Hey KELLY, this is for you!

Silver 2 · Post by **Silver 2** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:35 pm

I don't understand ... is a person killed in war somehow "deader" than someone killed in a drive-by at Burger King?

Hell, yes; don't be silly. You are constantly reminded about the dead soldier.

Preceptions. Anyone who says 'All human life is equal" really needs to get a reality check. One drug dealer caps another in a drive by and very few care, another lowlife bought it. Now if some bystander gets nailed there is more public concern. Even if the public at large hears about any kind of drive-by killing it is 2 seconds on TV or in the paper. If drunk drivers killed only themselves would MAD exist? I don't think so. The possiblity of dying while driving, while seldom thought about, is so
mething that we are aware of and we take that risk for ourselves and our children without thought. At least no one I know gets out of their car and says 'I made it alive once again'. The point being that, in general, we take risks all the time and sometimes it gets us or others; and we accept that, we have to. However, my preception is, and I quote myself:

The American public tends to have a problem with 'our boys', and now girls, getting shot to shit for nothing.

If Jimmy down the street crashes his bike at 90 and dies; well that sort of thing happens. We go to the funeral and within a few months those of us who only knew him a bit forget. If Jimmy becomes a Marine Raider and gets blown in two by an RPG we are constantly reminded esp. if we live in a small town, we know his parents, the newspaper writes a story, a developer names a street after him. His name is mentioned on the national news, and war protestors read his name off and light candles. As more kids die or come home crippled and the routine continues and as the conflict drags on with no end in sight people start thinking about the point of all this. Americans will accept losses but there has to be the preception of winning or at least moving forward.

I don't see this a another VietNam; more of a low grade guerilla war that simply goes on and on. A death here, five or six there, some maimings thrown in. At least until we declare victory and split after which there will be a truly bloody civil war, during which the average American will say something like "Well, we tried and did our best but those people just don't learn". If we can establish a stable democratic govenment in Iraq I will be profoundly surprised.

Oh, while making sure that I spelled guerilla correctly I saw this from one of the Aussie papers, dated 7/18/04:

As coalition aircraft came under fire from ground-to-air missiles in Baghdad for the second time in a week, the new commander of United States forces in the Gulf has said his troops face a "classical guerilla war".

GuinivereElise · Post by **GuinivereElise** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:37 pm

stuart wrote:
the Canadians will invade. They will be greeted as liberators.
that's the coolest thing I've read all day

I second that.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:38 pm

Russia is the fucking wild west right now.

Let's hear it for wholesale corrupt privatization! Where else can a sociopathic mobster amass so much cash in such a short period that he can buy a fashionable foreign football team outright and then throw 200,000,000 pounds plus at a trophy race.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:44 pm

Hey Cac,

I started a thread with your name because you were trolling all over calling everyone who didn't support Bush a mindless liberal twit (in so many words, usually ruder), and I wanted to draw your attention to the opinion of a certified conservative who also wasn't supporting Bush, to see if you were capable of making your case without dismissing the person you disagreed with as a liberal, and therefore automatically wrong. Obviously you weren't, as you never responded.

You started this thread out of spite, because you're an asshole. Not only are you an asshole, you are a brainless jingoistic fuck with no manners, courtesy, or empathy, blindly following those who appeal to your worst nature - which in your case, would be your entire personality. If you were born in the 19th century, I'm sure you would have passionately defended the right of white people to own black people. If you were alive in in Germany in the 30's, you gleefully would have been burning down synagogues and shoving Jews into trains. If you were a Cambodian in the 70's, you'd be happily shooting intellectuals in the back of the head. You are quite obviously embody the worst aspcts of the political animal, and I hope Joel and Geekster and other Bush supporters are embarrassed to have you supporting their candidate.

Yes, your side won, through means foul and fair. I think it's a sad thing for this country and the world. Look for piles of dead - Americans and Iraqi, growing poverty and desperation in America, and the marginalization of the country as the rest of the world unites in it's dislike of us. Time will tell, won't it?

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:04 pm

Actually, the current war in Iraq, the current war in Afghanistan, the previous Russian war in Afghanistan, the previous war in Iraq, the violence in Chechnya, and the current worldwide shame of millitant Islamist violence is all Jimmy Carter's fault because he decided to sit on his hands and let things just go as they may in the Persian Gulf region. Avoiding war at all costs is sometimes very costly and doesn't avoid war either. Much of what ails the world as far as major conflict and terrorism can be placed squarely in the lap of Jimmy Carter for allowing Iran to destabilize in a catastophic and completely unmanaged fashion. Before Carter was out of office, Russia was invading Afghanistan. Carter got Camp David right. He got just about everything else wrong.

calicowboy925 · Post by **calicowboy925** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:10 pm

Kelly, YOU made this a personal assault with your orig. post naming me in the title. What i can't have an opposing viewpoint? So i turned the tables on you when YOU and your supporters of the Party of Lawyers were soundly defeated on every front. Awww...poor Kelly, the hapless victim exposing your idiocy with the blathering about historical events. What makes you connect me with that? YOU are the ASSHOLE, YOU are the lowly FUCK who occupies such a dismal station in life because of your hatred which flows so effortlessly from your diseased mouth. That rambling reminded me of an old Rolling Stones song...

Silver 2 · Post by **Silver 2** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:13 pm

Real quick, got a meeting to go to.

1. Don't know what happened in my post above, it looked good in preview.

2. When I said that the religious types were scared I did not mean to give the impression they were scared about self-reliance and such but they were scared about and for their supersitions. Like the existance of people like me or gay folks that want to get married are a direct threat to their beliefs. I really don't care what you believe as long as I don't have to hear about it or follow whatever taboos you have come up with. On the other hand, the religious seem to want me to toe their line, and that scares me.

3. In the years I was active in reproductive rights (early/mid '70's), and every year I go out and watch the Roe protests put on by the catholic church. I never, ever, heard a right to lifer say one thing about who pays. Not once. I don't buy the cost argument. These people only want to enforce their taboos.

Lastly, the other day I asked an no-gay marriage fellow if he followed all the rules in Leviticus. That was fun. Most of those assholes haven't even read the Word of god but by god you've got to follow the rules that they know about, or have hand picked.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:17 pm

current worldwide shame of millitant Islamist violence is all Jimmy Carter's fault

I hope you are joking.

let's remember that Iran had a populist democracy after they shrugged off the effects of Brithish colonialism. Why did Iran have a fundamentalist, anti-western revolution? Because we nixed their elected president and installed the Shah; A horribly corrupt sham of a leader. I know many Iranians who fled around the time of the revolution. Many of them were Jews who, understandably, feared an Islamic theocratic state. Still, they have no missunderstandings about where the true instability in their country came from.

Once again Iran is straining to move toward reform. Once again we give the fundamentalists ammunition by rattling the sabre.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:18 pm

Silver 2 wrote:
I don't understand ... is a person killed in war somehow "deader" than someone killed in a drive-by at Burger King?
Hell, yes; don't be silly. You are constantly reminded about the dead soldier.

Preceptions. Anyone who says 'All human life is equal" really needs to get a reality check. One drug dealer caps another in a drive by and very few care, another lowlife bought it. Now if some bystander gets nailed there is more public concern. Even if the public at large hears about any kind of drive-by killing it is 2 seconds on TV or in the paper. If drunk drivers killed only themselves would MAD exist? I don't think so.

Silver. Just spent some time trying to find that classic passage (Menken?) on how many thousands have to die in a flood in the third world to make it on the front page over the fold like the death of one prominent wealthy american white man. Cynical--but oh so true--even all these years later.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:29 pm

Oh, Stewart, I never ment to imply that the govt. of the Shah was good. He should have been gone but in a different way. Not in uncontrolled collapse but in a more gradual turning over of power to an elected government. That the government completely collapsed and they are currently living under a religious dictatorship is what sucks. It could have been done differently but that would have required some backbone. Something the US was severely lacking at the time.

geekster · Post by **geekster** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:32 pm

Sorry, ment Stuart ... I have a friend named Stewart ... habit, my apologies.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:17 pm

no worries on the name. it's better than stuie <ahem>

my point was that they had a populist, democratically elected president before we 'showed backbone' and got rid of him. I feel a large part of the current mideast mess is because we and the USSR were fighting the cold war via proxy there.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 5:09 pm

stuart wrote:
Quote:
the Canadians will invade. They will be greeted as liberators.

that's the coolest thing I've read all day

I second that.

hahaha, no we won't, that's not our style. If anything you will invade us- we have oodles of fresh water, electricity, and oil, remember, and you want it. There's many a Canadian, out west anyways, that wouldn't be surprised if you took those things by force within our lifetime.

My boyfriend and I talked briefly, only partially jokingly, about how nice it would be to move to New Zealand, far, far away from the states to a country that has no problem saying fuck you to the US government if needed.

This really, really sucks. You know, with Bush in power I'm way less likely to go to the US, including to BM next year. It was a struggle to convince my boyfriend to enter the US for this past year. With Kerry at least we would have felt more comfortable doing it, but now, it's kind of like buying from a company who's business practices you abhor. Damn, I really wanted to go snowboarding in Colorado! Off to Cuba in the spring instead!

Silver 2 · Post by **Silver 2** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:10 pm

hahaha, no we won't, that's not our style. If anything you will invade us- we have oodles of fresh water, electricity, and oil, remember, and you want it.

That's what I said before the current Iraq war. People kept saying that the primary reason for the invasion was oil. I said I didn't think so and that if we were after oil Canada is a lot more convenient, with a smaller military and with a population that does not normally engage in throat cutting at every opportunity.

When my son was small, either 5 or 6, in a bad winter he repeatedly asked why it was so cold. Every time I responded that a cold air mass had come down from Canada. He was ready to go to war to make y'all stop it. Given the mental age of what I have seen of Bush supporters an invasion of Canada would have been an easy sell.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:14 pm

i am amazed that i actually seem like a voice of reason on the e-playa today... oh well, in 24 hours i am sure i will once again achieve pariah status

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:15 pm

self delusion knows no limits

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:31 pm

cowboyangel wrote:self delusion knows no limits

no shit, you thought Kerry would win!

sorry, that was just too easy, and waiting for me to pounce

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:37 pm

Simply Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:self delusion knows no limits
no shit, you thought Kerry would win!

sorry, that was just too easy, and waiting for me to pounce

the phrase is about you dude, not me.

sparkletarte · Post by **sparkletarte** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:42 pm

if we were after oil Canada is a lot more convenient

True, Silver, but the world would be much, much more outraged if that happened. It's easy to turn someone like Saddam into a bad guy in many people's eyes- much harder to do with Canada. It would be like invading, I don't know, Sweden or Australia or something. Not going to happen like that.

There are Americans who think that you should invade Canada though, or annex us. I've heard more than one comment from a righteous American who thinks we are too Communist for our own good (which shows their intelligence level, as we are from from it), and we deserve a good spanking from Uncle Sam for it and for our pansy, pacifist ways.

What will happen, and what is happening already, is invasion by infiltration. The DEA has an office in Vancouver and just conducted a huge sweep of arrests in BC yesterday- excuse me? Since when does US law enforcement have jurisdiction in another country? There are all sorts of ways we are being invaded already without guns and force as well. I long for the days when we had a PM who would tell your President to stay the fuck in his own country.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Wed Nov 03, 2004 7:55 pm

cowboyangel wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:self delusion knows no limits
no shit, you thought Kerry would win!

sorry, that was just too easy, and waiting for me to pounce
the phrase is about you dude, not me.

i was aware of what you were trying to label me with...

Hey KELLY, this is for you!

~

~