There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.
When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost: an average of 18,334 per year.
d. John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost. That is an average of 5,800 per year.
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
g. In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But� It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.
It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick
It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida!!!!
But Wait. There�s more!
JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. This exchange between Senators John Glenn and Senator Howard Metzenbaum is worth reading. Not only is it a pretty impressive impromptu speech, but it's also a good example of one man's explanation of why men and women in the armed services do what they do for a living.
This IS a typical, though sad, example of what some who have never served think of the military.
Senator Metzenbaum (speaking to Senator Glenn): "How can you run for Senate when you've never held a real job?"
Senator Glenn (D-Ohio): "I served 23 years in the United States Marine Corps. I served through two wars. I flew 149 missions. My plane was hit by anti-aircraft fire on 12 different occasions. I was in the space program. It wasn't my checkbook, Howard; it was my life on the line. It was not a nine-to-five job, where I took my tie off to take the daily cash receipts to the bank."
"I ask you to go with me ... as I went the other day.. to a veteran's hospital and look those men ...with their mangled bodies in the eye, and tell THEM they didn't hold a job!
You go with me to the Space Program at NASA and go, as I have gone, to the widows and Orphans of Ed White, Gus Grissom and Roger Chaffee...and you look those kids in the eye and tell them that their DADS didn't hold a job.
You go with me on Memorial Day and you stand in Arlington National Cemetery, where I have more friends buried than I'd like to remember, and you watch those waving flags.
You stand there, and you think about this nation, and you tell ME that those people didn't have a job?
What about you?"
For those who don't remember.. During W.W.II, Howard Metzenbaum was an attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA.
Now he's a Senator!
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Also, John Glenn hasn't been a senator since 1999. Howard Metzenbaum hasn't been a senator since 1995. And on another edit (for god's sake, did the person who wrote this tripe do any research?), Metzenbaum apparently never represented the Communist Party of the USA. He earned his bachelor's degree from Ohio State in 1939, earned his J.D. in 1941 from Ohio State, practiced law in Cleveland for a very short while before serving in the Ohio House of Representatives from 1943 to 1947, and then serving in the Ohio Senate from 1947 to 1951.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Impressive, copy-pasting something that's been floating around the internet for over a year and contains more logical fallacies than Tim has posts. Really.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Regardless of the origins of this as a whole, the two halves of it are still pretty interesting. I noticed that Snopes didn't debunk any of the points in either half, just its origins as an "improptu" speech.
B.J.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Iraq is going as well as Waco! Great news!
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Beyond that, it isn't Snopes' job to do more than say whether or not something is an urban legend. But, if you want: the problem here is that this piece articulates a ridiculous moral calculus wherein we only have to worry about a war if it is killing more soldiers than the worst war ever. It presumes that War is some sort of universal Platonic concept with only one variable: friendly soldiers killed.
Yet the various wars listed were all fought under vastly different circumstances and for vastly different reasons, and in fact there was serious opposition to almost all of them. Take Bosnia, for example, which happened to have been vigorously, loudly opposed by some of the very same people championing the invasion of Iraq. (It also had some opposition from the left.) President Bush's original campaign consisted largely of pointing out how terrible an idea "nation building," as practiced in Bosnia, was.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Hey, this IS the flameboard... I'm just waiting to see posts of researched numbers to debunk it.
The speech is accurate enough but what about the numbers cited in the rest of it?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't doubt the U.S. casualty figures given, but that's immaterial because the argument they're supposedly in service of is baseless.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
Amazing what counts as accuracy these days.
You'd be hard pressed to find anyone that defends what the U.S. did in Korea or Vietnam in the name of containing communism (especially since we reached a tenuous stalemate in one and failed in the other). Truman took a lot of heat for Korea as Johnson did for Vietnam. Nixon was elected president on a "law and order" campaign that included a "secret plan" to end the conflict in Vietnam.
Comparing the Iraq conflict with World War II is ludicrous. We declared war on Germany the same day that Germany declared war on us, which was three days after we declared war on Japan. Japan was allied with German and Italy, who were engaged in war against our allies, Great Britian and France.
In Iraq, we started attacking a fully-contained (for over a decade) country that (contrary to our intelligence, as we found out after taking the country) had no way whatsoever to harm its neighbors, let alone the US. Iraq wasn't allied with any country or group engaged in attacks on the US.
Comparing the US casualty figures from any of these wars is ludicrous. We've lost 2,000 troops due to Iraq; the bulk of those losses have been since Bush declared the mission accomplished and the result of an entrenched resistance. How many troops did we lose in World War II, Korea, or Vietnam after the official end of hostilities?
quote:In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
For the record, both Iran and North Korea have resumed their nuclear power plant programs over the protests and warnings of the Bush Administration. The Taliban has not been crushed, and one can hardly call Afghanistan liberated when you consider the US only has Kabul under any sort of control. Al-Qaida is still up and running, as we've since in the time since the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
"There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq."
Deadly for Americans, that is. Since the beginning of the year, how many troops have died? Close to 1,000. Most of them in combat. How many died last month--90 something?
"When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
FDR led us into World War II."
I believe conservatives and Republicans vehemently opposed World War II, because it would be against their "isolationist" viewpoints. Ever read "The Plot Against America?"
"Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost. That is an average of 5,800 per year."
Between 1961 and 1965 we lost 1,864 soldiers. True, the conflict was still relatively low-level...but that's for four years.
"Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions."
Clinton tried to kill bin Laden in 1998 and was roundly condemned by conservatives for "distracting from Monicagate." So we know that until 2001 conservatives believed that we should not retaliate against terrorist attacks. Also, bin Laden only attacked the US twice before 9/11, in the AFrican Embassies (1998) and the USS Cole (2000). Other attacks atrributed to him were not his doing.
"In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people."
Crippled al-Qaeda...for God's sake, today, in Amman, Jordan, more than 60 people were killed in suicide bombings! Who is responsible? Probably al-Qaeda. Not to mention attacks in Bali, London, Egypt, Spain, Istanbul, and the list goes on.
"The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But� It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation."
If you only look at the invasion from the fall to Baghdad.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.
Buh?
The numbers are misleading...considering the number of soldiers killed the the Pacific theater.
And besides, didn't we declared war on Japan and then Germany declared war on the us?
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Actually some of the first US casualties of WWII were the crewmembers of the USS Rueben James killed by - wait for it - a German U-Boat, on Halloween, 1941. Before Pearl Harbor. FDR kept us OUT of WWII for as long as possible. To quote (possibly, but you might want to check Snopes) Churchill " the Americans will do the right thing, after they have exhausted every other alternative."
Another important distinction - we have not declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Yes, we have instead declared war on terror.
Posted by HerbShrump (Member # 1230) on :
quote: Clinton tried to kill bin Laden in 1998 and was roundly condemned by conservatives for "distracting from Monicagate." So we know that until 2001 conservatives believed that we should not retaliate against terrorist attacks. Also, bin Laden only attacked the US twice before 9/11, in the AFrican Embassies (1998) and the USS Cole (2000). Other attacks atrributed to him were not his doing.
bin Laden (well, Al-Qaeda) may have been involved in the February 26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center that killed 6 and injured 1040. It is believed that Ramzi Yousef, the bomber, had connections to Al-Qaeda and/or Osama bin Laden.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
From what I read, bin Laden had no hand in that. All I can find is that he supported it in 1993 (via fatwa or something) but didn't actually fund it. It was Ramzi Yousef's idea, and within two years of the bombing, he was captured and on trial.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq."
That's comparing apples and hedgehogs. Either compare the combat deaths in Iraq with the combat deaths in Detroit (I'm guessing the number is somewhat less than one), or compare all killings in Iraq with all killings in Detroit (I expect the number in Iraq will be significantly higher than 35).
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:JOHN GLENN (ON THE SENATE FLOOR) Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
There is one string of numbers that isn't accurate considering that this occured not on the Senate floor and happened more than thirty years ago and has approximately ZERO to do with the string of jingoistic comparisons by which it is preceded.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay.....
JOHN GLENN (not ON THE SENATE FLOOR) ~30 years before Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. ....
What about you?"
Posted by TheWoozle (Member # 929) on :
And how many suicide car bombings where there in Detroit? How many roads in detroit have makeshift bombs planted in them?
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Okay.....
JOHN GLENN (not ON THE SENATE FLOOR) ~30 years before Mon, 26 Jan 2004 11:13
Well, actually it was May, 3, 1974. I mean if one was even remotely concerned about accurately reflecting the facts.
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Okay Some people still don't understand why military personnel do what they do for a living. ....
What about you?"
And so this whole thing is a straw man fallacy. I ask you what is the relevancy of one remarkably foolhardy statement made by a senatorial candidate in a Democratic Primary in Ohio 30 years ago? (As an aside does knowing that Glenn was running as a Democrat in a Democratic Primary in any way affect your opinion of the story? Should it?)
Don't get me wrong, it's a very persuasively written and stirring speech, invoking thoughts of service and sacrifice for liberty and land. It's just that precisely the problem that so many of us have with this conflict is that we DO understand and appreciate the lives of our professional military personnel. My grandfather had half his intestines shot out in the Ardennes by a 14-year-old Czechoslovokian Nazi recruit. He survived to have my father and remarkably remains alive today thanks in no small part to the medical care he received after the war and his participation in various VFW (also he's a stubborn old bastard who still splits his own firewood at 82). My uncle is a veteran of this very Iraqi war. I am very proud of their service, and also intensely conscious of how valuable their lives and that service has been.
And so my problem with this conflict is not that I don't respect the military, rather that I do. And I'd hate to have the implicit trust for their leadership that these brave men and women who put their lives on the line be misplaced. And in the views of both my grandfather and my uncle, it has been. Both have been active (my uncle VERY active) in veterans groups since their service, and what they are seeing is an utter lack of respect for our service people when they return.
I was going to go into the fallacies in the other 'arguments', but I don't actually have that much time and others are doing a capable job. I just wanted to call attention to the fact that Metzenbaum's question, a) does not reflect my views, nor the views of any democrats that I know of, and b) has been distorted and misassociated with the deliberate intent of manipulating well-intentioned right-leaning folks into thinking that left-leaning folks do not honor or respect our veterans. Which we do. Again: we do. Like veterans. And professional military.
So, do you still imagine that Metzenbaum's (foolish albeit misconstrued and taken-out-of-context) statements of 30 years ago in some way reflect the opinion of some majority of leftist thinking here, today in 2005? Because I'm here to tell you that they do not. And I'm here to tell you that John Glenn is an American hero. And that the lives of such heros should never be squandered.
[ November 10, 2005, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
And this whole John Glenn thing does not even take into account the cabal of Neoconservatives who had been pushing for the removal of Saddam for quite a while, and apparently found a willing and purposefully uninformed president in Mr. Bush.
See if any of these names from a letter sent to Mr. Clinton in 1998. sound familiar:
quote:January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton President of the United States Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein�s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of �containment� of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq�s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam�s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world�s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Oh, hey, more names from the June 3, 1997 Statement of Principles
quote:Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg Francis Fukuyama Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz
[ November 10, 2005, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
So what SHOULD the U.S. have done? Sat and mourned the dead of 9/11 and yelled "Shame, shame on you" at Al-Qaeda and bin Laden? What was the socially acceptable response? Economic sanctions? Does anyone REALLY believe those work? Wasn't France & Germany supplying Saddam with tech, equipment, and cash during the LAST attempt to impose sanctions? Someone is always available to be bought. Sanctions only cause discomfort to the little man, not the maniacal brutal dictators that keep them down anyway.
Bush the first stopped short of removing Saddam from power because all the geniuses warned that it could inflame the Arab world against the U.S. Bush the second decided to correct that first mistake with an even BIGGER mistake.
The real question is where do you go from here? Just pull out and let them fight it out amongst themselves till the next Saddam rises to power? Stick it out and try to make things better at the cost of the lives of our own troops? Turn everything over to the Saudis to handle? What is the best option? How do you bring peace to a region that hasn't known peace since Isaac and Ishmael?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: So what SHOULD the U.S. have done? Sat and mourned the dead of 9/11 and yelled "Shame, shame on you" at Al-Qaeda and bin Laden?
Clearly Mr. Bush should have attacked Eritrea...who had as much to to with 9/11 as Iraq.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So, how's that getting Bin Laden thing going?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Say what you want about FDR, TRuman, Johnson, Clinton, you can't call them purposefully generally uninformed.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: [QB] So what SHOULD the U.S. have done? Sat and mourned the dead of 9/11 and yelled "Shame, shame on you" at Al-Qaeda and bin Laden?
Does the country Afghanistan ring a bell? You know, Southwestern Asian country ruled by the Taliban that was sheltering Osama bin Laden after the September 11, 2001, attacks and refused to hand him over? You know, the country that we had a legitimate claim to attack because it was harboring a wanted terrorist mastermind? It's the other country that's still a quagmire because we got bored with it and decided to mess with Iraq like a drunken frat guy who sees a brother passed out on the couch.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
It's always fun to read back what those lying scumbags were saying before the war and then to compare it with what they said afterwards, especially re: the "humanitarian" concerns that the invasion was supposedly motivated by. You know, when you want to remind yourself of the kind of hypocrisy this administration deals in.
"How do you bring peace to a region that hasn't known peace since Isaac and Ishmael?"
I'll tell you how you don't, by invading part of that region under false premises pretending to be an advocate of democracy and human rights while really having absolutely no interest in any of its affairs and lacking even the most basic plan or desire for long-term commitment. I guess those "geniuses" were just wrong on all counts, eh?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
" the Americans will do the right thing, after they have exhausted every other alternative."
Well it's nice to know you yanks will get around to doing the right thing... eventually.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
What would the situation be in Iraq if Bush I had continued on to Bagdad with all the little coalition behind him and taken Saddam out during Gulf War I? Would it have stopped 9/11?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I guess we'll never know.
Perhaps we'll just have to deal with reality as it exists.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Great. So what is YOUR suggestions for how to deal with this?
(Hey, at least I've given everyone something to post about! )
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: What would the situation be in Iraq if Bush I had continued on to Bagdad with all the little coalition behind him and taken Saddam out during Gulf War I? Would it have stopped 9/11?
Like Jay said, we'll never know for certain. Based on everything I've read and watched about the planning for the September 11th attacks, bin Laden is pissed at the United States because we were using Saudi Arabi as our base of operations in the first Persian Gulf War (and not because we were challenging Saddam Hussein). Bin Laden's also has a beef with the Saudi royal family for allowing the US to protect it instead of bin Laden's gang of terrorists from Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: Great. So what is YOUR suggestions for how to deal with this?
What do we do moving forward?
Impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
Hold new elections.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Great. So what you are saying is that this Mighty NEW Prez will cause an automatic ceasefire, immediately teleport all U.S. troops home, and ALL the factions of the Arab world will be content and play "Kiss & Makeup" with everyone. Thousands of years of warring will come to an end with a "huh, guess you are right", and we can all get together and sing the Smurf song.
BTW...since there was only ONE smurfette... was THAT why all the Smurfs were blue?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: Great. So what you are saying is that this Mighty NEW Prez will cause an automatic ceasefire, immediately teleport all U.S. troops home, and ALL the factions of the Arab world will be content and play "Kiss & Makeup" with everyone. Thousands of years of warring will come to an end with a "huh, guess you are right", and we can all get together and sing the Smurf song.
BTW...since there was only ONE smurfette... was THAT why all the Smurfs were blue?
No, what I'm talking about is the first rule of holes.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Well, this new president couldn't possibly be worse than the one you already have. Maybe he'll institute a global peace treaty or get down on his knees and give fellatio to ever member of the middle east. Or perhaps he'll be muslim and bring the U.S. under a state of law similar to that of the middle east, thus giving those terrorists no reason to hate america since they're now technically part of them. or maybe he'll claim to be some sort of prophet of Allah and usher in a new world of peace and harmony where little bunny rabbits in battle armor fight in cute little gladatorial arenas to decide who wins whatever arguments the world can think of. Then, once the world is in a state of peace marijuana will be legalized globally and will be the key to keeping the peace since everyone will be so stoned out of thier trees that the biggest worry on thier minds is whether to buy Purple Indica or White Rhino for thier next session.
I realize that none of this makes sense, except for the marijuana = World Peace thing. It's just my way of saying that no one person, even if he is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, can stop people from fighting and hating one another. So it's better to just mind your own business and let them kill each other until there all gone. pretty hard to fight a war when there's no one left.
BTW... There were two smurfette's, the other one was a redhead.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
BX: Trying to restore accuracy is all, without quoting the whole thing.....
Regardless of anything, and everything, else, I do support the troops in combat zones, regardless of how I feel about why they are there. Thousands of those that are there joined for the college money, and are getting lead instead of green. The idea of that sucks, but they also went in to it knowingly. The guardsmen that are sent joined for the money, or went from active service to get their 20 letter. Which, I believe you retired USAF? Isn't what it used to be is it? Until people really start paying attention to those that they elect, or follow, in their leaders peace is not going to happen. So I support the fodder, and say to hell with the rest.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Fusion power. If we had spent the money we had spent of Iraq in solving our actual national vulnerability - total dependance on foreign power - we'd be better off.
We've spent billions of dollars, for that money we could have well funded any of several permanent energy solutions. As it is we're funding the Saudi's who take their cut and pass the rest to "the terrorists".
Either that or take the traditional British tack. Seize and "colonize" the Saudi fields. No insurgents, because we remove the population. THEN fund the permanent alternative energy programs.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Oh yes. Fusion power. I wonder when that will come around. Probably when the oil companies have squeezed ever last drop of it out of the planet.
Those poor dinosaurs must be rolling around in thier graves if they had the intelligence to understand what we were doing with thier remains.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: Oh yes. Fusion power. I wonder when that will come around. Probably when the oil companies have squeezed ever last drop of it out of the planet.
Those poor dinosaurs must be rolling around in thier graves if they had the intelligence to understand what we were doing with thier remains.
Ohhh! Good idea - start a religion that considers prehistoric flora and fauna 'sacred' and thus any petroleum product is a desecration and should be stopped! I'm sure then, someone would just start the 'order of the holy deuterium' and campaign against it's annhilation to produce energy in a fusion reaction! It's a wonder Sun-worshippers aren't up-in-arms over solar power! Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Sarcasm. The most intelligent form of humour.
Other than that I have nothing else to say for once. It's 4 in the morning and my caffeine high's wearing off.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: So it's better to just mind your own business and let them kill each other until there all gone. pretty hard to fight a war when there's no one left.
The only problem here is that the terrorists are trying to kill *us*, and they won't let us mind our own business, no matter what we do. Their hate goes beyond their annoyance with our meddling in foreign affairs. Many of them want to kill us just because we don't bow down to their way of doing things, which includes their extreme religious views.
B.J.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Or maybe it's because we're trying (and in large part succeeding I might add) to kill them. And their families. Bullying in with our military/capitalist might, ignoring international counsel and in some cases war crimes conventions in order to topple regimes and governments with scant evidence and flimsy explanations about our purposes in doing so. All the while disregarding their traditions and heritage and not-so-subtly undermining their culture, more-or-less defiling their land with our very presence. Stuff like that.
I'm not saying I agree with their tactics. And I'm very far from saying I think they're even remotely in the right. Certainly not on Veteran's Day. But I would say the extremists do have grounds to claim provocation. Ideologically speaking, our continued presence in the region isn't helping matters.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Based on everything I've read and watched about the planning for the September 11th attacks, bin Laden is pissed at the United States because we were using Saudi Arabi as our base of operations in the first Persian Gulf War (and not because we were challenging Saddam Hussein). Bin Laden's also has a beef with the Saudi royal family for allowing the US to protect it instead of bin Laden's gang of terrorists from Saddam Hussein."
Bin Laden's own explanation, from before the last elections:
quote: Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:
Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.
Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example � Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 � may Allah have mercy on them.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.
No-one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.
But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.
So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.
I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.
The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorized and displaced.
I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.
The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.
In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.
And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr. did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children � also in Iraq � as Bush Jr. Did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.
This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.
And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.
You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk.
The latter is one of your compatriots and co-religionists and I consider him to be neutral. So are the pretenders of freedom at The White House and the channels controlled by them able to run an interview with him? So that he may relay to the American people what he has understood from us to be the reasons for our fight against you?
If you were to avoid these reasons, you will have taken the correct path that will lead America to the security that it was in before September 11th. This concerned the causes of the war.
As for it's results, they have been, by the grace of Allah, positive and enormous, and have, by all standards, exceeded all expectations. This is due to many factors, chief amongst them, that we have found it difficult to deal with the Bush administration in light of the resemblance it bears to the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half which are ruled by the sons of kings and presidents.
Our experience with them is lengthy, and both types are replete with those who are characterized by pride, arrogance, greed and misappropriation of wealth. This resemblance began after the visits of Bush Sr. to the region.
At a time when some of our compatriots were dazzled by America and hoping that these visits would have an effect on our countries, all of a sudden he was affected by those monarchies and military regimes, and became envious of their remaining decades in their positions, to embezzle the public wealth of the nation without supervision or accounting.
So he took dictatorship and suppression of freedoms to his son and they named it the Patriot Act, under the pretense of fighting terrorism. In addition, Bush sanctioned the installing of sons as state governors, and didn't forget to import expertise in election fraud from the region's presidents to Florida to be made use of in moments of difficulty.
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the Mujahideen, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat.
All Praise is due to Allah.
So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah.
That being said, those who say that al-Qaida has won against the administration in the White House or that the administration has lost in this war have not been precise, because when one scrutinizes the results, one cannot say that al-Qaida is the sole factor in achieving those spectacular gains.
Rather, the policy of the White House that demands the opening of war fronts to keep busy their various corporations � whether they be working in the field of arms or oil or reconstruction � has helped al-Qaida to achieve these enormous results.
And so it has appeared to some analysts and diplomats that the White House and us are playing as one team towards the economic goals of the United States, even if the intentions differ.
And it was to these sorts of notions and their like that the British diplomat and others were referring in their lectures at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. (When they pointed out that) for example, al-Qaida spent $500 000 on the event, while America, in the incident and its aftermath, lost � according to the lowest estimate � more than 500 billion dollars.
Meaning that every dollar of al-Qaida defeated a million dollars by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs.
As for the size of the economic deficit, it has reached record astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars.
And even more dangerous and bitter for America is that the Mujahideen recently forced Bush to resort to emergency funds to continue the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is evidence of the success of the blee-until-bankruptcy plan � with Allah's permission.
It is true that this shows that al-Qaida has gained, but on the other hand, it shows that the Bush administration has also gained, something of which anyone who looks at the size of the contracts acquired by the shady Bush administration-linked mega-corporations, like Haliburton and its kind, will be convinced. And it all shows that the real loser is...you.
It is the American people and their economy. And for the record, we had agreed with the Commander-General Muhammad Ataa, Allah have mercy on him, that all the operations should be carried out within twenty minutes, before Bush and his administration notice.
It never occurred to us that the commander-in-chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50 000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face those great horrors alone, the time when they most needed him.
But because it seemed to him that occupying himself by talking to the little girl about the goat and its butting was more important than occupying himself with the planes and their butting of the skyscrapers. We were given three times the period required to execute the operations � All Praise is Due to Allah.
And it's no secret to you that the thinkers and perceptive ones from among the Americans warned Bush before the war and told him, "All that you want for securing America and removing the weapons of mass destruction � assuming they exist � is available to you, and the nations of the world are with you in the inspections, and it is in the interest of America that it not be thrust into an unjustified war with an unknown outcome."
But the darkness of the black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America.
So the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future. He fits the saying, "Like the naughty she-goat who used her hoof to dig up a knife from under the earth".
So I say to you, over 15 000 of our people have been killed and tens of thousands injured, while more than a thousand of you have been killed and more than 10 000 injured. And Bush's hands are stained with the blood of all those killed from both sides, all for the sake of oil and keeping their private companies in business.
Be aware that it is the nation who punishes the weak man when he causes the killing of one of its citizens for money, while letting the powerful one get off, when he causes the killing of more than 1000 of its sons, also for money.
And the same goes for your allies in Palestine. They terrorize the women and children, and kill and capture the men as they lie sleeping with their families on the mattresses, that you may recall that for every action, there is a reaction.
Finally, it behooves you to reflect on the last wills and testaments of the thousands who left you on the 11th as they gestured in despair. They are important testaments, which should be studied and researched.
Among the most important of what I read in them was some prose in their gestures before the collapse, where they say, "How mistaken we were to have allowed the White House to implement its aggressive foreign policies against the weak without supervision." It is as if they were telling you, the people of America, "Hold to account those who have caused us to be killed, and happy is he who learns from others' mistakes." And among that which I read in their gestures is a verse of poetry, "Injustice chases its people, and how unhealthy the bed of tyranny."
As has been said, "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure."
And know that, "It is better to return to the truth than persist in error." And that the wise man doesn't squander his security, wealth and children for the sake of the liar in the White House.
In conclusion, I tell you in truth, that your security is not in the hands of Kerry, nor Bush, nor al-Qaida. No.
Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security.
And Allah is our Guardian and Helper, while you have no Guardian or Helper. All Peace be Upon he who follows the Guidance.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Let's just sum it up as:
1. Get out...of the Middle East initially and off the planet finally.
2. Turn your back on Israel...actually help Allah wipe them off the Earth.
3. Convert to Islam...or die...either one works.
4. Pay whatever we deem righteous for the price of our oil. $300 a barrel seems like a good start.
5. All corporations are evil, unless WE decide Allah has told us they are good.
6. The only rulers that are acceptible are those appointed by Allah. All others are infidels.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Did you not actually read it, or did you simply feel like lying just then?
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
The world would be so much better without religion. Religion has done nothing but bring death and destruction throughout the ages. How many wars were fought for a God who's teachings include peace and loving thy neighbor? Bah! There's no such thing as God or Allah or Yaweh or Budda or whatever. They were just attempts by primitive human beings to explain the things in the world they didn't understand.
I understand how it can be comforting to believe in a higher power that watches over us and protects us. But anybody who relies on that faith to get them through difficult times is a fool.
People should have faith in themselves, that they can get through those bad times. And not believe some bearded jackass is gonna carry you on his back so you never have to face your problems.
I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I just needed to rant my sacreligious thoughts. I'm totally open for debate on this subject. And if any of you are deeply religious I apologize if my words offend you. But the world needs to wake up and realize that no one but yourelf can carry you through hard times. And all the faith you may have isn't going to insulate you from the hardships of life.
There, I think I'm done for now. Just don't get me started on organized religion and the church. Cuz that's a whole other pile of crap.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Faith doesn't insulate you from hardships, it is an anchor point to get you through your hardships.
TSN, yes I read the article. I also have dealt with fundamentalist Muslims which that post pretty much summed up their outlook. If you are not a follower of Islam, you deserve death. That was their view.
That was a nice tidy speech. Makes me wonder how much he pays his speech writers.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Write it or die.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
WizArtist II, you need to practise your textual analysis, still a lot of kneejerk to it.
Bin Laden, you wrote:
quote:All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two Mujahideen to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.
This guy has a dry sense of humor, I have to respect that.
Of course much of the speech is propaganda, when you are beset like Bin Laden you'd have to take every chance to get the word out, but there are some interesting nuggets and grains of truth in that letter. Even though some of it is post-speculation, the author shows much more subtlety and afterthought than he's made out to be capable of on the news networks. And GOD had much less to do with his explanations of his actions than I would have expected.
Da_bang80: Your black/white view on religion is a typical child of its time and understandable, I used to feel that way too, but although some would argue that the antiquated views on human origin and responsibilities that the four world religions offer are arbitrary and constraining, they just take another (older) route of explaining the reality around us than we secularized guys do. Oftentimes we're as smart and as dumb anyway.
Here comes the old hat... Countries and peoples can be just as horrible and misguided without religion, like in Stalinist Soviet, Nazi Germany or any other of the extremist secular nations in modern history,a nd the greatest atrocities in history need not be guided or misguided by religion at all to happen, like with the japanese experimentation camps in China, where they dissected live humans and raped women only to cut out the future fetus to experiment on it too. Those doctors and officers were Buddhists and Shintoists, didn't keep them from compromising their souls (if one believes in souls).
Our convictions seem to have surprisingly little to do with what ultimately goes down in the world. Mostly the screwups are due to bad timing, egotism and fear, and in that order the only cures are omniscience or altruistic subtlety (we need either Usul or a super-UN), advanced global ethics and communication (how long have we tried to get that to work? Still, I see seeds of hope everywhere) and about combatting fear, we need a new media system, one that doesn't rely on ratings to pick what story to fuel at any given point in time. Of course, that's as easy to execute as debunking the monetary system and doing a "Macross island" global gettogether or starting the Star Trek Federation penniless funding system.
WizArtist II wrote:
quote:Makes me wonder how much he pays his speech writers.
Significantly less than Bush, and yet he comes off as much more factual and imaginative than any of Bush's folksy quips.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: Sarcasm. The most intelligent form of humour.
Other than that I have nothing else to say for once. It's 4 in the morning and my caffeine high's wearing off.
ACTUALLY! I wasn't being sarcastic. The internet lends itself SO easily to sarcasm... BUT it appears people on this board don't NOTICE smiley faces. They are there to smooth out any chance of words being miss-construed as sarcasm (well that's one use for them).
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm pretty sure the more common use is the exact opposite. It indicates that something which could have been taken seriously was actually meant sarcastically/jokingly.
"...the four world religions..."
Out of curiosity, which four are you calling "the" four?
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well that definition is EXACTLY what I'm saying... yet in a different way.
What 'four' are you on about - must be in reguards to another post... quote that post.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism. Am I correct?
You got a point Nim. Maybe humanity is just naturally evil. Makes one wonder what God is really like... Maybe we got it all wrong. And that the God most people worship isn't all sugar and spice like most people think. If he made us "in his own image" then he must be one seriously twisted dude with a sick sense of humour.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, Judaism is important historically and in the modern world politically, at least indirectly. But there aren't nearly as many Jews as there are, say, followers of what Wikipedia loosely describes as "Chinese traditional religion." And there are more Hindus than Buddhists, plus they've got nuclear weapons.
But, I mean, define "major." Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
We wonder why we have differences? Look at the prior takes on the meaning of "sarcasm".
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist II: What would the situation be in Iraq if Bush I had continued on to Bagdad with all the little coalition behind him and taken Saddam out during Gulf War I? Would it have stopped 9/11?
Would it have prevented 9/11?
Only if the entire coalition stayed to rebuild Iraq as a democracy and we kept the muslim allies we had back then.
Probably not though- Afghanistan is the real wellspring of the 9/11 attack (and our pals in Saudi Arabia, of course).
It might have been nice if Clinton's administration had retaliated for the U.S.S. Cole bombing or had just extridited Bin Laden back when the saudis wanted to dump him on us. Or if Bush's administration had retaliated for the U.S.S. Cole bombing....captured Al Queida operatives have said that the lack of response was the final "go ahead" for 9/11.
They thought they'd get off without any consequences- again.
But it's all speculation and not terribly useful in today's situation.
We still need to do almost all the stuff we set out to do at the start of the "War on Terror"- : Eliminate all Taliban/terrorists from Afghanistan. Capture/Kill Bin Laden. Cripple/ eliminate Al Queida. Create/Maintan real allies in the arab world to prevent future terrorist attacks... that one is debatable- a lot of good has reportedly been done against terrorists, but weither it's because of the US's actions or just desperation to defend themselves after the US put them on a moral defensive is for history to decide.
quote:Originally posted by Toadkiller: Fusion power. If we had spent the money we had spent of Iraq in solving our actual national vulnerability - total dependance on foreign power - we'd be better off.
We've spent billions of dollars, for that money we could have well funded any of several permanent energy solutions. As it is we're funding the Saudi's who take their cut and pass the rest to "the terrorists".
Either that or take the traditional British tack. Seize and "colonize" the Saudi fields. No insurgents, because we remove the population. THEN fund the permanent alternative energy programs.
Colonization is no answer- never worked back then, sure wont now. Just look at all the wonderful, enlightened -former colony- countries.
As to hitting the Saudis in their pocketbook (and thus showing the world it's not all about the oil), by reducing speed limits from 70mph to 55 on national highways and from 65mph to 50mph on local turnpikes/expressways an estimated 17% would be saved in expended fuel (on adverage cars- not shit like the Humvee).
Add to that, government required mileage of 35 miles per gallon for new cars/trucks and an estimated 10-15% would be saved.
So: lose the sportscars and SUV's, drive a bit slower and grow the fuck up a bit and not only will our dependence on foreign scumbags diminish, but so will gas/oil prices.
Just for kicks- tell the airline industry it wont get it's yearly bailout if they cant go with jets that are even slightly more fuel efficent....even 1% more would yield a savings of millions of barrells of oil annualy.
Not that you'll find a Republican voting for anything like common sense- they have their oil lobbiests to worry about.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"What 'four' are you on about - must be in reguards to another post... quote that post."
I did. What did you think those words in the quotation marks were for?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It helps if we know who said what though...without wading through four pages of posts.
Besides, you cant have only "four major religons".
Pastafarians must be equally represented!
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Don't forget those crazy Zoroastrians.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Jason, I'm hurt. Read my post and you shan't get a nocturnal visit from the noodly appendage.
To clarify, the Four are the Judaeo-Christian, muslim, buddhist and hindu religions.
quote:without wading through four pages of posts
Ctrl+F Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"It helps if we know who said what though...without wading through four pages of posts."
First, it was only two posts up. Second, there was no reason for you to need to know who said it. I was only addressing the person who said it, and I expected him to recognize his own words.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Nonsense- if you only wanted him to see and read it, you would have PM'd him.
As to religion, I think everyone needs to take a year off and only celebrate fake holidays- Kwanza, Secretary's Day, Christmas, etc...
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
International Talk Like A Pirate Day...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well, sure- if it keeps global warming at bay.
Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
quote:Originally posted by Veers: International Talk Like A Pirate Day...
"Nonsense- if you only wanted him to see and read it, you would have PM'd him."
Not true. I had no reason to keep it private. I didn't want to stop other people seeing it. I just didn't feel any need to make sure they understood it. It wasn't important.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You're thoughts are always imporntant to us.
or we're building a Baker Act case against you- whitchever.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
JASON!!! SWINGS!!! NOW!!!
One of the first lessons I ever learned on this board was not to go up against Tim. His powers are simply too extensive. Just look at what he's done to my status line and you'll see what I mean.
-MMoM Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Jason swings now? You mean he hasn't always? That's almost as shocking as Aban's no-sex-until-marriage revelation, and LOA's did-say-no-sex-until-marriage-then went-and-met-the-right-guy revelation!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I dont swing: it's just that my relationships usually proceed at x48 speed. Meeting, flirting, infatuation,sex, dating, sex, that cant get her off your mind bit, sex, affection, habit, the realization you're not right for each other, breakup and changing phone numbers.
All in about three weeks.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Wow. That IS fast.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
Easy there, Turbo.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Feels like someone just walked over my grave.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Huh. And here I planned on burying you alive.
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: Wow. That IS fast.
Well, there's work slowing things down, of course.
Mabye it's a latant mutant power- like super fast reflexes, but with relationships.
Or I just get tiresome fast....naaaa! That's crazy/ talk. Everyone loves me. EVERYONE! Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
You got the same problem as my friend. After a month of dating some dumb emotionally unstable (tho rather well endowed) headcase of a chick she thinks she's in love with her... they lasted 7 months tho. about a month the second time around and about a week the third and fourth times respectivly. She claims she was only in of for the "boobies". Ah, memories.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
I just love all the hot lesbian action here at Flare.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
I don't think you can get too much HLA, to be honest.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
CONSENSUS! Posted by Griffworks (Member # 1014) on :
I'd buy that for a dollar!
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:
Or I just get tiresome fast....naaaa! That's crazy/ talk. Everyone loves me. EVERYONE!
What was that about Crazy Talk...?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
My faithful indian guide.
Leads me in circles a lot though...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said. "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
While I cant agree with him on the sensibility of the US just pulling out of Iraq, it's great to see someone stick it o BUsh and Cheney for their current "tough talk" retaliation against Democrat's calling for accountibility on the war's premise.
quote:"I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there," said Murtha, a former Marine. "I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done."
Referring to Bush, Murtha added, "I resent the fact, on Veterans Day, he criticized Democrats for criticizing them."
[ November 18, 2005, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: Jason Abbadon ]
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Thanks Jason, and the thread had taken a turn for the better.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well...we could ...er...talk about hot lesbian action...with..Congress.
Okay, that's a bad idea.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
with Congress. There IS no action. of any kind. Hot lesbian or otherwise.
on a related note: my lesbian friend and her hot girlfriend are comin down for a visit, anybody know what kind of prices for hidden cams i can get?
Just Kidding
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
No. You're not.
Hmmmmm...women.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Too bad her hot lesbian girlfriends going shopping in saskatoon instead. oh well, a weekend of hot lesbian defilement of my couch or a weekend of video games sounds like a fair trade. At least with the video games i don't just watch.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
You reall need to get out more.
Really.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I don't like getting out. I'm perfectly happy in my own little world of star wars, video games, and especially Star Wars video games.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
