We learned nothing from Vietnam. Bush should have just sent two or three snipers into Iraq and let them dispose of Saddam and his sons. It would have been so easy.
But instead we’ve allowed nearly two-thousand of our own to be killed over there in that shithole, and for what?
If a team of snipers had been tapped to do the job the Iraqis wouldn’t have known who was behind it, things would have shaken out with a much better chance of there being much less of a total mess than there is now, and Americans wouldn’t be stuck with throwing our hard-earned money into that place. We could actually have money to take care of some things here, like road repair.
And isn’t it strange to hear people say that we had to go after the terrorists because of 911, even though something like 17 of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq?
In the end, where things are really all heading is that there’ll be another VERY BIG attack, and the “solution” will be that we’ll have monitoring cameras put up all over the place and every “true” American will be required to be electronically tagged so that the eyes-in-the-sky will know where each of us are at all times.
Of course, once the steel technological jaws have clamped down on us, that’s when the anti-Christ will take the seat of the presidency so that he and his boys will have total access to the nukes so that all other nations will be forced to take the Number (666) lest they be vaporized. And, according to Biblical prophecy, those that refuse to go along with the great “man of sin” will have their heads cut off!
Thanks Mr. Bush! May Satan bless you with a nice reward down in Hell one day, you’ve earned it!
I guess this is bound for the Pit, but just in case anyone responds by saying that assassination isn’t the America way or something, I’ll preemptively disagree (heck, you don’t even need snipers!).
Bush killed thousands of innocent Iraqis when he invaded Iraq. Assassination would have been so much less costly in terms of human life. I’m still not crazy about assassination, but it sure beats unprovoked warmongering.
Isn’t a convention a treaty? And aren’t treaties imposed on the good old U S of A by the United Nations? And isn’t the United Nations something invented to look after a bunch of Third World nations?
Probably but more important, at least, I would guess, to Americans, it violates a law (passed via executive order) that forbids assassination of foreign officials. Of course, since it’s an executive order, Bush COULD just write another one saying “game on”, but that probably wouldn’t be too wise.
The UN is the governments of the world. If the governments of the world ignore the treaties and Charter they signed (and which the US practically wrote), the “ineffectiveness of the UN” becomes a self-fulfillling prophecy, just as in the 19th Century the US was ineffective due to each state solely acting in its own interests.
This was written as sarcasm right? A kind of satirical look at a somewhat American perception of the UN as a Lilliputian assembly tasked with tying down the American Gulliver right?
I’m pretty sure he already did something to that effect, although maybe it only applied to “terrorists” (so I guess Saddam would be fair game). Sorry, no cite.
Well, there have been a large number of fairly lucrative security contracts, from what I hear. And the company that does the up-armoring of Hummvees for the military is having a pretty good year, apparently.
I didn’t think what I wrote could be read as other than sarcasm. But the terrible thing is that many do believe something like it. And if you were to point out that the US was a major player is starting the UN, they might respond that it was a Democrat administration that did it :rolleyes:
Thing is, Clothahump, all the things you said we were being alarmist about before the war started have pretty much come to pass. We have a huge mound o’ debt, we have serious issues at home that cannot be dealt with, we are stuck in a quagmire we can’t get out of in the middle east, our credibility is shot to shit with our allies, and the reason we went to war in the first place has turned out to be a fantasy (WMDs? No, no! We’re there to liberate the Iraqi people!). Not to mention, we STILL haven’t finished up business in Afghanistan.
You can only roll your eyes and accuse us of tinfoil hattery so long before the inevitable happens and you have to face the fact that you were wrong. And you were. And still are. Too bad assholes like you had to drag the rest of the country down with you.
It’s funny, but Dave Barry recommended almost exactly the same thing back in 1998. If only more people had voted for Dave back in 2000 then this whole Iraq thing would have been avoided.
I’m not usually an apologist for the likes of Clothahump, but given that the OP started bringing an expectation of Revelations-like outcomes into the discussion, perhaps a tinfoil hat isn’t such a bad idea. Not that it isn’t a bit odd to see tinfoil hats recommended as treatment for apocalyptic biblical literalism.
