Cause the stupid f00k only thinks about what HE thinks about WAR and not about how this war, even with as many casualties on all sides, is going to give the Iraqui people a better life. Its all nice and "cool" to be against the war when you're living in a nice loft in downtown Seattle drinking your Starbucks coffee. Think about the Iraqui who has been suffering for 30 some odd years of Saddam's regime. Yes civilians are gunna die in the process but theres no way around it, so get over it and shut the fook up. And unless you can snap your fingers and make Saddam go away in some other fashion you can stick your anti-war signs up yer arse.
Dude in the middle holding his chin is probably wondering how many ways he can, indeed, shove that sign up that dudes ass. During the National Athem, no less. What a chode. The guy looks like he smells.
Oh XXXX. I had been wrong about this whole thing this whole time. Thanks for setting us straight. Speaking of tools, this post looks like the adjustable wrench of the Bush tool kit. Stop spewing and start thinking. What a classic: "Civilians are going to die but there is no way around it".
think about the chinese suffering right now. think about the iranian suffering now. think about the people in Sierra Leone suffering right now. think about the north koreans suffering right now. where does this end??????????
We build a death star. We load up our finest capitalists and babes on a space shuttle, send 'em on up and put the rest of this sad little world out of its misery. We destroy this global village to save it.
I like it! In reality, it ends with WMD. If they got em, they are hostile towards us and their people, and they don't disarm through the UN, then in we go.
"Damn hippies...they want to save the world, but all they do is smoke weed and smell bad." -Eric Cartman
This type of logic has never worked for me. Now while I'm against this war (I personally think we should become a nation of isolationist bastards who don't give a damn about anyone else in the world), this ain't a perfect world, and one can't go invading every country in the world that has suffering (due to resources being finite), but we can invade some, so why does it have to be all or nothing for the reason to be valid? To use another analogy, cops can't catch every speeder on the highway, so does that mean they shouldn't bother writing tickets at all?
The analogy is faulty. Police don't SEE every speeder on the highway. The USA can see plainly all the countries with grotesque human rights violations. The big difference is the police pull over speeders when they see them. The USA is picking and choosing which countries they want to invade, which leads to one of two possible outcomes: 1: Bush and Co plan to keep on going to Korea, China, Iran, Etc. OR 2: Iraq is on the hit list for a reason (oil). Either way, the outcome is staggeringly questionable.
Re: Re: okay, fess up. OR 3: Iraq is on the hit list for a reason (national security and the fact that we can take them out fairly easily compared to North Korea and China). The fact that, when all is said and done, the Iraqi people will be liberated is a great side benefit--as is the fact that we will have access to Iraq's oil. But neither is the reason we are going in. Alex
Of course the US is picking and choosing. As great as our military is, it is a finite resource. However, cops still see speeders on the highway they don't bother to pull over, for whatever reason (typically because the person isn't speeding that much and it would be hard to get a conviction against them). China? One of our top trade partners? Why would we do that? They are on the hit list for a number of reasons.