apologies to Fred, but certainly none for him.
(1) Do you feel obliged to go everywhere in the world where there might be some sort of injustice? Why wouldn't you want to start in Washington DC?
(2) Nobody said Iraqis don't want democracy. Hell, they're obviously all killing each other for whatever the hell it is they want - well, now that you mention it, it does seem more like what we would call theocracy, but hey, that can be democratic, too - at least for a few minutes.
(3) I hadn't noticed the terrorists had a whole lot of B-52s. It does seem as if Americans have done a little bombing of their own. Now that may be a good thing, but if you think any people like foreigners coming and occupying their country, you are pretty fucking obtuse.
(4) The only people who can't figure out that you can't make people want to be like you at the point of a bayonet seem to be Republicans. Because, of course, they always make sure they are never in the position of being a pointer, or pointee; only kibitzer or cheerleader.
You can kill people with bayonets, and that's often a very good thing. (Especially, of course, when they are Republicans.) The problem is, you can't make them want to be like you, and you can't make them want to do things your way.
You can FORCE them to do things your way, maybe, at least until you turn your back. Then sumbitch if they aren't back to their usual reprobate ways.
I realize you don't understand this, and I know you're smart enough, and chicken enough, to stay far away from any personal experience that might enlighten you. Just don't say nobody warned you.
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
Fred is of course a professional curmurdgeon, but at least an interesting one, who seems to have been around a couple of blocks.
Of course a fellow like that cannot possibly understand geopolitics or international finance, but I will agree with him that neither of us have seen a whole lot of people who are overly thrilled to be bombed into democracy, or anything else. In fact, statistics show that some people get downright pissed off when bombed. Of course this puzzles the hell right out of Republicans, but you'll have to take our word for it - or, of course, you can go stand downrange in someplace like Iraq, and see how it feels yourself. No? I didn't think any of you would want to do that.
Did we want to be standing in Iraq when Hussein was running it? You keep saying they don't want democracy but they keep showing up and risking their lives to vote. It seems to be the terrorists who are doing the bombing. Would Iraq be pissed if they took over? Is it OK to be bombed into a theocracy?
The only people who don't want democracy in Iraq are the terrorists and the democrats.
apologies to Fred, but certainly none for him.
(1) Do you feel obliged to go everywhere in the world where there might be some sort of injustice? Why wouldn't you want to start in Washington DC?
(2) Nobody said Iraqis don't want democracy. Hell, they're obviously all killing each other for whatever the hell it is they want - well, now that you mention it, it does seem more like what we would call theocracy, but hey, that can be democratic, too - at least for a few minutes.
(3) I hadn't noticed the terrorists had a whole lot of B-52s. It does seem as if Americans have done a little bombing of their own. Now that may be a good thing, but if you think any people like foreigners coming and occupying their country, you are pretty fucking obtuse.
(4) The only people who can't figure out that you can't make people want to be like you at the point of a bayonet seem to be Republicans. Because, of course, they always make sure they are never in the position of being a pointer, or pointee; only kibitzer or cheerleader.
You can kill people with bayonets, and that's often a very good thing. (Especially, of course, when they are Republicans.) The problem is, you can't make them want to be like you, and you can't make them want to do things your way.
You can FORCE them to do things your way, maybe, at least until you turn your back. Then sumbitch if they aren't back to their usual reprobate ways.
I realize you don't understand this, and I know you're smart enough, and chicken enough, to stay far away from any personal experience that might enlighten you. Just don't say nobody warned you.
but at the point of a tax reduction?
Here's a tidbit, but I can't remember the names of the speakers : appropos the Irish "troubles" in the 1920s, one Brit is reputed to have said "You can't bomb the Irish into democracy." His buddy countered, "Perhaps, but you CAN bomb them out of a democracy."
there are common and good reasons to shoot at people; like to kill them, or scare the shit right out of them.
However, shooting at people does NOT make them like you, or want to buy your program.
Any program you need to sell at the point of a bayonet is likely to be abandoned the minute you pull the bayonet away.
So it seems that the most logical thing to do is, just kill those folks in Iraq who don't like Americans or democracy. That would be all the Shiites and most of the Sunnis. And the logical thing to do would have been to get that over with back in 2003. A few nuclear zone fires would have saved us all the trouble of transporting people to & from Iraq, too.
What has eluded our rocket scientists in the White House is that wars are most often won by the nations who stay on the sidelines, especially if they are selling the ammo. It looks very much as if the major beneficiary of this war will in fact be Iran.
I wonder if this war should not have been contracted to Halliburton and Wall Street before we fired the 1st shot; and told them it was up to them to get their way in Iraq, and we'd send the Marines if they wanted, but only for an hourly rate AND small percentage of gross profits recovered.
and killed any of your family or friends, would you side with the invaders or would you fight, with your last breath, to exact some sort of revenge....?
"Thanks mate! Now that you bombed me back to the stone age, can I please learn your language and be just like you.....?"
Or how 'bout this: If a foreign country invaded the USA in order to free us of the "Bush Tyranny" or "The Hillary New World Order" would you side with the invaders or fight for the good ole "Red, White, and Blue"......?
Yes, you're right. Only a fool would disagree. It happened in my extended "neighborhood" (USA) on 9-11-2001.
Why is the Left obsessed with being liked? Always whining, "Nobody likes us, the French, the Burmese, the Iranians, the Finns dont' like us!
Leftists/liberals are like 13 yr old girls. Obsessed with what everyone thinks of them, popularity, appearance, being seen as cool, and yet, secretly desperate to boss everyone else around, to sneakily manipulate them.
If I were a country, my attitude would be as it is with my neighbors. I'm friendly, but not close. I smile, I wave. Need a hand, I'm there, happy to help. But boil it all down, and I don't really care what they think of me. I'm fine as long as they don't fuck with me.
intelligence is all about being able to understand abstractions, in order to predict the likelihood of future events. It has to do with assimilating personal experience, and observing others' experience.
This is something that Republicans by & large don't do; so you are wasting your breath assuming that you can explain. The best teaching aid for a determined Republican is usually something like a baseball bat, or 2x4, applied repeatedly.
Hey Jack off, you can spend all the time you want with "abstract thinking". We really do need people like you to entertain us after we are through protecting your sorry ass. Go write a song or paint a picture, let us figure out foreign and economic policy. Things that people who deal with reality and common sense deal with effectively. I know this is totally lost on Socialists like you.
Better yet, pack up your shit and move to Canada and take Rosie O'Donnell and the fucking Baldwin brothers with you!
you don't know that I'm not fucking Brute Krulak, do you?
Here's 1 clue, buddy: he spent more time in The Crotch than I did, but then, the reason I left was to deal with foreigners and policy.
It so happens that Fred (supra) is another good example of a fellow who disagrees with the Maximum Cipher precisely because of his own experiences with force, violence and foreigners.
So it's entirely possible that yours is the sorriest ass among us. So I'd suggest that you stick to the subject, rather than speculate about
the writers' personalities.
and he was probably too short to fuck you.
In any case, thank you for your service. I am truly sorry if that horrible experience causes you pain. However, if you are going to make statemnets that I feel are baseless and moronic, I will give that opinion.
some of us are responsible for keeping the rest of us out of trouble, i.e., don't get into shit that is pointless, unprofitable, or unlikely to be successful.
Every company grade, every MBA knows how to think ahead. The question that can't be answered here is, how is Iraq going to get us to our goal?
Any idiot can send people to die pointlessly. There's no skill involved, as we see in BushCo. But they're not stupid, they know they can rely on the chest-beaters to support this as showing "we're tough", and they know this will appeal to the people who are timid, and those who see politics as entertainment.
We're not tough, we're just thoughtless.
The answer is simple: Iraq will get the Bush administration to its goal of frightening people into maintaining Republican power. There's no other justification, or they'd be showing it.
Any moron could have figured (hell, I did) that invasion would fragment Iraqi politics, cause civil war, open the area to the influence of Iran, and leave us exposed to an indefinite hemorrhage of blood and money. The economists figured the oil would finance the war, because they didn't talk to the soldiers about how thoroughly war fucks things up.
Militarily, invasion was very feasible. Politically, it only justifiable from the POV of domestic politics. It was lose-lose, and guess what, that's where we're headed.
Mark my words.
that you might think any suggestion that leaders should use their FUCKING! brains is baseless and moronic.
I guess we have to chalk it up to cultural differences.
Which side do you suppose al Qaeda is?
http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/
I'd much rather have somebody who puts their money where their mouth is, thanks anyway
Lemme see...
We protect you weakling musicians and artists
We are the only ones who have common sense
Democrats = Socialists
Move to Canada
Down with the Baldwins and Rosie O'Donnell
Dude, those are so from YESTERDAY'S Repug playbook. Sheesh.
he can also capitalize it for you.
Actually MSD, I think you have to carry teejaynj's argument a bit further.
I think that "weakling musicians and artists" are code words for gay. After all, didn't Ann Coulter, their high priestess, recently 'out' Bill and Hillary Clinton, not to mention Al Gore, as being gay. I think she also mentioned that it is well known that anyone who is blatantly hetereosexual is just masking his/her homosexuality.
Hmm! Wouldn't that indict pretty much anyone frequenting this board (excepting the odd troll) as also being gay? LOL
-- Modified on 8/11/2006 10:33:51 AM
i.e., any man who likes women more than whiskey.
Ann is just upset that Hillary has a bigger cock than she does.
curmudgeon, curshmudgeon, beef borginnudgeon.
Lemme tell you a few things about...
(pause... its 420)
Ok, what the fuck were we talking about?
The "Gospel" [?] according to Gonzo?
Maybe you shoudda went with "The Word..."? More
non-denominational?
I'd be happy to be the rag used to wipe down that brass pole -- ANY brass pole -- in Bangkok. Or Manilla. Or Seoul. Or Ulan Bator. Or...
Fred says, "You have to do it my way, I am an all knowing pink." Fred exemplifies the propensity of pinks to argue by ridicule. That is part of the reason pinks have become irrelevant to everyone except their fellow delusional pinks; they have OD'd on their self inflated egos.
You might note that Fred has made a habit of being all the wrong places at the wrong times, which was proximate cause of his purple heart while serving as one of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children. Describing him as a pink says more about you, than about him.
Fred does not argue, nor actually recommend that you accept his point of view. Fred merely points out the obvious, i.e., that witlessness is a likely explanation for failure to recognize the obvious.
One obvious point is that few people (even if they are cave-dwelling 3rd worlders) actually enjoy being bombed. Bombing rarely convinces targets of the righteousness of any particular cause. As I have pointed out, statistics show that bombing often pisses many people right off. Same with occupation by foreign armies.
Occupations and bombing can destroy lots of things, and that is often a necessary and even good thing. But it's not a good way to conduct a political campaign, if you're running for local office, or trying to convince benighted locals to adopt your program. It does seem to work well if you're running for office on the other side of the fucking world, because there's always witless people who think bombing other people is cool.
Nobody has to ridicule you. You're already doing an excellent job, all by yourself.
