Meni, c'mon, you forgot Rome and "mental state of a poster"

other than that it's all fine
;-)))

This is an exciting process.

We are watching how someone who has never been interested in politics before, be brainswashed into being a democrat. I have never seen a democrat be made.... I always knew the tried to find those with weak minds, who are easily riled up with class warfare....

Meni congradulations for almot completeing the process!!

Meni, c'mon, you forgot Rome and "mental state of a poster"

other than that it's all fine
;-)))[/b][/quote]
except for the Russian Vodka. He failed that test a few weeks ago. I think the expression is shit from Shinola.

except for the Russian Vodka. He failed that test a few weeks ago. I think the expression is shit from Shinola.[/b][/quote]
shock therapy failed
;-(

Buff, I'm going to assume that's some form of rhetorical question. If the question is even partially serious, you either have no reading comprehension skills whatsovever, or you are just plain stupid.

The damage that GW and his minions have done to the credibility of the United States by the way this war was "sold" is substantial - but nothing like what could happen if we withdrew before the job is done. Don't confuse me with the mental midgets that think we can just say "oops - we made a mistake" and immediately "bring the boys home." You may (if you have the capability of understanding it, which this question causes me to doubt) have seen a post I made in another thread that said essentially tha if Kerry is sworn in next January, it will be "Kerry's war" by September.

I have never defended Saddam's regime. Nobody with the reading comprehension skills of a third-world illegal immigrant public school 6th grader from a single-parent home on welfare can conclude that I have. My objections to the war with Saddam center on the unilateral nature of it. My objections to the war with Saddam relate to the patently false way it was tied into the war on terror.

oh so you have to brainwashed to hate BUSH
he fuckin sucks dude
you only care about terror/security
and if you checked 9/11 came on Bush's duty
and he caught?
you feel safer?
you ever travel?
thats safer?
we are on high alert all the time
thats it
keep us in fear and you want GW up
he fuckin sucks
that religious fuckin freak
Mike you got your money you just want tax breaks and no foreigners near you
You dont' give a shit about freedom

copy and paste from some book review
Rampton and Stauber unmask the impact of "information warriors and perception managers" (as one PR consultant described himself) on Bush's attempt to turn public opinion in favor of war on Iraq. The authors deconstruct the PR campaign to promote the U.S. in the wake of September 11: the State Department's hiring of ad exec Charlotte Beers ("the queen of Madison Avenue") to direct the campaign; how PR execs and lobbyists helped construct the government's anti-Iraq message; the administration's alleged misinformation and distortion of facts and reliance on rumor to influence public opinion.

Meni,
can you make in 5 lines why you gonna vote Bush?

5 lines you should vote for Bush
for MikeAI
go MIke


Home Security?
Home Security?
Tax cut for the Rich?
home SecuRITY
home Security?

meni,
when did you join the ranks of the Republican party?

they only party i'll join is one like this
Best Party



Last edited by Meni at Mar 20 2004, 06:33 PM

Buff, I'm going to assume that's some form of rhetorical question. If the question is even partially serious, you either have no reading comprehension skills whatsovever, or you are just plain stupid.

The damage that GW and his minions have done to the credibility of the United States by the way this war was "sold" is substantial - but nothing like what could happen if we withdrew before the job is done. Don't confuse me with the mental midgets that think we can just say "oops - we made a mistake" and immediately "bring the boys home." You may (if you have the capability of understanding it, which this question causes me to doubt) have seen a post I made in another thread that said essentially tha if Kerry is sworn in next January, it will be "Kerry's war" by September.

I have never defended Saddam's regime. Nobody with the reading comprehension skills of a third-world illegal immigrant public school 6th grader from a single-parent home on welfare can conclude that I have. My objections to the war with Saddam center on the unilateral nature of it. My objections to the war with Saddam relate to the patently false way it was tied into the war on terror.[/b][/quote]
But didn't you also say that Iraq doesn't appear to be any better off now than it was under Hussein? So shouldn't we just admit we fucked up and try to make the country resemble what it was before we fucked it up, as best we can?

Yes, I did say that Iraq doesn't appear to be any better off now than it was under Hussein - although I think it was in response to a post by Mike AI about how much better off the Iraqis are now.

However, if that statement causes you to assume I even view "returning" Iraq to Saddam and his cronies as an option, I strongly suggest you find yourself a [insert sneering tone here] trial lawyer [end sneering tone] and sue any/all private schools you may have attended before any form of [insert reverential tone here] tort reform [end reverential tone] is implemented, because you got ripped off - BAD.

If it was a rhetorical trick, then either you did very well in woodworking, or see above.

BTW ... how to you go from referring to me saying Iraq "doesn't appear to be any better off" to assuming I believe that "we fucked it up"? That's a considerable leap there, don't you think?

Iraq used to be a fairly combustable combination of mixture of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds with a tight lid on it - but the lid was held in place by a guy with more than one screw loose. The guy with the screw loose is gone - and nobody is sorry he's gone except him - but the tight lid is off, and we've added Islamic extremists of all sorts and stripes to the mix.



Last edited by PornoDoggy at Mar 20 2004, 08:32 PM

they only party i'll join is one like this
Best Party[/b][/quote]
meni, what happened to their faces??

http://meni.net/party/c16.jpg

Yes, I did say that Iraq doesn't appear to be any better off now than it was under Hussein - although I think it was in response to a post by Mike AI about how much better off the Iraqis are now.

However, if that statement causes you to assume I even view "returning" Iraq to Saddam and his cronies as an option, I strongly suggest you find yourself a [insert sneering tone here] trial lawyer [end sneering tone] and sue any/all private schools you may have attended before any form of [insert reverential tone here] tort reform [end reverential tone] is implemented, because you got ripped off - BAD.

If it was a rhetorical trick, then either you did very well in woodworking, or see above.

BTW ... how to you go from referring to me saying Iraq "doesn't appear to be any better off" to assuming I believe that "we fucked it up"? That's a considerable leap there, don't you think?

Iraq used to be a fairly combustable combination of mixture of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds with a tight lid on it - but the lid was held in place by a guy with more than one screw loose. The guy with the screw loose is gone - and nobody is sorry he's gone except him - but the tight lid is off, and we've added Islamic extremists of all sorts and stripes to the mix.[/b][/quote]
I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from. You seem to oppose the invasion and occupation, yet you seem not to want things to be the way they were before the invasion.

So basically, it seems like you're saying you like the ends, but the ends didn't justify the means. Or something like that. Is that close?

so happy the administration spent billions of dollars to make those cameljockey's life better.

FUCK THOSE MUSLIMS

can you imagine what that much money could have done right here at home?

so happy the administration spent billions of dollars to make those cameljockey's life better.

FUCK THOSE MUSLIMS

can you imagine what that much money could have done right here at home?[/b][/quote]
What do you think it could do?

As Benjamin Franklin once wrote, those who would give up essential liberty for temporary security deserves neither liberty nor security.

What do you think it could do?[/b][/quote]
fix a couple of potholes eh? Bolster social security? lower the deficit? start the most well funded jobs program in history?

little things like that

fix a couple of potholes eh? Bolster social security? lower the deficit? start the most well funded jobs program in history?

little things like that[/b][/quote]
Aw come on. You know that would never happen. That money would disappear faster than Morty Oprano can down a bottle of Grey Goose.

yeah. I guess we might as well give them the rest of it then.

meni, what happened to their faces??

http://meni.net/party/c16.jpg[/b][/quote]
Jenna was sad when she heard you were married

so happy the administration spent billions of dollars to make those cameljockey's life better.

FUCK THOSE MUSLIMS

can you imagine what that much money could have done right here at home?[/b][/quote]
JOBS and EDUCATION baby
Bush sucks
f you republicans

I suppose that's close. Saddam was an evil guy. I thought Saddam was an evil guy when he was the darling of the Reagan Administration. I have never changed my opinion. I have never, however, been a subscriber to the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" way of thinking.

First of all, I have never accepted the idea that Iraq was connected to the broader war on terror - Saddam's regiime had nothing in common with the likes of alQaida.

Secondly, I was in favor of the war when it appeared that the Bush Administration "had the goods" on Saddam's WMD programs and the like. When Colin Powell went in front of the U.N. General Assembly and performed more like an inept local prosecutor with no case at all, rather than Adli Stevenson during the Cuban Missle Crisis, I knew the administration was trying to sell the world a falsified bill of goods.

Regardless of the assurances of the Bush Administration, I believe that the war has taken assets away from the real war on terror. I believe that the unilateral nature of the invasion has damaged the U.S. reputation abroad, and will serve al Qaida's (or some other fundamentalist Islamic organization or state's) interests far more than our own over the long run.

In the short term, the Iraqi people have been relieved of fearing the government only to fear lawlessness and anarchy - and the somewhat esoteric concept of political liberty is esaping them at the moment.

In the long run, I suspect that we have unleashed forces that Saddam's regime kept in check. Mike pointed out a poll the other day where 72% of the Iraqis felt that things were going to get better. While that's encouraging, I wonder if there were not similar results in the immediate period after the fall of communism in Yugoslavia - and even absent the meddling of Iran in the Sunni/Shiite difficulties, or Syria/Turkey in the Kurds vs the world difficulties, it is not difficult to believe the possibility is ripe for the rise of a Mullah Milosovich.

I don't think the Bush Administration told the truth about why they went to war in Iraq. I don't think the Bush Administration had a plan for what to do with Iraq once we won - so while supporters of the war can bring up the positive effects of occupation of Germany and/or Japan all they want, the analogy doesn't hold - because we very definitely had a plan there. I don't think the Administration really has a fucking clue on what to do next. Specifically I think they are uncertain how they are going to turn power over to Iraqis on June 1 - to whom, under what form, or who will be doing what.

In short - the war was based on false pretenses, the planning for the inevitable victory was non-existent, and the current policy seems to be getting made up as we go along - which does not fit my definition of "focused."

What I am afraid of is that, in the war on terror, Iraq has or will become our Gallipoli.