your position Stephne ?
Is that your new way to spell my name, Randi? Before I answer your
question, I'd like to know if you supported President Clinton's
interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo? Just a simple yes or no will do,
and then I'll respond.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Psycho" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
25 Nov 2006 08:26:20 PM |
|
|
Perseid wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "John Lemke"
<jflemke@locallink.net> Spat the Words
"Charly the *****" <nitecrawler7@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4567CF5E.8F53C01C@worldnet.att.net...
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam,
there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi
with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would
obey what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon
immediately after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for
us to lose to and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we
can achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn
the country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each
other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless
to do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army'
doesn't seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while
we still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our
hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three
plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all
thought of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people. As it
stands now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a
viable option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E.
is to leave now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've
already poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have
something to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab
obsolete for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of
them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there,
safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you
know. Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to
be bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
Charly
The Bush Administration thinking that they can have a real impact on
events in Iraq is simply more delusion. It was delusion that sent them
in, and delusion that led them thru the conversion to democracy in Iraq.
The president's statements during his trip to Viet Nam bring home the
totality of the delusion that can posses the sons of the wealthy elite
in this country who try to remake the world according to their own
twisted vision.
Hopefully the center in this country has learned it's lesson.
Many of the old Bush supporters are still hoping for the best
in Iraq, but ready to jump ship and start calling themselves
'liberals'.
No sane, self-serving Democrat or converted Republican wants to call
himself a liberal these days -- the label still has a terrible stigma
in the post-neocon era akin to "Jude" or "communist" in the history of
Nazi Germany. Instead, you'll hear them use the label, "moderate" or
"progressive." We so-called terrorist *****-kissers, pedophiles, drug
addicts, promiscuous perverts, commies, satan-worshippers, cowards,
America-haters...well, we're still the NIGGERS in this fading fanatical
right-wing era. It could change for the better later, but right now,
that "liberal" label wouldn't float a dry leaf, politically...
Dr. Psycho ;(
.. Did you notice just before the recent election how
Stephne Douglas started trying to affiliate himself with the
Democrats ? How amusing it was. The wheel comes full circle...
the liberals are taking power.
Your second paragraph was right on the money. They're trying to
bend other cultures to the 'American' way, a sort of hard sell,
instead of the more successful 'soft sell' of acceptance of other
cultures and by dialog. Given enough time I'm sure we can pervert
even the most die-hard of muslim fanatics to the American way of
physical abundance and bureaucratic control (it might take 1200
years).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
26 Nov 2006 01:53:50 PM |
|
|
Charly the ***** wrote:
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam, there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would obey
what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for us to lose to and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can
achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the
country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless to do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army' doesn't seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while we still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all thought of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people.
So Charly, the rational people were the ones that invaded Iraq? They're
"rational" are they?
As it stands now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a viable
option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E. is to leave now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've already poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have something to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab obsolete for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there, safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you know. Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to be bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
But you thought you'de do them a favour by invading them didn't you?
Didn't work did it? Fuckin' monkey pressie of yours should be
shot...along with his cohorts!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "OrionCA" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
26 Nov 2006 03:53:27 PM |
|
|
On 26 Nov 2006 11:53:50 -0800, "WH" <bollogs@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless to do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army' doesn't seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while we still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all thought of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people.
So Charly, the rational people were the ones that invaded Iraq? They're
"rational" are they?
Compared to the antiwar loons who drank red-dyed milk and then vomited
it all over the courthouse steps in San Francisco to "stop the war"?
You betcha. Compared to you? No question about it.
As it stands now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a viable
option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E. is to leave now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've already poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have something to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab obsolete for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there, safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you know. Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to be bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
But you thought you'de do them a favour by invading them didn't you?
Didn't work did it? Fuckin' monkey pressie of yours should be
shot...along with his cohorts!
That would include Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, who both voted for
the Iraq war resolution, I gather.
--
Following hubby’s lead, the newly retired Plame wallowed out
of the funk her lack of professional opportunities inspired
to accept a $2.5 million book deal with Crown Publishing. When
this deal fell through, she settled on an unspecified contract
with Simon & Schuster.
This new contract was announced the same day as the lawsuit.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23377
.
|
|
|
| User: "Werewolfy" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
26 Nov 2006 04:44:04 PM |
|
|
OrionCA wrote:
Following hubby's lead, the newly retired Plame wallowed out
of the funk her lack of professional opportunities inspired
to accept a $2.5 million book deal with Crown Publishing.
Are you trying to speak in the English language? I have no idea what
your scribble means.
Why are you not dead in the Iraq desert, Orion? Being such a
'red-blooded' American, I thought that would suit you.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Charly the Bastard" |
|
| Title: Re: There's no one to lose to |
27 Nov 2006 05:25:23 AM |
|
|
WH wrote:
Charly the ***** wrote:
Sid9 wrote:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/11/25/opinion/25dowd.html?hp
"...As Neil Sheehan, a former Times reporter in Vietnam who wrote the
Pulitzer Prize-winning "A Bright Shining Lie," told me: "In Vietnam, there
were just two sides to the civil war. You had a government in Hanoi with a
structure of command and an army and a guerrilla movement that would obey
what they were told to do. So you had law and order in Saigon immediately
after the war ended. In Iraq, there's no one like that for us to lose to and
then do business with."
The questions are no longer whether there's a civil war or whether we can
achieve a military victory. The only question is, who can we turn the
country over to?
At the moment, that would be no one.
It's a full-blown civil war now. Opposing groups are mortaring each other's
neighborhoods. It's over over there. The 'Iraqi government' is helpless to do
anything but get in the way of the bullets, and the 'Iraqi army' doesn't seem to
be willing to do that. We have three viable options; get out now while we still
can, start leveling cities until the Iraqis get the message, or put our hand
into the meat grinder which is what we've been doing for the last three plus
years. We can forget any thought of a 'stable democracy', and all thought of
exploiting the oil. We are not dealing with rational people.
So Charly, the rational people were the ones that invaded Iraq? They're
"rational" are they?
Hey, I didn't vote for them. I didn't tell them to go blow up a country. But at the
same time, I can't condone strapping a claymore to my chest and going to the mall.
Blowing yourself up is an irrational act. Blowing yourself up because some Imam told
you that Gawd told him that you would get into Heaven is even more irrational. By the
evidence presented in the media, Islam is an irrational belief system. Christianity
isn't that much better, but at least it doesn't condone ritual suicide as a vehicle to
enlightenment.
As it stands now,
only genocide will bring order out of this chaos, and that's not a viable
option. Our only hope of salvaging anything at all in the M.E. is to leave now,
wait until they stop slaughtering each other, then make a deal with the
survivors in a decade or so. If we had spent the money that we've already poured
down this rat hole on alternative energy development, we'd have something to
replace the oil we hoped to exploit and would have made the Arab obsolete for
all time. Or... we could call the submarines and glass over the lot of them. The
ground will cool off in a year or so, and the oil will still be there, safe
underground, ready to be exploited. But that's genocide, don't you know. Can't
do that. We can't protect the Iraqis from themselves, and they seem to be bent
on mass suicide by civil war. It's time to leave.
But you thought you'de do them a favour by invading them didn't you?
Didn't work did it? Fuckin' monkey pressie of yours should be
shot...along with his cohorts!
I can't advocate taking the President out and standing him up against a wall; that's
Sedition and I don't want to spend the rest of my life in sunny Guantanamo. I can
advocate investigation, followed by indictment, followed by impeachment, followed by
trial, followed by conviction, followed by sentencing. The Forms must be obeyed.
Personally, I think shooting would be too leinient; life at hard labor with no
possibility of parole strikes me as more appropriate... for everyone involved.
Charly
WH
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
