Say Anything Blog

r108 and G.W.B. endorse McCain…

Please don’t include me in your mistaken perceptions, Sparkie.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

Uncle Billy was right!

News from hell by breakfast!

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

dont tell me, Randy Grapes is voting democrat this election too!

sparkless,

I’ll pull the lever for a democrat in time of war shortly after the ski slopes open in hell.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

I recently found a glockenspiel having sex with my ears.

Rodney, you said:

“I’ll pull the lever for a democrat in time of war shortly after the ski slopes open in hell.”

This is the sort of circular reasoning that continues to get the country into trouble.  It’s highly likely that if we had not had Bush in office in 2003 (as legally and morally we should not have) we would not now be at war in Iraq.  Continuing to support the same failed policies because they haven’t succeeded “yet” is, if you will forgive my bluntness, both blind and atupid.

Let’s not even pretend any more that this illegal, immoral, greedy and murderous war has anything to do with 9/11 or fighting terror.  It’s George and Dick’s gravy train, pure and simple.

The Democrats may not be any better, but they sure can’t be any worse.

Rodney, you said:

“I’ll pull the lever for a democrat in time of war shortly after the ski slopes open in hell.”

This is the sort of circular reasoning that continues to get the country into trouble.  It’s highly likely that if we had not had Bush in office in 2003 (as legally and morally we should not have) we would not now be at war in Iraq.  Continuing to support the same failed policies because they haven’t succeeded “yet” is, if you will forgive my bluntness, both blind and atupid.

Let’s not even pretend any more that this illegal, immoral, greedy and murderous war has anything to do with 9/11 or fighting terror. That was the war in Afghanistan, which is now being largely ignored as not profitable enough.  The Iraq boondoggle is George and Dick’s gravy train, pure and simple.

The Democrats may not be any better (in fact they are appalling), but they sure can’t be any worse.

both blind and atupid.

John: Your words bespeak your intelligence with an eloquence we can’t quite match!

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

John you ignorant slut,

You start with a lie:

“Bush in office in 2003 (as legally and morally we should not have)”

and proceed downhill from there.

We had a lengthy debate PRIOR to going to war in Iraq.  We even had a vote on it in Congress, you should recall.  Your side failed to prevail in both.

The initial war in Iraq (against Saddam’s forces) was a new record in conventional warfare in terms of a blitzkrieg.

The second war in Iraq (against foreign and domestic terrorists/insurgents) is well on the way to setting a new record for suppressing an insurgency.

The third war in Iraq (the proxy war of the Iranians) has not as yet reached a full boil.

Iraq is becoming a stable democracy where none has existed before.  It is an example it’s neighbors can not effectively hide from their citizenry.  It also leaves a large US expeditionary force along land borders to the two largest remaining state sponsors of terrorism.

That is a situation only a terrorist sympathizer could despise.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

It seems that perhaps I should not have bothered posting.  I appear to have assumed a degree of intelligence and courtesy which does not exist here.

To Proof: if the best you can do in opposing my point is to attack a typo ("a" is next to “s”, you know) then you join the 90% of internet posters who demonstrate their idiocy in the first sentence.

To Rodney:

I appreciate the SNL reference, but I am not ignorant, and my sexual mores are my business, thanks.

I didn’t start with a lie.  Bush received less than 1/2 the national vote in 2000.  All else aside, that means he lost, and if the electoral college system opposed the demonstration of national will (the vote) it should be abolished.  Period.  In addition, the re-count in Florida (you should recall) showed more than enough inequities to justify a re-vote.  The Supreme Court put Bush in office, not the people.  It was a mess, and a complete mockery of electoral democracy.  The mere fact that the would-be president’s brother was governor there, all else aside, made us a worldwide laughingstock.

That being said, Al Gore is a prick, plain and simple, but he (not Bush, who is a larger - albeit more flaccid - prick) was the peoples’ choice.  The Democrats are not “my side”.  I don’t think we’ve had a presidential candidate worth voting for (rather than against) since Reagan, frankly.  The fact that we can’t field better candidates speaks columes about the apathy of the electorate.  I wouldn’t elect Obama, Clinton or McCain to run an orgy in a brothel, let alone to run the country.

As for the Congressional vote on Iraq - if I inflamed national/political fear with incomplete and innacurate intelligence which has later shown to be either hopelessly incompetent or a deliberate lie, I could also start a war with more or less anyone. 

Yes, the initial invasion was a success.  Great.  We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but once that statue of Saddam came down, we certainly should have left, as apparently, since we needed to get rid of Hussein, we are the world’s policeman whose job it is to topple dictators.  Great!  Iraq down, North Korea, Chile, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and a few dozen others to go, right?  Wrong!  They either don’t have oil, or have so much (Saudi) that they already own the Bush family.

Crushing the insurgency ... if you can call that a success, then you and I are not in the same reality.  Read a paper or something.

The proxy war of the Iranians is overblown to a degree of nauseousness, but even if it weren’t, consider this:  If Canada were invaded by a country so powerful that we could not possibly oppose them directly, do you think we might ... oh, I don’t know ... supply arms and sneak some troops across the border where we could?  Could we possibly be in the wrong to invade a soveriegn nation who never attacked us?  Just a thought.

As for Iraq becoming a “stable democracy” ... unlikely in the extreme, as it is a collection of warring tribes who will take the first opportunity to kill one another.  The Iraqis are not ethnically nor religiously homogenous enough to progress into democracy yet, and it is worse than arrogant to force it upon them at gunpoint.  It is, in fact, a denial and a slap in the face to what democracy is supposed to stand for.  You do not invade a country and tell them what their government will be, then call it “democracy”.

Congratulations on wheeling out the obligatory calling me a “terrorist sympathizer” though.  Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia (who supplied 19 of the 20 9/11 terrorists) doesn’t border Iraq.  Neither does Afghanistan, which we (rightfully and correctly) invaded, and are now more or less ignoring as it slips back under Taliban control.  Those are the two largest sponsors of terrorism; but hey, one of them funnels billions into our economy, and the other grows the best smack (which also sends a lot of money into certain pockets), so I guess we’ll leave them alone.

I’m not a liberal, a democrat or a supporter of terrorists.  I am a concerned patriot who sees his government lying to the people (as has happened so many times throughout history) to start a war with no real agenda other than to line their own pockets.

Slime occupies Washington, regardless of whether it is slime (R) or slime (D).  They are all liars, and the system is set up in such a way that it filters out those who won’t play that game.

It is a truism that people get the government they deserve.  That should make any informed observer of this country weep.  And as long as we keep yelling “Democrat!” or “Republican!” the plutocrats on both sides of the aisle will keep laughing at us, robbing us blind, and murdering our children.

One final note:  With regard to Hussein, we might do well to consider who helped him to power and armed him once he was there.

The cancelled checks were drawn on the US Treasury, folks.  We put him in power as a balance against the Iranians, and helped him stay there for years.

It’s really no wonder so many people in the Middle East hate us.  There isn’t a pie there we haven’t stuck our finger in.  As a nation, our greatest goal should be to learn to mind our own business.

And if you say “9/11 made it our business!” then I refer you to the now-largely-ignored Afghan war, the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and the fact that our “buddies” the Saudis did.  If you have the humility to conceive of this notion, I would also ask you what you expect a century of interference in other peoples’ countries to lead to.

For instance, in 1953 we deposed a democratically elected leader in Iran and put the Shah (who in his treatment of his people made Saddam look like Santa Claus) in his place.  25 years later, the Iranian people rose up, deposed him and captured our embassy, holding 430 people captive for best part of two years.  Coincidence?  I think not.

But we’re all about democracy “over there” ... right?

Wake up.  We are mushrooms in this country - kept in the dark and fed on shit.

John, you remain an ignorant slut.

The President of the United States is elected by the Electoral College.  Note also that W. J. Clinton was twice elected President while receiving less than 50% of the popular vote.  If you want to change the way the President is elected, you need merely amend the Constitution.  Good luck on that, btw.

Second, the debate and the vote happened.  The Intelligence was the same that had been provided to the previous administration, and was in line with the consensus of Western Intelligence Agencies.

Third, leaving a vacuum of power in Iraq would have been a very bad choice indeed. We tend to do these things thoroughly (see the Phillipines, Germany, Japan).

Fourth, crushing the insurgency, current record for doing so is ten years.  We’re way ahead of that schedule.  Hit the history books, your ignorance is showing.

Fifth, war by proxy is war nonetheless, and being caught waging one is cassus bellum, should the belligerant party choose to treat it as such.

Sixth, time will tell, and I’m inclined to take the time to see how it plays out.  Some chance is always better than none, and the only sure path to defeat at this time is precipitous withdrawal.

Seventh, your ignorance remains astounding.  Were you to consult a map, you would find that Saudi Arabia does indeed share a border with Iraq in what is known as “The Empty Quarter.”

Eighth, Afghanistan is (strategically) isolated.  And if the Taliban is regaining control, they are doing so from the grave, as their last two spring offensives were disasters and operations are now moving into the tribal areas of Pakistan which they have been using as a sanctuary.

Ninth, a concerned patriot would have some idea of what he was opining upon, which you demonstrably do not.

Tenth and ultimo, if you aren’t a Democrat, you should be.  Such ignorance is well tolerated there.

It’s not what you don’t know, John (though that volume is obviously a large one).  It’s what you know that just ain’t so.

Get some facts or get lost.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

Rodney,

What more would you expect from a self-styled mushroom?

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Rodney -

Thanks for your reponse.  OK, with regard to the electoral vote in 2000 - I mis-spoke.  Yep, Clinton (and others) have taken office while getting less than 50% of the electoral vote.  Mea culpa.  What I meant was, Bush received fewer votes than his opponent, yet became president.  When has that happened before?  And Why should it ever happen?

I understand how the Electoral College works, and yes, the Constitution needs to be changed in that area.  The system was set up when it was necessary to collect votes on horseback.  In today’s electronic age, it is obsolete and subject to manipulation and abuse, as shown in 2000.

The intelligence was NOT that provided to previous administrations.  Please review your facts.  The fictional purchases of “yellow-cake uranium” by Iraq, for instance, were purely a Bush administration creation.  And where, pray tell, are all those WMDs?

With regard to your third point:  I really wasn’t suggesting leaving a vacuum of power in Iraq, although letting other countries choose their own path is in keeping with what the USA was founded upon.  I was mostly suggesting that we shouldn’t have been there to start with, but since we were, we certainly did not adhere to our stated goal - to topple Saddam and then let Iraq choose it’s own path.  It seems pretty apparent that we want a puppet state in the Middle East, but unfortunately we are finding that tougher to establish than we thought.

How do you figure we are likely to crush the insurgency in Iraq in 10 years (or 50, for that matter?) And where do you get your “record”?  Facts, please.  Not accusations.

Nice use of Latin.  Invading a neighboring country without demonstrable cause is also “cassus bellum”; far more so than combatting your neighbor’s attacker.  Your point?

As for “defeat” or “victory” in Iraq - supposing we left tomorrow.  How would that change anything except Dick Cheney’s bank balance and the body count on both sides?  Seriously.  Many people say “We can’t afford to lose”.  At a trillion dollars and counting, I’d say we can’t afford to win.  And what, exactly, would happen if we said, “OK, Saddam’s gone.  It’s your country; now run it.” Have you ever really thought about that?  Or you just thinkthat a boogeyman would somehow arise there and come and kill you and your family?  Really - would some limitless supply of terrorists who (for some unfathomable reason) have been running to Iraq to fight instead of targeting the mainland US suddenly board flights for New York, strapped and ready to rumble?

And how the hell do you define “victory” there?  How do we know when we’ve won?  No one has actually defined that, as far as I can see.

You are absolutely right that Iraq shares a (large) border with Saudi Arabia.  I am embarrassed to admit that I got caught up in my own rhetoric and failed to go back and proofread/correct.  Whoops.  Long post, lots of revision, sloppiness on my part.

With regard to your analysis of the Afghani situation, I disagree.  Try these links:

http://www.theworld.org/?q=node/4024

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/democracy_terror/neo_taliban

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369809

Those are three to start with.  I’m sure you could find issue with them, but perhaps you might also be prompted to a little further research through sources you consider more reliable.

That being all said - what is your opinion on DC being populated with overpaid, opportunistic slime who enjoy nothing more than people getting overheated over the ultimately meaningless
“two-party” system, while the tax and graft/lobby dollars keep pouring in?

We have the best government money can buy.  I’m not happy with that.  Are you?

Mea culpa.  What I meant was, Bush received fewer votes than his opponent, yet became president.  When has that happened before?  And Why should it ever happen?

1824, 1876, 1888, and of course, mercifully, 2000.  You really don’t know much about this stuff, do you, John?  In each case it happened because the Constitution allows such to happen on rare occasions.  I thought you said you understand about the Electoral College.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

The system was set up when it was
necessary to collect votes on horseback.

True, but irrelevant.  The Electoral College gives the smaller, less populous States a voice in the election of the President.  Read up on your US govt.

The fictional purchases of “yellow-cake uranium” by Iraq, for instance, were purely a Bush administration creation. Wrong in several ways: there was never a claim of “purchase”.  The actual statement the President made was that according to British Intelligence, Saddam sought yellowcake in Africa. Do you understand the difference between “sought” and “bought”?  Further, it was British Intel who reported it(and it was true, as Saddam’s reps actually inquired about purchasing yellowcake, and might have actually taken delivery of same.} so it was true. And where, pray tell, are all those WMDs?  Transferred to Syria, buried in the desert; who knows?  Saddam had over a year’s notice to do whatever he needed to do to cover his ass.

You are really dumbed down by your consumption of tired leftie talking points, John.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

John,

Primus.  The Electoral College was established precisely to prevent the highly urbanized states from having the sole meaningful voice in Presidential Elections.  To date it has fulfilled the Founding Fathers intent.  Feel free to try to amend the Constitution in this matter, and I will work very hard to prevent your success.

Note that Bat One was kind enough to provide the historical precedents you sought.

Secundus.  As regards Intelligence on Iraqi WMD’s and WMD programs, the Administrations of GHW Bush and WJ Clinton both received essentially the same appraisal.  Also note that Iraq had previously used WMD’s against both its own population and against the Iranians.  Nor has the last chapter in this matter been written yet, nor will it for years and decades to come.

Tertius.  Whether you believe we should be in Iraq or not is entirely beside the point.  We had the debate.  We had the vote.  We are there.  Since we are it behooves us to finish what we have started.

Quartus.  Democracies are not born nor do they become stable overnight.  The United States had largely democratic institutions before we broke away from Great Britain.  Iraq has no such functional tradition.  Having paid the blood price to overthrow Hussein’s regime, it makes sense to work towards our desired outcome.

Quintus.  See General Petreus’ report to the Congress.  As regards insurgencies and counter insurgencies, for a brief primer on their history in the 20th century, try this. 

Sextus.  We followed the “Good War Doctrine” of declaring our intention and causes, with a good faith offer to let Iraq mend the causes.  If any of Iran’s neighbors wish to declare war on us, let them.  If they instead choose to wage war on us by proxy, we can do the same or worse, and should.

Septimus.  Our war in Iraq has been on the cheap as a percentage of GDP and Federal Outlays.  One Vietnam and aftermath is enough and more than enough.  The Philippines is the model for an acceptable outcome.

Octavus.  I am pleased to see you can acknowledge error, most of the left here lack that ability.

Nonus.  Shortly after you spend some quality time with Strategy Page and Black Five (as a starter). 

Decimus et ultimo.  I share Samuel Langhorn Clemens’ opinion of the American political class.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

John said, It’s highly likely that if we had not had Bush in office in 2003 (as legally and morally we should not have)

I’m not one for overturning the will of 50 states.

Continuing to support the same failed policies because they haven’t succeeded “yet” is, if you will forgive my bluntness, both blind and atupid.

The ignorant do not recognize the success.

Let’s not even pretend any more that this illegal, immoral, greedy and murderous war has anything to do with 9/11 or fighting terror.

In that one sentence, there are four lies describing the war and one about it’s purpose.

It’s George and Dick’s gravy train, pure and simple.

The sixth lie.

That was the war in Afghanistan, which is now being largely ignored as not profitable enough.

The seventh lie.

It seems that perhaps I should not have bothered posting.  I appear to have assumed a degree of intelligence and courtesy which does not exist here.

Says the guy who just spouted off seven blatant lies.

Bush received less than 1/2 the national vote in 2000.  All else aside, that means he lost

No it doesn’t.

The states elect the President. The states’ choice was George W. Bush. He won.

We don’t use a direct democracy in this country. The states’ chose their representation. Each state has decided to award it’s electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

If you don’t agree with this method, then by all means respect democracy by changing it at the proper levels. The proper level here would be an Amendment to the US Constitution.

...and if the electoral college system opposed the demonstration of national will (the vote) it should be abolished.  Period.

We’ve already established that the popular will is expressed through the states, therefore your “Period.” comment that was meant to silence debate is null and void.

In addition, the re-count in Florida (you should recall) showed more than enough inequities to justify a re-vote.

And they recounted it again and again and again and again after the election. All four major recounts showed no “inequities” that would have changed the outcome.

The Supreme Court put Bush in office, not the people.

Your eighth lie.

That being said, Al Gore is a prick, plain and simple, but he (not Bush, who is a larger - albeit more flaccid - prick) was the peoples’ choice.

“The peoples’ choice” belongs to their states. This was described above.

As for the Congressional vote on Iraq - if I inflamed national/political fear with incomplete and innacurate intelligence which has later shown to be either hopelessly incompetent or a deliberate lie, I could also start a war with more or less anyone.

You just did! The wars you start using inaccurate, incompetent, and lied-filled are arguments.

We shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but once that statue of Saddam came down, we certainly should have left, as apparently, since we needed to get rid of Hussein, we are the world’s policeman whose job it is to topple dictators.

Apparently, we need to take down dictators who act as threats against the United States.

The “apparently” was different.

Great!  Iraq down, North Korea, Chile, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia and a few dozen others to go, right?  Wrong!  They either don’t have oil, or have so much (Saudi) that they already own the Bush family.

We can’t politically go after North Korea. That war should have ended 50 years ago. Instead, it became a forced stalemate. It was the first UN war where nobody wins.

You think that it is all about oil conspiracy when the history is a lot more detailed.

Crushing the insurgency ... if you can call that a success, then you and I are not in the same reality.  Read a paper or something.

I wonder what you mean here. It could be anything.

The proxy war of the Iranians is overblown to a degree of nauseousness...

A Twelver working towards nuclear weapons is not an overblown concern, nor is it a “proxy war”. Rather, it is a direct concern and a growing direct national security threat.

Could we possibly be in the wrong to invade a soveriegn nation who never attacked us?  Just a thought.

Sure. If you agree with Saddam Hussein’s and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s aims.

The people you are talking to do not.

Unfortunately, Saudi Arabia (who supplied 19 of the 20 9/11 terrorists) doesn’t border Iraq.

Oh my. Saudi Arabia actually shares the second longest border with Iraq at 814 kilometers, behind Iran at 1,458 km and above Syria at 605 km.

One final note:  With regard to Hussein, we might do well to consider who helped him to power and armed him once he was there.

Who armed him? In order:
1 Russians at 57%
2 French at 13%
3 Chinese at 12%
4 Czechoslovakia at 7%
5 Poland at 4%
6 Brazil at 2%
7 Egypt at 1%
8 Romania at 1%
9 Denmark at 1%
10 Libya at 1%
11 United States at less than 1%

The cancelled checks were drawn on the US Treasury, folks.

Lie number nine.

We put him in power as a balance against the Iranians...

Saddam took power by himself using brute force.

It’s really no wonder so many people in the Middle East hate us.  There isn’t a pie there we haven’t stuck our finger in.  As a nation, our greatest goal should be to learn to mind our own business.

They believe the same fairy tales and lies that you do. It’s really no wonder why they are belligerently angry. The thing is: why do you feed them these lies John? You were upset at someone labeling you a “terrorist sympathizer”. If that’s the case, then stop acting like it.

And if you say “9/11 made it our business!” then I refer you to the now-largely-ignored Afghan war...

That criticism is undefined as well as being a viewpoint that is not shared.

...the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

Irrelevant.

9/11 was an act of terrorism by Muslim extremists. Every single Middle Eastern country is filled with Muslim extremists. Iraq is a Middle Eastern country.

Therefore Iraq and every other Middle Eastern country has everything to do with 9/11. They can either chose to work with us or against us.

If you have the humility to conceive of this notion, I would also ask you what you expect a century of interference in other peoples’ countries to lead to.

Every country interferes with every other country, limited only by factors of power, influence and aims.

You’re complaining about human nature and calling it humility.

I understand how the Electoral College works, and yes, the Constitution needs to be changed in that area.  The system was set up when it was necessary to collect votes on horseback.  In today’s electronic age, it is obsolete and subject to manipulation and abuse, as shown in 2000.

Collection methods or fraud have nothing to do with the electoral college. It is about matters of proportional representation in the federal government via the states.

Great con, John.

From just where in your post are we not to assume you are a liberal practitioner: “Cheney and Bush are lining their pockets…”, “the supreme Court robbed former VP Gore of his election to…” and …yellow cake uranium was purely a Bush creation…”.

And my favorite “…overpaid, opportunistic slime who enjoy nothing more than people getting overheated over the ultimately meaningless…”. Apparently you assuage your discontent with an all-inclusive denouncement of both sides of congress.

Are you an independent or perchance an unelectable, frustrated ‘wannabe’?

You might consider that the young men and women who volunteered their services and daily risk their lives, or those whom sacrificed themselves, so that Iraq’s children may have a brighter future have little concern about “the trillion dollars and counting”.

We live in a time when the silver spoon of opulence is abundant in many parts of the world and yet we discern with myopic apathy the plight of those whose freedom is nonexistent; and then consider the cost over that freedom.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

LDS,

That was an excellent spanking you gave John.

I’m almost jealous.

...for great justice

That corporal duty belongs to and was nicely accomplished by Rodney, Bat and Lik and R108, who enumerated facts and falsehoods with John’s retort.

Mine was merely a philosophical reprise.

But thanks anyway. I think.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

To Proof: if the best you can do in opposing my point is to attack a typo ("a" is next to “s”, you know) then you join the 90% of internet posters who demonstrate their idiocy in the first sentence.

John: I pointed out your typo, because of all the lies, stupidity and dishonesty wherein you had demonstrated your idiocy, it seemed to sum up in short compass that not only were you incredibly ill informed, but not very articulate as well. I didn’t want to insult your intelligence by assuming you believed all that crap, so I mocked your “atupidity”.

BTW, One does not “attack” typos, so much as point them out or correct them. (Or mock them!)

A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Mine was merely a philosophical reprise.

I diaagree with the use of “merely”; it was very good.

If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.

lay down, sally!

so that Iraq’s children may have a brighter future

that’s it again? i thought you folk realized the ‘let’s give everyone a kitten’ meme was so much BS a few years back?
so, if the future of the children of the world is our MO, can you explain the recent explosion of opium cultivation in Afghanistan since we have ‘occupied’ it? Or how about the use of radioactive ordinance in Iraq? And white phosphorus used on entire cities (wherein there were no doubt little children and kittens) by our troops (i.e. Fallujah), something we chastised Saddam for before going into the war? Well, turns out he was putting down insurgents too, but he got hanged for it. How, furthermore, is a style of democracy designed for homogenized populations going to work in a place where the population is heterogeneously divided by area, wealth, religion, geography, and so on? It was designed to be unstable from the get-go. Anyone who has read any recent scholarship on ethnic conflict and nation building knows goddamn well that Iraq needed and needs a consociational or powersharing government if we intend on leaving the borders where they currently are.

sparkless,

pull the tinfoil back down over your eyes and ears and go bother someone who has time for and interest in psychotic ramblings.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”

John,

Don’t go away mad…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destoyed”