The media is the problem?! Yeah, fuck you, you’re a cunt.
The problem is the policy. The media is just putting a mirror up to the horror.
Fuck you, you idiot.
… Naah, too easy.
Bush managed to put the square peg of Iraq in the round hole of The War Against Terror, next to the properly put Afghanistan war. He is still lying saying they are the same and that he did not broke the toy.
The media could go out of the green zone and report last year, this year your wish virtually became true as a BBC reporter found out; unfortunately, instead of getting it done it got worse. And virgin boots Bush said that it will a problem for future presidents to solve. .
It may seem harsh and anti-female but …
All I can say is that in my part of the world “cunt” has become a gender neutral insult on the whole and I’m a foul mouthed Irish cunt 
Well, I’d rather be foully insulted by a neutral Irishman than mouth a foul Irish… uh, never mind.
:eek:
Note Please that “foul” and “Irish” were only coincidental in the previous post by accident of parody.
Some of my favorite cunts have been Irish and less than foul…
I’ll shut up now.
Way too late.
Hey, hey…
Comedy is not pretty.
I just don’t get the “war” thing. What war? There never was one. War on WMDs? War on Al-Qaeda? War on non-democracies who happen to have oil? There’s no war. Just invasion and occupation even the most brilliant minds on the planet can’t think a way out of now.
Needs the accent
Like the rest of the world I believe that the W.M.D s were fiction ,but every now and again I think “what if they weren’t?” and then I break out into a cold sweat because
,IF they exist , and they certainly haven’t been found anywhere in Iraq , then they’re either over the border in Iran or have probably been sold on by the Russian Mafia to someone.
I pray to Santa in all of his glory that I’m wrong.
danceswithcats I admire you somewhat for standing up, admitting you voted for Bush and copping to your cuntyness but…
…you do mean you voted for him in 2000, not 2004, right?
'Cause if you just voted for him in 2000 then you’re merely a cunt. But if you voted for him in 2004, after he started that damn fool cemetery-stuffing contest; after it was already terribly clear to anyone with a normal frontal cortex-- to anyone with a heart that is not three-times-too-small; after it was obvious that the **clusterfuck ** was nothing but a young-American disposal-circus, with **shredded Iraqis ** as a widely ignored by-product.
-------if you voted for him in 2004— if you deliberately chose to “stay-the-corpse” when you ALREADY KNEW * that it was* FUBAR ** beyond any fucked-up recognition, (yes, that’s FUBAR squared), when you *ALREADY KNEW * that American and Iraqi blood was being shed— no, poured—no CASCADED, for absolutely NO OTHER reason then to fucking re-fertilize the fucking Fertile Crescent----
-----if you voted to re-elect Bush in 2004---- if you did this and you had even the *tiniest bit of a nascent inkling * of what everyone else in the world already knew–that is that the whole Iraq disaster was totally unwarranted, unnecessary, unwise, unbelievable, uncivilized, un-legal, un-human, un-American, un-Jesus and just generally double-plus ungood—
------if you voted for the war in 2004 (yes–that’s right-- you voted for the war when you voted for the CINC-who’s-a-Dink)—
----then you’re not just a just a cunt,
you are way beyond being a gash,
and you are far more than a cum-dumpster…
in fact, it would be giving cooze a bad name to even call you a hatchet-wound.
No sir— you are merely one, unclean, speck.
doing its part to keep the new global bloodletting Crusading along.
I prefer “monster”. A pro-lie, pro-mass murder, pro-torture monster, an enemy of humanity.
“Cunt” is just tacky, and rather pathetic as an insult.
It is an unnecessary, unjust war. There is no way it could have gone well. In fact, if it was going well for us, that would make it worse, not better.
And what if Saddam’s army of genetically engineered ninja assassins is now selling its’ services on the black market ? < mock shudder >
Seriously, worry about something that might actually be a problem. Like all the people who now have perfectly good reasons to be murderously angry at America.
danceswithcats, what is the proper term for a person who’s vote contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason at all?
And what is the proper term for a person who would vote that way again?
danceswithcats, could you cite me the precedence for the US military quelling a terrorist insurgency using whatever-it-is you propose that is upalatable “to the American citizenry” (of course the Arab street and your allies don’t matter - no repercussions there, as long as John Q Voter is kept happy).
Take into account, if you will, the number of civilian deaths with media “intrusion”. Now please estimate the number of civilian deaths if the military is doing what you want them to do. Try to couch this in terms that won’t make me accuse you of favoring mass murder.
Indicate how this won’t inflame the rest of the region even more than it’s been inflamed already. Show how even less humane action will prevent more western Muslims turning to Al Qaeda.
I’m sure you’re a nice person really, but on this issue, you truly are a shit.
Cite?
S/he dances with cats. That’s cute.
Der Trihs, in yojimbo’s (and my) cultural context, “cunt” is entirely appropriate - it has a different connotation over here.
Oh, sure, blame the Jews, Mr. Gibson!
I cop to having supported “regime change” back in late 2001, maybe as long as early 2002. (I work two blocks from the WTC, if that’s any excuse.) Despite a long history of opposing US involvement in foreign wars, I actually supported Bush (didn’t vote for him either time, and was adamant about his utter offensive inadequacy) because I thought “Of course there are WMDs–Bush is making a public asshole out of himself by claiming there are if there aren’t, and because it can proven later on that there aren’t, they’ve got to be there. And if they’re there, and getting Saddam out of power is a good thing anyway, then BRING IT AWN!”
I said as much to colleagues (not so much on-line), and shit got heated for a while.
Then I realized that OMIGAWD BUSH IS JUST AN INCREDIBLY BAD LIAR, AND HE MADE IDIOTS OUT OF PEOPLE LIKE ME and I became much, MUCH more violently anti-war than I might have been without getting duped. (Also apologized to my colleagues for saying stupid shit in late 2001.)
Oddly enough, I remember briefly supporting the gummint early on in Vietnam too. I was an adolescent hawk for a while around 1965, and by 1968 was actively opposed to the war and acted out my disapproval publicly on a near-daily basis. By 1970, opposing the Vietnam war became my reason to live.
You beat me to it. For the past couple of years, I’ve been getting tired of hearing the shennanigans in Iraq referred to as “the war in Iraq”. In March 2003, we went to war, invading Iraq. Won pretty quickly; then we found ourselves having to occupy a country without any plan for doing so (thanks to Rumsfeld). (I even remember Paul Wolfowitz specifically saying something like, “I can’t imagine that it would take more troops to occupy the country than to invade it.” I’d like to get him a history book for Christmas.)
But that may have been the last time anybody in the administration publicly used the term “occupy”, and I never hear it questioned by the major news sources. (Where’s that media liberal bias when you need it?) If it’s a war, who are we fighting? The insurgents are mostly native Iraqis; so are the people we’re supporting. Yes, there’s a war now, but it’s the Iraqis’ civil war, and at this point, any effort we make to strengthen the official police or “security” forces does nothing to create actual security; we’re just helping one side in a civil war.
The current neocon line, as expressed by Bill Kristol, is that, even though things on the surface seem to be not going so well, it’s all part of a grand 50-year plan for reshaping the world, and you’re just a short-sighted whiner if you can’t see that. They never mentioned it before because they didn’t think we’d understand. (Saw him on “The Daily Show”. I don’t know how that guy gets to be a famous “political analyst”, because if he posted here, his arguments would get ripped to shreds in short order.)
Hard to say with Mrs. Kristol’s boy Billy. Sometimes he says things which are incisive, pointed, and intelligent, other times, he spread his lips and the horseshit pours out by the handful. You just never know.
I’m seeing hints of a minor argument on the loony left that perhaps we shouldn’t actively oppose the “urge to surge” as it will deprive the tighty rightys of another way to blame this shitswamp on us. (Atrios and Matt Y, for a couple). Others say it doesn’t matter because they will blame us anyway, along with our sock puppets in the liberal tedia.
I say it is immoral even to think about it. Our opinions demand that we insist that no more American lives be squandered, and hang who blames who for what. Yes, they will blame us, yes, Chuck Norris will probably star in a movie about rescuing our POWs…err, our PWOTs…from Fallujah, and Sean Hannity will shit himself screaming about us spitting on returning troops. All of that will happen, and it matters, it stinks.
Too bad, we want them out, and hang the consequences! If we are unwilling to accept huge political risk in order to do whats right, we are hardly better than they are.