America Won the Vietnam War ! - Yes you heard right.
Many established histories are being re-assessed nowadays in the light of new information and advancement of understanding.
We constantly hear about America's defeat in Vietnam.
I revisted this war.After studying it for 1 week I came to an astonishing conclusion!
I was thinking and after considerable study about the Vietnam war when suddenly it dawned on me that we Americans had actually won that war ALTHOUGH HISTORY BOOKS CLAIM WE LOST.
YOU SEE THE WINNING OF WARS NEEDS TO BE REDEFINED.
It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
People are a country's most important resource and take 20 years to replace.By killing people America wins the wars.
In Vietnam we killed 6000000 Vietnamese.They killed only 58000 Americans.
Thus each American killed 10 of them..the enemy.
Thus an American can kill an average of 10 of them before getting killed.
This means America won the Vietnam War.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaaawwwwwwwww!!!!!
In fact America by this definition has won every single war because we kill more.
We always kill more.
When you redefine winning by body count America always wins.
No more talk about loosing any war.
We won every war.We always win.
Always.
More recently in Irak 5000 Americans have been killed but have managed to kill a million of them terrorists...
This means each American can kill at least a 100 terrorists!!!
This is astonishing.The kill ratio has gone up from 1 to 10 to 1 to 100 in 50 years.
This shows America is the technological master.
Extrapolating further this will mean in another 50 years a single American soldier could kill a thousand of the enemy!!!
Just Imagine.
Amazing.
An army of 1000 American soldiers could kill a million of the enemy easily.
Wow! Wow! Wow!
In an hundred years time a single American could kill 10000 of the enemy.
In 200 years a single American could kill a 100000 of the enemy.
An ARMY OF 1000 soldiers could thus kill a hundred million of the enemy.
That is 100 000 000 ...wow...an entire country could be destroyed by a thousand American soldiers.
We don't even need to use nukes since we are masters of weaponary.
This would actually make us Americans gods since we would have the power of life and death against all those would dare attack us.
This make me proud to be an American.
I hold up my head high when i walk the street.
My heart swells with pride.
I know we are the dominant force.
We are on the way up and will rise to the very zenith of creation.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I have to admit, this is a very interesting post with a very interesting point. No, I am dead serious.
Dubya pretty much cast America's reputation in the gutter. Whereas Afghanistan may have had SOME justification, Iraq was just plain stupidity, a war started on flimsy evidence, with victory declared without an adequate post-war plan. Dubya has cast America's reputation in the gutter, and that is a stain that will not leave for some time to come.
When we think about it, we are nowhere close to winning this so-called "war on terror". In the wake of this "war", we have seen people's liberties being chipped away. People attacked and mistreated simply because of their religious background, or their colour of their skin. Due process is thrown out the window. People's lives are irreparibly harmed.
And what if Iraq did have WMDs? What if American soldiers actually found the darned things and vindicated Dubya's venom and anger? What next? Would Canada be the friendly neighbour to the north or an annexed American State? Would Iran have been the next target? Would there be less evidence needed to justify an invasion? Would anyone look at a Muslim in the same way again, or would we assume that all Muslims are American-hating zealots? Those are outcomes that are hard to imagine, but we came very close to those realities, even without WMDs, something that I think none of us wanted to see happen.
If there was a "war on terror" to be waged, I don't think it should have simply been a "scorched-earth" policy as Dubya had promoted. What should have been done? Well I don't have the answer to that either given that I am not an esteemed politician. But it is mostly agreed that Dubya's actions have done more harm to the world than help.
Will we ever learn the lessons from Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan? No way we can tell. But one can only hope that future leaders will not abide by the "shoot first, ask questions later" policy.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by esecallum: It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
If that's the case, then the Nazis must have won the Second World War considering they were responsible for millions more deaths in both the civilian and military fields than the Allies ever were. Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, but they don't count, because they're Nazis. Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
This is satire, right?
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Just E, on E, about E, OTM...
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Wow. In a single post, one person managed to fail history, math, spelling, grammar, non-bigotry, and non-jingoism.
Or he failed satire. I'm not entirely sure which.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna:
quote:Originally posted by esecallum: It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
If that's the case, then the Nazis must have won the Second World War considering they were responsible for millions more deaths in both the civilian and military fields than the Allies ever were.
Meh...the Russians and Chinese killed a lot more (of their own people). Guess they won the war on themselves.
Posted by esecallum (Member # 2074) on :
This definition of winning wars only applies after 1945.
The reason for this is the huge advancement in our technological prowess in ww1 and ww2 spurred on by the wars.
Prior to this it does not apply.
Remember prior to 1945 soldiers were largeley cannon fodder,especially in the less civilized countries.
We Americans value our soldiers lives.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Oh, that's brilliant. I'm sure the Romans said the exact same thing back in the first or second century CE.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
Um. Wow. Just wow. If this were another joke or satire topic started by a Flare newbie, fine. The fact that this person registered over a year ago and still posted this... I'm not sure if I should be laughing.
Vietnam eh... well. It's been a long time since I read up on it. All in all. Assuming US forces killed more than the bad guys killed Americans. Fact is, there was no victory. The whole point was to stop the spread of Communism. And in that regard the US failed.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Does the JJ-Ent's naccells have enough room to at least flip 90 degrees out?
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
I'm actually quite flabbergasted as to how you haven't been banned yet. Also, being a current member of that wonderful organization you call "the Army", ONLY 58,000 KIA isn't a very good number.
You really suck at life.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Wars with definite objectives are won or lost by the realization (or lack thereof) of those objectives. Waging a war on something so subjective as "terror" allowed Bushco to declare victory whenever and to use whatever as the basis for that "victory".
If killing people equals vitory then the US lost Vietnam doubly so, as they could have nuked the country and both killed enough enemy soldiers to stop resistance and avoid years of costly military operations which killed tens of thousands of Americans and led to massive political fallout (no pun intended).
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I don't think he is trying to be "satirical", but I see his post as something a little more "cynical". I see it as more as an issue with how the U.S. has handled foreign relations, moreso how it has applied force in such situations.
The U.S. pretty much got driven out of Vietnam. The U.S. has done a pretty shitty job with Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps the only people who think they actually are winning these darned wars are those who started it in the first place.
I'm not about to dismiss esecallum's post as incoherent and him as a flame troll and wonder "why he isn't banned yet". He brought out an interesting point, and that is how the U.S. has behaved from the Vietnam War to present day. Maybe it's me, but I wonder if the lessons of Vietnam were even learned in the first place.
Maybe because I'm Canadian.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: Maybe because I'm Canadian.
Thats gotta be it Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808: I'm actually quite flabbergasted as to how you haven't been banned yet. Also, being a current member of that wonderful organization you call "the Army", ONLY 58,000 KIA isn't a very good number.
You really suck at life.
I'm not sure stupidity and/or ignorance are bannable offences.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I'm not about to dismiss esecallum's post as incoherent and him as a flame troll and wonder 'why he isn't banned yet'."
It is incoherent, though. It's hard to argue with that.
But, if we are going to take him seriously, I would point out that, if you manage to kill ten times as many of your enemy as they kill of you, and yet they still manage to force you out of their country and stay in power for the next 35+ years, that's super-losing.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
quote:Originally posted by esecallum:
I revisted this war.After studying it for 1 week I came to an astonishing conclusion!
It is no longer about territory.It is about how many were killed.
A simplistic view of war from a simplistic mind. I wish I could study a single topic for a week and then deem myself an expert. Esecallum should apply that philosophy to motorcycles, he'd be the newest member of ride2die.com.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Y'know I should point out that a while back I did a little research on our friend here and he pulled a similar stunt on some conspiracy theory forum. Most of the members simply laughed off his post. When the guys with tin foil hats don't take you seriously, then you know your fucked.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Well yeah it is "incoherent" in the context of the post. But has anyone considered that he is deliberately taking a simplistic view? After all, the Iraq war was started by a simpleton with a simplistic view himself.
The point I see is not about how many people were killed in the Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan wars, it's about how some people WANT to see the war as winnable ones when it is clearly not (evidenced by Dubya's early "Mission Accomplished" celebration). Both wars are clearly clusterfucks. But there are some people who would probably say the same thing that esecallum is. If anything, esecallum is simply pointing out that such viewpoints do exist. I for one don't agree with the viewpoint, but I can see how some people would think that way and always find a way to declare that "AMERICA ROKZ AN RULZ".
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: Does the JJ-Ent's nacelles have enough room to at least flip 90 degrees out?
Actually, upon looking at my Playmate's Model of the JJ-Prise...they do...
E, going by your reasoning the Confederacy won the American Civil War. Also, The Central Powers won WWI, as 5,711,696 Allies were killed, as opposed to 4,010,241 for the Central Powers. Anyone who has picked up a 4th grade history book will prove otherwise.
Also, If I were to play along here, and actually attempt to discuss your theory, then I'd have to point out that not all deaths on battlefields are caused by bullets bombs and hand grenades. There's also disease. More than half half of American Fatalities in WWI were caused by disease or accidents. So, in theory, an "Enemy of America" could kill 400 Americans in battle, and only 100 die of disease. American soldiers could have killed 200 of the enemy, with 600 Enemy dying from disease. Would America be considered "the winner" then?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: I He brought out an interesting point, and that is how the U.S. has behaved from the Vietnam War to present day. Maybe it's me, but I wonder if the lessons of Vietnam were even learned in the first place.
Well, the lone exception being the elder-Bush's handling of the Kuwait war: he managed to build a coalition of allies, maintain a very high public support base and severely limit the press's reporting from the theatre of battle. He only fucked up in forcing General Schwartzkopf (sp?) to negotiate the cease fire- something outside his skill-set, which was a diasater.
Where did his kid go so wrong?
Posted by esecallum (Member # 2074) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
E, going by your reasoning the Confederacy won the American Civil War. Also, The Central Powers won WWI, as 5,711,696 Allies were killed, as opposed to 4,010,241 for the Central Powers. Anyone who has picked up a 4th grade history book will prove otherwise.
Also, If I were to play along here, and actually attempt to discuss your theory, then I'd have to point out that not all deaths on battlefields are caused by bullets bombs and hand grenades. There's also disease. More than half half of American Fatalities in WWI were caused by disease or accidents. So, in theory, an "Enemy of America" could kill 400 Americans in battle, and only 100 die of disease. American soldiers could have killed 200 of the enemy, with 600 Enemy dying from disease. Would America be considered "the winner" then?
Sean,I just told you it only applies from after 1945.Have you got Alzheimers? Can you not remember what you read?
learn to read.I said this law applies only after 1945.
Your examples don't count as were before 1945.
Understood?
We did win the Vietnam War.The final phase that forced the NVA to sign the Paris Peace accord was Operation Linebacker. This started in roughly April 72, it was the bombing of the North. We owned the skies over north vietnam and we bombed them into the dark ages.
We won every single major engagement with the Vietcong.
We destroyed their cities.We controlled the skies.
Not a single Vietcong bullet landed on American soil.
We could act with impunity.
They always attack us first.We are defending.USA does not fire first.We have rules of engagement.
Communism is dead.The Soviets imploded from within.
Vietnam is ruled by tyrants and the natives are held in control by fear and the secret police.They are very poor.
I am sick and tired of your Bashing of America.
Why?
Explain that.
America saved Europe from Hitler,Communists and Terrorists.We gave you Marshall Plan Aid.
We rebuilt you.
Remember that when you are in bed tonight staring at the dark ceiling.
This is how you repay us?
Do you have an ounce of decency in you?
Churchil was on his knees begging USA to save you lot.You were down to your last bullet.We sent you food parcels,clothes,logistical support.
You are ungrateful.
REMEMBER AMERICA IS THE ONLY INVINCIBLE BASTION OF FREEDOM.
Without America it would be over run by barbarians and retrogrades.We would be in the stone age being beheaded by you know who.
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
Maybe I'm stupid (No doubt in his next post E will tell me that I am), but who are you talking about when you say "you know who"? Voldemort?
Well a rinky-dinky-doo and an America, fuck YEAH! as the song goes. Capitalism won and killed a shitload of people in the process, thereby winning everything that it can: War, Peace, Sport, Advertising, Harry Potter, Sex etc. Yay! Go America. big thumbs up E! You done good. We can now rewrite the history of the world to show the truth. Because you're right. There is a world conspiracy against America. I admit it.
Woh. What the fuck is this guy? Seriously, why am I even asking this?
Posted by The Ginger Beacon (Member # 1585) on :
What the hell, I'm gonna go for the big one here. E, can I caome stay in your wooden shack with you and all the parcel bombs you've not yet sent out. I'm short a few quid at the moment and could use a holiday in the woods.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Saltah'na: I'm not about to dismiss esecallum's post as incoherent and him as a flame troll and wonder "why he isn't banned yet".
Ok, I'm going to. The guy* is a troll. He isn't posting these things up to be satirical, he isn't posting them up to bring out any interesting points, he's posting to flame, to bait, and to stoke the fires further by occasionally contributing more rubbish that would have to tunnel upwards for three days before it hit the bottom end of "stupid".
There is no deeper meaning here, no hidden code, no well-disguised intent to introduce a meaningful conversation. It's rambling pish, the only calculated aspect of which is the intent to annoy people with preposterous arguments. You might as well listen to a drunk tramp and try to divine meaning from his mutterings, or watch "Spongebob Squarepants" and try to take away some deeper insights into the study of symbolic logic. It. Just. Won't. Happen.
Why?
Because he's a troll. There is nothing behind the curtain on this one. America didn't win the Vietnam war. The only time Churchill was ever on his knees was when he keeled over from drinking too much. The past is the past, and trying to stir up an argument over jingoistic nonsense won't change that. It also won't change the fact that when you get right down to it, no-one wins a war. One side or another might claim victory, but in fact all they are doing is declaring that they lost less than the other folks. It's the biggest mistake in the history of human civilization, and the nasty joke is that it's a mistake that we all can't stop making. Much like encouraging Esecallum.
Discuss anything you like, but please, let's not dance around pretending that the guy is something that he's not.
* Or girl, could be either, and I don't mean to discriminate. I'm fully willing to adopt an "equal opportunities" approach to this matter and accept that both men and women can be annoying trolls should they so choose. I just went with "guy" because it was easier than typing "Guy/Girl" all the time. And less confrontational than "arsehole".
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
Asstroll, ma'am. Asstroll. Not nessessary to sugar coat anything, my dear.
actually i'm more curious. what is E's political denomination? Liberarian?
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Er...Ma'am? :-) My dear? :-)
Posted by Sean (Member # 2010) on :
quote:Originally posted by esecallum:
quote:Originally posted by Sean: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
E, going by your reasoning the Confederacy won the American Civil War. Also, The Central Powers won WWI, as 5,711,696 Allies were killed, as opposed to 4,010,241 for the Central Powers. Anyone who has picked up a 4th grade history book will prove otherwise.
Also, If I were to play along here, and actually attempt to discuss your theory, then I'd have to point out that not all deaths on battlefields are caused by bullets bombs and hand grenades. There's also disease. More than half half of American Fatalities in WWI were caused by disease or accidents. So, in theory, an "Enemy of America" could kill 400 Americans in battle, and only 100 die of disease. American soldiers could have killed 200 of the enemy, with 600 Enemy dying from disease. Would America be considered "the winner" then?
Sean,I just told you it only applies from after 1945.Have you got Alzheimers? Can you not remember what you read?
learn to read.I said this law applies only after 1945.
Your examples don't count as were before 1945.
Understood?
Yeah, E, I understand that your reasoning allows the US to "win" some of the most controversial wars of the past century, where America was clearly not the victor, in order for America to seem like it rules the world. As a student of history,and a proud American, I can tell you that we are not the end-all be all of the world. And no amount of theorizing or posting complete bullshit on the internet will change that. We didn't claim victory. So what? We learned form our mistakes, and next time, if there is a next time, we'll do things differently.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I'd like to make a comment about esecallums astounding level of ignorance, but instead I'm going to go do something productive. Something I don't think E knows how to do very well. So that said I'm taking a cruise up to the lake to snap some photos for my school assignment.
Before I go, I just want to say that I feel sorry for esecallum, he must have a pretty sad life if he has to get his kicks from trolling on the internet.
It'd be nice to see this abortion of a thread locked when I get back. But I'll understand if you want to help boost E's ego for a little while longer.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: Er...Ma'am? :-) My dear? :-)
Ah fuck. Your tag made me think...
fuck, that's what those red lines mean on the panel 'Testes alarm'
LOL, sorry SIR/Ma'am/it-by-choice/it-by-bobbit...
quote:Originally posted by Sean:
quote:Originally posted by esecallum:
quote:Originally posted by Sean: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
E, going by your reasoning the Confederacy won the American Civil War. Also, The Central Powers won WWI, as 5,711,696 Allies were killed, as opposed to 4,010,241 for the Central Powers. Anyone who has picked up a 4th grade history book will prove otherwise.
Also, If I were to play along here, and actually attempt to discuss your theory, then I'd have to point out that not all deaths on battlefields are caused by bullets bombs and hand grenades. There's also disease. More than half half of American Fatalities in WWI were caused by disease or accidents. So, in theory, an "Enemy of America" could kill 400 Americans in battle, and only 100 die of disease. American soldiers could have killed 200 of the enemy, with 600 Enemy dying from disease. Would America be considered "the winner" then?
Sean,I just told you it only applies from after 1945.Have you got Alzheimers? Can you not remember what you read?
learn to read.I said this law applies only after 1945.
Your examples don't count as were before 1945.
Understood?
Yeah, E, I understand that your reasoning allows the US to "win" some of the most controversial wars of the past century, where America was clearly not the victor, in order for America to seem like it rules the world. As a student of history,and a proud American, I can tell you that we are not the end-all be all of the world. And no amount of theorizing or posting complete bullshit on the internet will change that. We didn't claim victory. So what? We learned form our mistakes, and next time, if there is a next time, we'll do things differently.
ROFLCOPTER! That's just it. We won't learn. or rather some people just learn that making bombs, killing lots of peps, causing destruction...
is simply more fun than being a civized fucktard. In histories's time, it's always been more fun. totally explains why fucktards in middleast even consider all the acts of terror they inflick upon themselves and others.
Cause God told 'em too...
*sighs, sadly* LOCK the fucking thread, please!!!!
Posted by esecallum (Member # 2074) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean:
quote:Originally posted by esecallum:
quote:Originally posted by Sean: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
E, going by your reasoning the Confederacy won the American Civil War. Also, The Central Powers won WWI, as 5,711,696 Allies were killed, as opposed to 4,010,241 for the Central Powers. Anyone who has picked up a 4th grade history book will prove otherwise.
Also, If I were to play along here, and actually attempt to discuss your theory, then I'd have to point out that not all deaths on battlefields are caused by bullets bombs and hand grenades. There's also disease. More than half half of American Fatalities in WWI were caused by disease or accidents. So, in theory, an "Enemy of America" could kill 400 Americans in battle, and only 100 die of disease. American soldiers could have killed 200 of the enemy, with 600 Enemy dying from disease. Would America be considered "the winner" then?
Sean,I just told you it only applies from after 1945.Have you got Alzheimers? Can you not remember what you read?
learn to read.I said this law applies only after 1945.
Your examples don't count as were before 1945.
Understood?
Yeah, E, I understand that your reasoning allows the US to "win" some of the most controversial wars of the past century, where America was clearly not the victor, in order for America to seem like it rules the world. As a student of history,and a proud American, I can tell you that we are not the end-all be all of the world. And no amount of theorizing or posting complete bullshit on the internet will change that. We didn't claim victory. So what? We learned form our mistakes, and next time, if there is a next time, we'll do things differently.
It is not about reasoning.Draw a graph of technological advance and you will see it starts to take off after ww2 about 1945 due to the experience and wisdom accumalated in the previous wars.
And also for your information we are very nearly ruling the world already.
Our mega corporations, our multinationals are already setting policy and agenda all over the world.The multipurpopse FDA,CNC,EPA,FAA,WTC,WHO,etc set policy and worldwide agendas.
Slowly and surely our mind set ,our politics, our culture is taking over the world.
Everyone is trying to come to America.
Our culture dominates the world.Everyone wants to be American.Look at the Mexicans trying to swarm in.
Look at Pakindia illegals desperately trying to come to America.
When you watch the News it is always America at the top.
We can buy any African country with money and guns. We have already opened McDonalds in the very heart of our enemy ,the Russians capital Moscow!!!
Imagine that.With our dagger in the enemies heart!
We lend them money.They owe $80 billion to us.
They are dependent on America.We export wheat as they are communists and are incapable of growing food.Remember the communist bread ques?
You as a student of history are blind to what is happening today.Inch by inch we are taking over the world.Our advisors are clever.They use bits of paper to take over the world.
And you know something this could be good for the world.After all if only one country and culture existed in the world called America there would be no more wars.No more boundary disputes.No more strife.
Nothing to fight for.
Pax Americana
PAX AMERICANA.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
You're kind of making us look bad dude. And our PR is low enough already.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Moscow, "the very heart of our enemy"? What is this, 1962?
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
I'm more amused by McDonald's being your dagger's tip. I've never looked at Ronald and the Hamburglar in quite that way before.
And I suppose Esecallum, since America rules the world and is able to buy up nations left, right and centre (and sell them burgers at reasonable prices) you won't need to worry about all that American debt bought up by the Chinese? That was about a trillion, wasn't it?
And since when was the WHO an American mega corporation or multinational? That would be the international public health co-ordinating body...that is headquartered in Geneva?
This is fun, but it's fun in the same way crowds in the olden says had a gas taking the piss out of John Merrick. Sure, we all get a laugh and get to feel better about ourselves, but we're just kicking downwards and at the end of the day, someone is left wearing a face-bag and crying at a world they don't understand.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness: Ah fuck. Your tag made me think...
fuck, that's what those red lines mean on the panel 'Testes alarm'
LOL, sorry SIR/Ma'am/it-by-choice/it-by-bobbit...
That's quite all right, you're not the first to think that (I've had some interesting conversations on AIM because of my chosen screen name). Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Esecallum:
quote:Everyone is trying to come to America.
Last I checked,
business was actually moving away from America.
The EU is muscling up trade agreements and consolidating its sum total market share pan-nationally,
China is steaming on like a freight-train in industrilization and IT trade (giving no heed as to what it does to their air and shrubberies),
Russia is about 10-15 years away from rebuilding and developing their industrial and finacial base into a sovereign capitalist-hybrid behemoth.
India and China are in space (more or less :.) ).
What does the US do? Well, you are working overtime to shrug off the accumulated debt and filth of the past 8 years and just trying to get back to plus-minus-zero,
while simultaneously being sabotaged by your own people,
who blame the new guys for the mess they themselves created and abandoned, working towards everything staying the same,
or preferably regresses further back into the age of Ronny "Chesterfield" Reagan.
THESE ARE FVCKING ROBERT LUDLUM DAYS.
quote:When you watch the News it is always America at the top.
You live in America, Sherlock, watching that special kind of American "fishbowl" news, small wonders your news covers you at the top.
Regarding international news, don't flatter yourself, but a lot of the time it covers US dealings, yes.
And two-thirds of that time,
the news describe your childish and embarassing tug-of-war infighting,
and the whole world watches (in their spare time, when they're not occupied with real work),
My sincere prayers go out to those of you constructive americans, I've met many of you and liked the experience (especially over indian food). You are a great people, you wish to be. For this reason above all, your capacity for good, I've sent you this, my only post in this thread. Goddamn it hurts having my face turn into glass, hurts like a mvthvrfvckvr, and all for you. That's how much I love you.
PS. This format of constructing posts is pretentious. DS
ABOVE ALL ELSE, IT IS PRETENTIOUS.
PRETENTIOUS IN THE EXTREME.
THAT IS ALL.
that is all....
...
*fading-blues-guitar-twang-like-in-end-of-Nancy-Sinatra's-"Bang Bang My Baby Shot Me Down"*
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: I'm more amused by McDonald's being your dagger's tip. I've never looked at Ronald and the Hamburglar in quite that way before.
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: I'm more amused by McDonald's being your dagger's tip. I've never looked at Ronald and the Hamburglar in quite that way before.
I like that one!
Posted by HopefulNebula (Member # 1933) on :
Oh, no, not again.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Gotta agree with FawnDoo on this- he's just a troll. It's one ting to have a real discussion on a topic with someone you disagree with- we all have with Omega for example- but when some idiot replies with "Have you got Alzheimers?", that's just troling for eaction and not content.
Asshat trolling aside, there are thousands of people certain we did not win Vietnam- and those are the vets that served there and their families.
It's kinda sad he's incapable of having this discussion- but then again, the Glen Beck audience only hears what it wants to hear anyway.
It's scary how many people really think like Esecallum- whole rallies of them unsure exactly what they are protesting, but protesting -on command- nonetheless.
Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: It's scary how many people really think like Esecallum- whole rallies of them unsure exactly what they are protesting, but protesting -on command- nonetheless.
*claps. long and hard, totally in agreement*
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
Hey, I have seen some clips of Glenn Beck. If he told me to protest something, I would, because he looks crazy enough to smash my head to paste with a hammer if I refuse. Look at his eyes. They're tiny and crazy. It's like looking at a psychotic chicken.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
This shit is so crazy that it undermines all of his so-called 9/12 project. I really wonder how many people at those protests know that the book Beck keeps pushing was written by a paranoid, racist conspiracy nut that both the FBI, the Mormon Church and Time magazine considered crazy and/or dangerous.
quote: Besides bursting with factual errors, Skousen's book characterized African-American children as "pickaninnies" and described American slave owners as the "worst victims" of the slavery system. Quoting the historian Fred Albert Shannon, "The Making of America" explained that "[slave] gangs in transit were usually a cheerful lot, though the presence of a number of the more vicious type sometimes made it necessary for them all to go in chains."
In-Sane.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Watching Glenn Beck's show is like watching The Colbert Report without the laugh track. His claims are so absurd that you wonder if on some level he knows that what he's saying is bullshit.
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
I would like to say of course he knows it's bullshit, just as I suspect every single psychic on TV does, but every time I look at him I get a little thrill of worry that he might actually believe what he says. Either way he says his stuff and gets paid, nutjobs get validation and everyone else gets something to laugh at. And his mad, tiny eyes stare on, squinting at the world like malevolent raisins in a doughy bun.
Mind you, at least you Americans have Beck, we don't really have an equivalent over here in the UK, at least not on his level. There's Richard Littlejohn, but he tends to work towards his hate-induced stroke by writing for the tabloids. Jeremy Kyle? Does shouting at glassy-eyed chavs count? What about George Galloway, the man who perfectly illustrates what happens when God wants to make a person, but only has two eyes, some hair and a perineum left in the toolbox at the time? The UK news scene needs a Glenn Beck!
Posted by FawnDoo (Member # 1421) on :
The above is worded badly, sorry - I don't think Beck is a psychic, just that he and they have certain "they must know this is bullshit" aspects in common.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I like that one!