Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Veteran)   "Sure, let's go back to Iraq. Oh, yes. I'll dig out my uniform and strap on my pistol and ride into battle yet again. Just so long as Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and the rest are in the vanguard"   (stonekettle.com ) divider line
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

5750 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jun 2014 at 7:07 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-06-15 02:21:11 AM  
img.fark.net

I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.
 
2014-06-15 02:50:53 AM  
This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.
 
2014-06-15 03:00:05 AM  
+1
 
2014-06-15 03:52:16 AM  
I appreciate an inspired rant, I really do, and the beauty of that one is I can't disagree with any of it.
 
2014-06-15 03:53:28 AM  
If you think that "we" would be greeted as liberators, then you should relish the idea of being at the front of the line.
 
2014-06-15 04:02:23 AM  
Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again. They just want to use it against Obama any way they can. If he doesn't send troops, they'll attack him for being weak and 'losing' the Iraq war. If he does send troops, they'll attack him for being a ruthless bloodthirsty warmongering dictator.
 
2014-06-15 04:17:38 AM  
Dear, rich old men and your whores.  We ain't buying the con anymore.  You need money from war?  Go earn it.  - America
 
2014-06-15 07:23:16 AM  
The problem is when you suggest the people beating the war drums be the first to deploy, they don't realize their hawkishness is wrong.  All they do is find some excuse that means they shouldn't go then continue to beat.

It's especially sad when it's a veteran who wasn't in any real danger when they deployed or worse didn't deploy at all.  They have no concept of the actual danger of war because their job was in abject safety.

/the war was fine, I spent most of the time doing college work!
//the war was fine, I got plenty of flight time at 30,000 feet!
///the war was fine, I was awarded the bronze star for helping people's finances!  They don't give those out to just anyone!
 
2014-06-15 07:32:00 AM  
This vet needs to learn some respect. If it's not worth it to launch a nation into a decade-long, trillion dollar conflict to help a dry drunk millionaire win the love of his daddy, then what the hell are we doing here?
 
2014-06-15 07:35:43 AM  
Good read is good.

I'd like to buy that hero an ale.

/Wait what?
//Appropriate use of the Fark Hero tag?
///Does this mean I can start clicking on those links that promise "hot" chicks pics again?
 
2014-06-15 07:39:29 AM  
Wow.  Reminds me of Iraq I and the guys coming into the shop saying, "HELL YES!  LET'S GET THOSE BASTARDS!"  I asked them do they really support that war?  When they answered yes, I told them that unless they had a son, a daughter, niece, nephew, cousin, brother, sister, uncle or aunt or any close friends that they would be willing to sacrifice for the freedom of the people over there who would slit our throats at the drop of the hat, then they did NOT support the war and needed to shut the hell up.  I also reminded them that it wasn't us 40 somethings they sent to the battle field, it was people like the young 20 something guys they had in the shop, who were men, but they were just kids.

Very nice article.
 
2014-06-15 07:42:27 AM  
In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.
 
2014-06-15 07:43:23 AM  
Your blog........does not suck

Impressive rant and one I agree with.
 
2014-06-15 07:59:05 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-15 07:59:50 AM  

Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.


Why don't we do that with everything?  I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.

/Also, good rant
 
2014-06-15 08:05:52 AM  

Summoner101: The problem is when you suggest the people beating the war drums be the first to deploy, they don't realize their hawkishness is wrong.  All they do is find some excuse that means they shouldn't go then continue to beat.

It's especially sad when it's a veteran who wasn't in any real danger when they deployed or worse didn't deploy at all.  They have no concept of the actual danger of war because their job was in abject safety.

/the war was fine, I spent most of the time doing college work!
//the war was fine, I got plenty of flight time at 30,000 feet!
///the war was fine, I was awarded the bronze star for helping people's finances!  They don't give those out to just anyone!


And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern. Hell, even George HW Bush knew he couldn't go but so far in the Gulf War. Which makes it even more disturbing how McCain is so willing to bang the drum.
 
2014-06-15 08:13:40 AM  
Pure democracy is an inherently bad system. Half of all people are, tautologically, below average. They shouldn't get a direct vote on all issues. That's why we have representatives.

However, by allowing people to campaign for for public office as a career, we wind up with representatives who are really only qualified to run for public office. They're less than useless at best.

The only system that is going to work is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, where people are forcibly elected to occupation specific offices by their peers and colleges by a series of mandatory elections that do not have ballots, but rather simply ask people for the best in their industry.
 
2014-06-15 08:28:04 AM  
Wonderful write-up.  Too bad those people in power will ignore it.

Any bets on which one of our usual suspects will pull the "your blog sucks" trigger?
 
2014-06-15 08:30:54 AM  

Cyclometh: [img.fark.net image 480x640]

I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.


An audio version done by Samuel Jackson would be great.
 
2014-06-15 08:30:59 AM  

doglover: Pure democracy is an inherently bad system. Half of all people are, tautologically, below average. They shouldn't get a direct vote on all issues. That's why we have representatives.

However, by allowing people to campaign for for public office as a career, we wind up with representatives who are really only qualified to run for public office. They're less than useless at best.

The only system that is going to work is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, where people are forcibly elected to occupation specific offices by their peers and colleges by a series of mandatory elections that do not have ballots, but rather simply ask people for the best in their industry.


That's not true. Half the people don't necessarily have to be below average. If you have three people with a 100IQ, and one with a 20, average is 80. Most are above average.
 
2014-06-15 08:31:59 AM  

Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.


Actually, it was proposed as a Constitutional amendment in 1916.

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/content/constitution/files/constitu ti on_proposedamendments.pdf
 
2014-06-15 08:40:15 AM  
Fantastic blog.  Thank you, submitter.
 
2014-06-15 08:49:44 AM  
Your blog succeeds.
 
2014-06-15 08:52:03 AM  
Wow. It's super-effective!
 
2014-06-15 08:57:03 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.

Why don't we do that with everything?  I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.


That's why the first democracy was so radical. When the citizens of Athens would vote to go to war, it meant they themselves had to gather their shields and march off.

/of course, a direct democracy only works in a small enough community
 
2014-06-15 09:02:14 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.

Why don't we do that with everything?  I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.

/Also, good rant


California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.
 
2014-06-15 09:04:57 AM  
Naomi Rivkis (for you to ctrl-f) has an interesting comment on the dude's site.
 
2014-06-15 09:05:10 AM  

propasaurus: Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again. They just want to use it against Obama any way they can. If he doesn't send troops, they'll attack him for being weak and 'losing' the Iraq war. If he does send troops, they'll attack him for being a ruthless bloodthirsty warmongering dictator.


Sending troops would be a distraction from the real controversy.   Real, of course, means which ever controversy we're talking about at the moment.  Eventually, his sending troops to Iraq will be a distraction from his decision to send troops to Iraq.
 
2014-06-15 09:05:40 AM  
Great piece. Of course, the warhawk/chickenhawk will claim that we gave the iraqis freedom and they squandered it. All we did was guarantee the Iraqis another 10-20 or more years of civil war. History will look back at our invasion as the stupidest mistake ever.
 
2014-06-15 09:05:53 AM  
Count me in at 100% in agreement.

And I'd just like to point out for the record that this mess is exactly what the anti-war commie liberal "against us" crowd said was the problem before it even kicked off. Would it hurt conservatives to listen once in a while?
 
2014-06-15 09:06:14 AM  
Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,
 
2014-06-15 09:08:49 AM  

propasaurus: Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again.


I think you underestimate the bloodlust, the callousness, and the hubris of many of your countrymen. I'm sure there are many that think if we go back in with enough troops we can kill the Iraqis into living in peace with each other. After all, we know better than they whats best for them.
 
2014-06-15 09:09:45 AM  
"This time you farkers goddamned well tell me why."

Baller.

"Back then, as an officer, mine was not to reason why. But this time, well, this time I'm a civilian. And as a citizen of the United States, this time I demand to know why."

Also baller.
 
2014-06-15 09:10:53 AM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


So (assuming you want to be honest), you don't use a single word.

You say "our armed forces" or "the United States military", or something like that.

If you want to be honest.
 
2014-06-15 09:16:00 AM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


That comes up in the sports tab a lot.

"The team didn't do well today.  We'll do better next week."
"We?  What position do you play, farkwad?
"..."
 
2014-06-15 09:18:58 AM  

UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.


I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.
 
2014-06-15 09:24:25 AM  

ongbok: Cyclometh: [img.fark.net image 480x640]

I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.

An audio version done by Samuel Jackson would be great.


Holy crap, that would be awesome.

/Great find, subs. Thanks.
 
2014-06-15 09:28:02 AM  

Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.


You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.
 
2014-06-15 09:29:39 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.

You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.


Butler was an eminently smarter man than that MacArthur douche who was ordered to disperse the veterans listening to Butler.
 
2014-06-15 09:33:28 AM  

Snatch Bandergrip: Why don't we do that with everything? I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.


You do realize that we're not a democracy, we're a Democratic Republic, right? That is, our system is designed specifically NOT to be a majority-rules system, but to ensure that the tyranny of the majority is specifically curtailed?
 
2014-06-15 09:38:48 AM  
"Why?
Why, John McCain?
Why, Mitt Romney?
Why, conservatives?
This time you farkers goddamned well tell me why.
What's the goal? What's the objective? Is it to end terrorism? Is it to enforce peace at the muzzle of a gun? Is it it to make defense contractors rich? Is it for jobs? Or is it for magic flying bunnies who shoot rainbows and cheap gasoline out of their little assholes to the sound of Yankee Doodle Dandy?
Or, or, is it just because you hate Barack Obama?
That's it, isn't it?
It is."

I love this section of his oh so awesome rant. Yeah for gasoline shiating bunnies.
 
2014-06-15 09:43:27 AM  
Your blog...does not suck.
 
2014-06-15 09:49:17 AM  

Great_Milenko: Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,


He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.
 
2014-06-15 09:51:33 AM  

EvilEgg: Most are above average.


Go back to Lake Woebegone.
 
2014-06-15 09:54:31 AM  
I skipped this one at first, having a really, really busy night at work. But that's farking beautiful.
 
2014-06-15 10:03:07 AM  

starsrift: Naomi Rivkis (for you to ctrl-f) has an interesting comment on the dude's site.


Holy crap wow. Yeah she made a great point.

Thanks for that. I usually skip the comments.
 
2014-06-15 10:04:18 AM  
The Soviet Empire fell. All the glue holding historical gruges failed. Then Yugoslavia, a fictional country invented by the Hapsburgs, violently split apart, with the Russian-backed Serbs claiming they wanted the separate ethnic and language groups back in the band -- terrorizing every one in sight.

The various Northern Mexico cartels lost their leaders, due to heavy US efforts. They terrorized the area as rivals fought to take control in the vacuum.

We go to Iraq, a second time. We destroy the middle class, destroy the infrastructure and not expect that Kurds, Sunnis and Shias just each want their own geography recognized, and that any violence created vacuum is going to want more. And we want it to be the same fictional three-way we believed it to be. That little movie cost trillions in dollars and lots in humanity.

At least we learned how to destroy the middle class. That's working now in the US.
Maybe Iraq will disappear from the map.
 
2014-06-15 10:08:36 AM  

Kit Fister: Snatch Bandergrip: Why don't we do that with everything? I know, I know, people can barely be bothered to vote once every four years, but I would love a system in which we, an alleged democracy, played a more intimate role in the decision making.

You do realize that we're not a democracy, we're a Democratic Republic, right? That is, our system is designed specifically NOT to be a majority-rules system, but to ensure that the tyranny of the majority is specifically curtailed?


All hail the oligarchy... long may it reign.
 
2014-06-15 10:09:00 AM  

HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.


Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes.  Is California some sort of failed state?  Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.
 
2014-06-15 10:24:51 AM  
Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.
 
2014-06-15 10:26:47 AM  

UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern. Hell, even George HW Bush knew he couldn't go but so far in the Gulf War. Which makes it even more disturbing how McCain is so willing to bang the drum.


Maybe it's a form of hazing ritual. "*I* had to do it and it sucked, so now I get to make YOU do it, whether it makes sense or not!"
 
2014-06-15 10:27:41 AM  

propasaurus: Here's the thing. I don't think anyone actually wants to invade Iraq again. They just want to use it against Obama any way they can. If he doesn't send troops, they'll attack him for being weak and 'losing' the Iraq war. If he does send troops, they'll attack him for being a ruthless bloodthirsty warmongering dictator.


I'd imagine that the various companies which won no-bid DoD contracts the last time around have finally had a chance to tote up their books and now see the profits they made over the last decade, which would be enough to inspire any warm-blooded sociopath to start agitating for war again.

The bonus is if we go back into Iraq, they don't have to make all-new contacts; they can use the ones they already have.
 
2014-06-15 10:27:57 AM  

HeartBurnKid: Great_Milenko: Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,

He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.


The republicans are the same way.

Build a wall along the entire mexican border!

Moar aircraft carriers!

Moar cops!

Bomb bomb bomb Iran!

What, we actually have to pay for this shiat???  When the poors are getting a free ride with their refrigerators?
 
2014-06-15 10:31:13 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-15 10:31:51 AM  
The only parts of that I took issue with were when he suggested that the war was in part about killing muslims, and some of his invective and angry language.

Iraq was about as secular a state as you could GET in the middle east, thanks to Saddam patterning himself on Stalin and realising that it was the only way to keep the peace between all the different sects).  There are far more effective places to go if you want to shoot people over religion.  No, I think the war was about getting the guy who pissed off W's daddy, was about handing huge sums of money over to Halliburton, and was about trying to get American companies' hands on all that oil, they just failed badly at that last part.

As for some of the things he said, well, he's obviously angry, and I totally understand that, but when you get angry you say things that might put off a reasonable person who desperately needs to read and understand your argument, which would be a shame because everyone right now needs to understand exactly what the fark is wrong with Iraq and why we just cannot go back there.
 
2014-06-15 10:32:09 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.

You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.


Fascinating guy. I only learned about the Business Plot about a year ago, for instance. One of these days, I need to get around to reading War is a Racket.
 
2014-06-15 10:35:58 AM  

TwoBeersOneCan: You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket. It always has been. The few profit and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter. Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.


Did he start any of them with "War.  War never changes."?
 
2014-06-15 10:39:39 AM  
I read this in George Carlin's voice. It worked for me.
 
2014-06-15 10:41:59 AM  

BitwiseShift: The Soviet Empire fell. All the glue holding historical gruges failed. Then Yugoslavia, a fictional country invented by the Hapsburgs, violently split apart, with the Russian-backed Serbs claiming they wanted the separate ethnic and language groups back in the band -- terrorizing every one in sight.

The various Northern Mexico cartels lost their leaders, due to heavy US efforts. They terrorized the area as rivals fought to take control in the vacuum.

We go to Iraq, a second time. We destroy the middle class, destroy the infrastructure and not expect that Kurds, Sunnis and Shias just each want their own geography recognized, and that any violence created vacuum is going to want more. And we want it to be the same fictional three-way we believed it to be. That little movie cost trillions in dollars and lots in humanity.

At least we learned how to destroy the middle class. That's working now in the US.
Maybe Iraq will disappear from the map.


Acutally, what Franz Ferdinand proposed was the  Vereinigte Staaten von Groß-Österreich - the United States of Greater Austria.  And federalization of the trans-Danube region may have staved off some of the ethnic issues.  What actually was created toward the end of the war was a union between the Serbs and the Slovenes and Croats.  It was a complete overhaul of their government on the macro level without examining changes needed at the local level, particularly where ethnic minorities were actually the majority.

All that is to say, yes it was fictional, and yes it was all but doomed from its inception, but the Habsburgs weren't involved outside of inspiration from Franz Ferdinand's pipe dream.
 
2014-06-15 10:45:41 AM  

evil saltine: Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.


YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR YOU'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS!

/The Danes call it "nuance".
 
2014-06-15 10:50:34 AM  
YOUR BLOG SU... actually that was pretty awesome.
 
2014-06-15 10:55:55 AM  

doglover: Pure democracy is an inherently bad system. Half of all people are, tautologically, below average. They shouldn't get a direct vote on all issues. That's why we have representatives.

However, by allowing people to campaign for for public office as a career, we wind up with representatives who are really only qualified to run for public office. They're less than useless at best.

The only system that is going to work is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, where people are forcibly elected to occupation specific offices by their peers and colleges by a series of mandatory elections that do not have ballots, but rather simply ask people for the best in their industry.


So, What....?  Instead we elect them to the House and give them an even more powerful vote on the issues?
/ Just snarking.
 
2014-06-15 11:03:46 AM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


Asked and answered. Putting the word "we" in quotes (or finger quotes if speaking) pretty much covers it.
 
2014-06-15 11:07:11 AM  
Nice.
 
2014-06-15 11:10:41 AM  
I hope that by posting this on Facebook I can end any "relationship" with three or more of my "friends".


That was amazing.
 
2014-06-15 11:22:54 AM  

Barricaded Gunman: cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.

Asked and answered. Putting the word "we" in quotes (or finger quotes if speaking) pretty much covers it.


How about this.  Unless you are actively involved with the subject of the sentence, use the word "they".
 
2014-06-15 11:26:49 AM  
 
2014-06-15 11:35:04 AM  

Great_Milenko: Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,


There is a valid case to be made for not making long-term public policy based on the political hysteria du jour.
 
2014-06-15 11:45:24 AM  
I gather from the article that the author is not in favor of military intervention.
 
2014-06-15 11:48:50 AM  

Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.


Service leads to citizenship.
 
2014-06-15 11:50:01 AM  

Darth Macho: Note that most of these pre-date alts, trolling and Poe's Law and are prime examples of authentic douchebaggery.


Back when being an anonymous asshole on the internet meant something.
 
2014-06-15 11:52:32 AM  
 
2014-06-15 11:53:07 AM  
media.tumblr.com

oops got too excited didn't do the pic thingie right
 
2014-06-15 12:01:25 PM  

EvilEgg: doglover: Pure democracy is an inherently bad system. Half of all people are, tautologically, below average. They shouldn't get a direct vote on all issues. That's why we have representatives.

However, by allowing people to campaign for for public office as a career, we wind up with representatives who are really only qualified to run for public office. They're less than useless at best.

The only system that is going to work is a totalitarian dictatorship of the proletariat, where people are forcibly elected to occupation specific offices by their peers and colleges by a series of mandatory elections that do not have ballots, but rather simply ask people for the best in their industry.

That's not true. Half the people don't necessarily have to be below average. If you have three people with a 100IQ, and one with a 20, average is 80. Most are above average.


the average person doesn't know the difference between median and average :)
 
2014-06-15 12:01:57 PM  
TL:DR

your blog sucks, so bad.

you sound awfully butthurt subby.
 
2014-06-15 12:07:12 PM  

Hobo Jr.: Laobaojun: In one of Heinlein's books, the system was that for the country to go to war, it had to be approved in a general election.  The kicker was that if you voted for war, your military assignment was marked for you on the ballot.

I am not saying this is the answer, but this business of effete fat-bodies with no flesh in the game deciding that "we" need to go to war is inherently problematic.

Service leads to citizenship.


To update Heinlein, today's ballot would have two types: the Democratic ballot would be what Heinlein originally wrote, the Republican ballot would have a prediction of personal profit from the combination tax reduction, arms sales, Halliburton and Carlyle investment, insider hedge fund management, and surveiillance industry rewards.

The Republican ballot would also include a tax free $50,000 thank you coupon for the cost saving of "free speech" appealing directly to the voter instead of enriching price-fixing media outlets.  And a timeline of what to build to accommodate millions of returning unemployed and wounded who will be needing overpriced shelter and usurious loans in an economy characterized by a hugh war deficit and no real new jobs.
 
2014-06-15 12:07:45 PM  

xtech: TL:DR

your blog sucks, so bad.

you sound awfully butthurt subby.


Bless your heart.
 
2014-06-15 12:18:05 PM  

John the Magnificent: Barricaded Gunman: cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.

Asked and answered. Putting the word "we" in quotes (or finger quotes if speaking) pretty much covers it.

How about this.  Unless you are actively involved with the subject of the sentence, use the word "they".


It does sorta seem like a "Grammar won't let me include myself where I'm not actually included. Damned grammar!' kinda situation to me.
 
2014-06-15 12:30:23 PM  

mofa: HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes.  Is California some sort of failed state?  Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.


No, California's not a failed state.  Not by a longshot.  We just have a bad habit of voting all kinds of earmarks into the budget via the initiative process, then damn near revolting when Sacramento raises taxes or makes other cuts to pay for it all, to the point we've made it nigh impossible for them to do so.  You notice how we just now finally got things in line now that the Democrats have a supermajority?  That's because that's what it takes for the California budget process to work, with the ways we the people have micromanaged it.

And guacamole is awesome, I put it on everything I can, and I'll not hear another bad word about it.
 
2014-06-15 12:37:04 PM  
God dammed gorgeous.
 
2014-06-15 12:38:10 PM  
Your blog...is awesome!


*wipes away tear*
 
2014-06-15 12:47:44 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Great_Milenko: Mrtraveler01:

California is a pretty good example of why a direct democracy is flawed.

People who don't agree with me are a good example of why freedom is flawed,

He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.


Actually California proves the problem with our democracy at large: we all need services from the government, but the people who have the actual money squeal like stuck little piggie pigs if you even talk about taxation.
 
2014-06-15 12:56:56 PM  

Epicanis: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern. Hell, even George HW Bush knew he couldn't go but so far in the Gulf War. Which makes it even more disturbing how McCain is so willing to bang the drum.

Maybe it's a form of hazing ritual. "*I* had to do it and it sucked, so now I get to make YOU do it, whether it makes sense or not!"


That's pretty much the cornerstone of conservative policy. Most of the "underserving poor" arguments and similar discussions boil down to "I had to suffer, YOU have to suffer."
 
2014-06-15 01:00:12 PM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


sycophant?
 
2014-06-15 01:03:52 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: [img.fark.net image 640x823]


How quaint.

This is what happens when a neocon warhawk gets his hands on that WWII "we're all in this together, and today's keyword is 'conservation'" propaganda poster.

Guess who it usually gets pointed at.

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-15 01:23:26 PM  
"WE?"

We? Should be a pin or T-shirt that every vetran wears from here on out. This wasnt a football game, this was a war. A really really shiatty war.
 
2014-06-15 01:30:36 PM  
It is so nice to find a well written website/blog worthy of bookmarking.
 
2014-06-15 01:35:57 PM  
If you're not in favor of interventions, why join a volunteer force that's done nothing but that for the better part of the last century?

/I you just want to "defend your nation" then simply wait long enough and war will come to you.
 
2014-06-15 01:40:00 PM  
Agreed with every word.

That being said, my secret, dirty little fantasy for this insurgence happening, and now that a carrier group is on the way into the gulf, is for our President to go to a joint session of congress and say the following

"Our military is ready, we know who the enemy is and where they are. Constitutionally only Congress may declare war. If you wish our troops and ships committed, declare war, put in place taxes and revenue to pay for it up front and give me clear and concise goals for our military leaders"

I would be glued to C-SPAN for the ensuing Republican meltdown.
 
2014-06-15 01:48:15 PM  

Darth Macho: Ah, a classic W-era antiwar "web-log" post. For those of you interested, here's how these used to be received back in the day.

http://www.fark.com/comments/316122/Retired-Marine-colonel-has-a-few -q uestions-to-ask-his-commander-in-chief-about-Iraq

Some other choice Fark comments threads. Note that most of these pre-date alts, trolling and Poe's Law and are prime examples of authentic douchebaggery.

http://www.fark.com/comments/47950/Iraq-could-be-real-mastermind-fin an cier
(one of the first Iraq War threads. September 19, 2001)

http://www.fark.com/comments/88327/In-survey-most-Americans-want-Ira q- to-be-next-target

http://www.fark.com/comments/223826/How-a-War-With-Iraq-Will-Change- Wo rld

http://www.fark.com/comments/268963/The-case-against-war-with-Iraq

http://www.fark.com/comments/288064/Colin-Powell-calls-for-evidence- be fore-Iraq-strikes

http://www.fark.com/comments/349764/UN-passes-resolution-on-Iraq-wea po ns-inspections

And here's a big one. Over 500 comments.
http://www.fark.com/comments/474538/Pentagon-reports-US-ground-force s- have-entered-Iraq-no-link


Thats a whole lot of Derp before there was Derp. Some choice selections.

fb-
2001-12-21 09:10:14 AM  
I want the terrorist hugger training camps and ultra-leftist colleges attacked first. We need to fight the terrorists training camps in this country first.



This one seems particularly poignant now.
Warchild [TotalFark]
2002-09-02 05:49:41 AM  
Bullshiat! Now is the time to take care of that prick, so that in another ten years we aren't looking back saying "we should have finished the job ten years ago" like we are now.


scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel
2002-11-08 10:33:25 AM  
We'll invade in January or February.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.


Rudezombie
2003-03-20 01:34:58 PM  
Damn, they're not messin around. Well, I guess we can be thankful this is going quickly.


RatBear
2003-03-20 01:37:06 PM  
After Iraq, are we gonna go northwest and take out France? It'd be the best thing to do. They've already surrendered


mddude
2003-03-20 01:37:48 PM  
GO KICK THEIR ASSES!!! I wish I was there like I was 12 years ago. I left behind a shoe I said I was going to pick up on the way back, but forgot.

    
Evil_Urna
2003-03-20 01:39:16 PM  
Woo-Hoo time to get my kill on



And I think, for the ultimate in hyperbole spitting armchair generals...
I_Can't_Believe_It's_Not_Smegma
2002-11-08 10:36:47 AM  
nuke em
 
2014-06-15 01:48:28 PM  

Via Infinito: starsrift: Naomi Rivkis (for you to ctrl-f) has an interesting comment on the dude's site.

Holy crap wow. Yeah she made a great point.

Thanks for that. I usually skip the comments.


Yep. She nailed it too.
 
2014-06-15 01:53:04 PM  

Will-Mun: Darth Macho: Ah, a classic W-era antiwar "web-log" post. For those of you interested, here's how these used to be received back in the day.

http://www.fark.com/comments/316122/Retired-Marine-colonel-has-a-few -q uestions-to-ask-his-commander-in-chief-about-Iraq

Some other choice Fark comments threads. Note that most of these pre-date alts, trolling and Poe's Law and are prime examples of authentic douchebaggery.

http://www.fark.com/comments/47950/Iraq-could-be-real-mastermind-fin an cier
(one of the first Iraq War threads. September 19, 2001)

http://www.fark.com/comments/88327/In-survey-most-Americans-want-Ira q- to-be-next-target

http://www.fark.com/comments/223826/How-a-War-With-Iraq-Will-Change- Wo rld

http://www.fark.com/comments/268963/The-case-against-war-with-Iraq

http://www.fark.com/comments/288064/Colin-Powell-calls-for-evidence- be fore-Iraq-strikes

http://www.fark.com/comments/349764/UN-passes-resolution-on-Iraq-wea po ns-inspections

And here's a big one. Over 500 comments.
http://www.fark.com/comments/474538/Pentagon-reports-US-ground-force s- have-entered-Iraq-no-link

Thats a whole lot of Derp before there was Derp. Some choice selections.

fb-
2001-12-21 09:10:14 AM  
I want the terrorist hugger training camps and ultra-leftist colleges attacked first. We need to fight the terrorists training camps in this country first.


This one seems particularly poignant now.
Warchild [TotalFark]
2002-09-02 05:49:41 AM  
Bullshiat! Now is the time to take care of that prick, so that in another ten years we aren't looking back saying "we should have finished the job ten years ago" like we are now.


scraping-fetus-off-the-wheel
2002-11-08 10:33:25 AM  
We'll invade in January or February.
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition.


Rudezombie
2003-03-20 01:34:58 PM  
Damn, they're not messin around. Well, I guess we can be thankful this is going quickly.


RatBear
2003-03-20 01:37:06 PM  
After Iraq, are we gonna go northwest and take out France? It'd be the best thing to do. They've already surrendered


mddude
2003-03-20 01:37:48 PM  
GO KICK THEIR ASSES!!! I wish I was there like I was 12 years ago. I left behind a shoe I said I was going to pick up on the way back, but forgot.

    
Evil_Urna
2003-03-20 01:39:16 PM  
Woo-Hoo time to get my kill on


And I think, for the ultimate in hyperbole spitting armchair generals...
I_Can't_Believe_It's_Not_Smegma
2002-11-08 10:36:47 AM  
nuke em


I recognize at least 3 of those handles.
 
2014-06-15 01:54:53 PM  
Yay! I always wanted a stalker!
 
2014-06-15 01:58:14 PM  

xtech: TL:DR

your blog sucks, so bad.

you sound awfully butthurt subby.


I always wondered if Dick Cheney had a personal fluffer.  I hope he pays you well.
 
2014-06-15 02:02:05 PM  

Warchild: Yay! I always wanted a stalker!


Well, ten years has come and passed. How'd "we" do in taking care of that prick?
 
2014-06-15 02:03:24 PM  

Darth Macho: Ah, a classic W-era antiwar "web-log" post. For those of you interested, here's how these used to be received back in the day.

http://www.fark.com/comments/316122/Retired-Marine-colonel-has-a-few -q uestions-to-ask-his-commander-in-chief-about-Iraq

Some other choice Fark comments threads. Note that most of these pre-date alts, trolling and Poe's Law and are prime examples of authentic douchebaggery.

http://www.fark.com/comments/47950/Iraq-could-be-real-mastermind-fin an cier
(one of the first Iraq War threads. September 19, 2001)

http://www.fark.com/comments/88327/In-survey-most-Americans-want-Ira q- to-be-next-target

http://www.fark.com/comments/223826/How-a-War-With-Iraq-Will-Change- Wo rld

http://www.fark.com/comments/268963/The-case-against-war-with-Iraq

http://www.fark.com/comments/288064/Colin-Powell-calls-for-evidence- be fore-Iraq-strikes

http://www.fark.com/comments/349764/UN-passes-resolution-on-Iraq-wea po ns-inspections

And here's a big one. Over 500 comments.
http://www.fark.com/comments/474538/Pentagon-reports-US-ground-force s- have-entered-Iraq-no-link


Some good finds there. I was pretty certain I remembered Colin Powell briefly being the voice of reason before he fell in line and became part of the problem. Very interesting, the comments in those threads.
 
2014-06-15 02:03:45 PM  

Will-Mun: Well, ten years has come and passed. How'd "we" do in taking care of that prick?


Well, he's not around, is he?

A lot of things can change in twelve years. I even voted for Obama.
 
2014-06-15 02:05:27 PM  
I was vehemently opposed to invading Iraq back when that was still just a set of talking points. Even more so when the UN weapons inspectors found nothing. Once we invaded...we found exactly what they told us we were going to find.

fark neocons. fark W. They're profiteering war criminals.
 
2014-06-15 02:09:28 PM  

Warchild: Will-Mun: Well, ten years has come and passed. How'd "we" do in taking care of that prick?

Well, he's not around, is he?

A lot of things can change in twelve years. I even voted for Obama.


Well that's good to hear. Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed? I didn't mean to pick on you. I'm very aware that back then America was VERY raw emotionally and a lot of people who would otherwise balk at the thought were calling for someone's, ANYONES, blood.

Your comment just struck me as very distinct. Ten years after the invasion... and it seems very little got taken care of.
 
2014-06-15 02:12:33 PM  

Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?


Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.


No problemo.
 
2014-06-15 02:20:06 PM  
I think no matter what course the U.S. takes in this mess in the middle east we ARE going to back to war mode. The U.S. should pull out our troops, grab some popcorn, and sit back and see what happens. But I really think our time over there is far from over.

R.I.P. for the 6,717 (and counting) for the servicemen and women never coming home.
 
2014-06-15 02:26:37 PM  

Warchild: Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?

Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.

No problemo.


And I think we wish there were more people who can change and admit they were wrong too.
 
2014-06-15 02:27:24 PM  

delciotto: Warchild: Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?

Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.

No problemo.

And I think we wish there were more people who can change and admit they were wrong too.


*like you not too
 
2014-06-15 02:33:07 PM  

Rann Xerox: xtech: TL:DR

your blog sucks, so bad.

you sound awfully butthurt subby.

I always wondered if Dick Cheney had a personal fluffer.  I hope he pays you well.


stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg
 
2014-06-15 02:34:01 PM  

sparkeyjames: This time you farkers goddamned well tell me why.


Because, and I directly quote Senator Lindsey Graham from this morning, "We're next".

Be afraid...  very afraid.
 
2014-06-15 02:41:34 PM  
Hey, loser. We--and I do mean we couch potatoes who fought the struggle to find the remote so we could watch Geraldo give away positions--fought to defend the liberty of the Iraqi Ministry of Oil building.

consumersforpeace.org

See that building breathing free, basking in the warmth of freedom from want, safe in the knowledge that the building's children will grow up in freedom and liberty? That's what we fought for. That's what we won. As long as the Iraqi Oil Ministry building is free then the loss of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars will be judged worth it. Now where's that remote? Damn soccer game is back on.
 
2014-06-15 02:41:36 PM  

HeartBurnKid: mofa: HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes.  Is California some sort of failed state?  Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.

No, California's not a failed state.  Not by a longshot.  We just have a bad habit of voting all kinds of earmarks into the budget via the initiative process, then damn near revolting when Sacramento raises taxes or makes other cuts to pay for it all, to the point we've made it nigh impossible for them to do so.  You notice how we just now finally got things in line now that the Democrats have a supermajority?  That's because that's what it takes for the California budget process to work, with the ways we the people have micromanaged it.

And guacamole is awesome, I put it on everything I can, and I'll not hear another bad word about it.


Actually, the problem was that a 2/3 supermajority was required to pass a state budget in California. So Californians would vote YES on Prop Buy All The Things and then the Republicans in the legislature would refuse to allow the state to raise taxes to pay for Buy All The Things. I was under the impression that requirement had been fixed, but Wikipedia tells me the rule is still there, so I guess the Democratic supermajority is why things don't suck anymore.

I live in Seattle now. Last year (?) WA had a proposition on the ballot that would require a 2/3 supermajority to increase any taxes. I posted numerous times on Facebook about how this was a bad, bad idea, while citing CA as an example. But, I am only one person with a small circle of FB friends, and the measure passed. So, WA is farked. YAAAAAY!
 
2014-06-15 02:54:25 PM  

Ishidan: Lee Jackson Beauregard: [img.fark.net image 640x823]

How quaint.

This is what happens when a neocon warhawk gets his hands on that WWII "we're all in this together, and today's keyword is 'conservation'" propaganda poster.

Guess who it usually gets pointed at.

[img.fark.net image 353x500]


brucemctague.com

/"Neocon warhawk"?  Moi?
 
2014-06-15 03:18:35 PM  
Right at the start I asked a simple question: Why do we need to liberate them?

I mean, the Americans fought for their freedom, the British, the French. We picked up weapons and defeated people who either went overseas or got their heads chopped off/guillotined. If the guy is as hated as everyone says he is, why is he in power?

And don't give me that "iron rule/feared" thing. Man up, nancies and fight. If you don't care enough about freedom to take a bullet, why should I?

After the invasion I did start to wonder if I was wrong. They had a government, elections and so forth.

But everyone, not just intelligence and history experts can see the truth: Iraq is a factional country. You've got Sunnis and Shia and they hate each other. One gets power, they crap on the other. Saddam the dictator gave all the juicy jobs to his sunni pals, but Maliki the leader elected by a shia majority does the same.  This was just never going to work. That's why we've got this sunni insurrection going on. And I'm sure that various experts were pointing this out and were ignored by the chickenhawks.
 
2014-06-15 03:22:36 PM  

mofa: HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes.  Is California some sort of failed state?  Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.


guacamole sobre todo! or maybe

guacamole os hará libres
 
2014-06-15 03:37:22 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Actually, the problem was that a 2/3 supermajority was required to pass a state budget in California. So Californians would vote YES on Prop Buy All The Things and then the Republicans in the legislature would refuse to allow the state to raise taxes to pay for Buy All The Things. I was under the impression that requirement had been fixed, but Wikipedia tells me the rule is still there, so I guess the Democratic supermajority is why things don't suck anymore.


That is exactly the problem.  And it's the voters of California, via the initiative process, who put that rule in place.
 
2014-06-15 03:48:11 PM  

DemonEater: The only parts of that I took issue with were when he suggested that the war was in part about killing muslims, and some of his invective and angry language.

Iraq was about as secular a state as you could GET in the middle east, thanks to Saddam patterning himself on Stalin and realising that it was the only way to keep the peace between all the different sects).  There are far more effective places to go if you want to shoot people over religion.  No, I think the war was about getting the guy who pissed off W's daddy, was about handing huge sums of money over to Halliburton, and was about trying to get American companies' hands on all that oil, they just failed badly at that last part.

As for some of the things he said, well, he's obviously angry, and I totally understand that, but when you get angry you say things that might put off a reasonable person who desperately needs to read and understand your argument, which would be a shame because everyone right now needs to understand exactly what the fark is wrong with Iraq and why we just cannot go back there.


wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2014-06-15 04:10:43 PM  
As a professional mediator, my question is not "Why would we go?" but "What would we want to achieve if we did go?" What would be the point of going? None of this "we have to end terrorism" or liberating the Iraqis from dictators or terrorists b/s...what would WE, the United States, want to achieve from going to war?

Sun Tzu said "War is a matter of grave importance to the state, it is a matter of life or death, victory or defeat, and must be thoroughly considered by the leaders." Sun Tzu also said "The main goal in war is victory." Without knowing what the purpose we want to achieve would be, there can be no goal, and hence no victory.

Merely going back to Iraq because "we didn't finish" or because "we need to rescue them" is not good enough. If it does not benefit US, we should not go. And if the goal is to rescue our oil interests, then at least we should be honest about it. Then we can have an honest goal, and an honest--if venal--victory.
 
2014-06-15 04:15:01 PM  

Warchild: Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?

Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.

No problemo.


Hey nothing bad about being wrong. I remember being in High School with friends, and we were all glad Bush won because Gore would have made M Rated games illegal! (Stupid stupid teenager.) When the invasion started, I remember wondering if this would be the shortest war in American history! (This was back when the 'invasion' only lasted 20 days and then was crowned a 'success')

But as time passed I started, well, paying attention. I learned and changed my views. Then I learned more and changed them even further. Ten years ago I was a 19 year old kid with a pentagram around my neck, who didn't vote, defiantly calling myself an Independent. Now I'm an Atheist and while I haven't declared a party (mostly cause there's no true Liberal party in America) I would most likely be called a Liberal Populist.

It's those who refuse to look back at the people they were and sneer that scare the crap out of me.
 
2014-06-15 04:17:07 PM  

Will-Mun: Warchild: Will-Mun: Does that mean your views on the Bush Wars also changed?

Absolutely. Hell, I'll man up and say I was dead wrong.

Will-Mun: I didn't mean to pick on you.

No problemo.

Hey nothing bad about being wrong. I remember being in High School with friends, and we were all glad Bush won because Gore would have made M Rated games illegal! (Stupid stupid teenager.) When the invasion started, I remember wondering if this would be the shortest war in American history! (This was back when the 'invasion' only lasted 20 days and then was crowned a 'success')

But as time passed I started, well, paying attention. I learned and changed my views. Then I learned more and changed them even further. Ten years ago I was a 19 year old kid with a pentagram around my neck, who didn't vote, defiantly calling myself an Independent. Now I'm an Atheist and while I haven't declared a party (mostly cause there's no true Liberal party in America) I would most likely be called a Liberal Populist.

It's those who refuse to look back at the people they were and sneer that scare the crap out of me.


lasted 40* days
 
2014-06-15 04:24:58 PM  

Gyrfalcon: As a professional mediator, my question is not "Why would we go?" but "What would we want to achieve if we did go?" What would be the point of going? None of this "we have to end terrorism" or liberating the Iraqis from dictators or terrorists b/s...what would WE, the United States, want to achieve from going to war?

Sun Tzu said "War is a matter of grave importance to the state, it is a matter of life or death, victory or defeat, and must be thoroughly considered by the leaders." Sun Tzu also said "The main goal in war is victory." Without knowing what the purpose we want to achieve would be, there can be no goal, and hence no victory.

Merely going back to Iraq because "we didn't finish" or because "we need to rescue them" is not good enough. If it does not benefit US, we should not go. And if the goal is to rescue our oil interests, then at least we should be honest about it. Then we can have an honest goal, and an honest--if venal--victory.


Consider what the cheerleaders for such would gain.  They would be victorious in their own way.  The US objective is (as it was in 2003) tacked-on to get the rubber-stamp of "popular" support.
 
2014-06-15 04:26:29 PM  
Can someone Photoshop up an image of Bush with Jack from Lost's beardy beard, captioned "WE HAVE TO GO BACK"? :-)
 
2014-06-15 04:43:52 PM  

cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.


Some levity to lighten things up.
 
2014-06-15 04:47:03 PM  

evil saltine: Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.


Actually, Bush wouldn't have a beer. Obama would.
 
2014-06-15 04:47:44 PM  

born_yesterday: evil saltine: Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with.

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR YOU'RE WITH THE TERRORISTS!

/The Danes call it "nuance".


"Nuance" is a french word.
 
2014-06-15 04:50:25 PM  
I'm so glad the 101st Fighting Keyboardists have remobilized.  I rest easier knowing our national Red Bull reserves are safe.
 
2014-06-15 05:10:45 PM  
Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.
 
2014-06-15 05:12:53 PM  

LadySusan: mofa: HeartBurnKid: He's got a point. California proves that people love getting services from the government, but don't like actually paying for it.

Not sure what you're getting at; we have a budget surplus and voted in legislators who said that we needed to raise taxes.  Is California some sort of failed state?  Is it because we put guacamole on everything? Because that's sort of a running joke -- we don't really put guacamole on everything, but we are tolerant of those who want to, and try to make guacamole available if they want it.

guacamole sobre todo! or maybe

guacamole os hará libres


Guacamole uber alles?
 
2014-06-15 05:18:11 PM  

kpaxoid: Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.


mmmmm... Tulsi
 
2014-06-15 05:24:20 PM  

kpaxoid: Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.


Something that Iraq had nothing to do with?
 
2014-06-15 05:27:56 PM  

ongbok: kpaxoid: Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.

Something that Iraq had nothing to do with?


No, but the Iraq war had everything to do with it.  These guys have to push the same old narrative or they'd be admitting they were wrong.
 
2014-06-15 06:02:45 PM  

CigaretteSmokingMan: Actually, Bush wouldn't have a beer. Obama would.


He choked on that pretzel while sober?

Wow.
 
2014-06-15 06:22:03 PM  

propasaurus: kpaxoid: Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.

mmmmm... Tulsi


She's a cutie.  Also, an Iraq vet.  And she's had more education on strategy than most of Congress.
Oh crap... no one is going to listen to her.
 
2014-06-15 06:30:41 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.

You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.


Not saying Butler was mistaken, but it does appear self-serving that he was just fine with being muscle in that racket for decades until a case of butt-hurt over a promotion he was "owed" but didn't get.
 
2014-06-15 06:42:39 PM  

kpaxoid: Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.


Well, in the Southern Dandy's defense, he needs every opportunity he can get to pretend to be a tough guy.
 
2014-06-15 06:56:08 PM  
Spectacular. Simply...spectacular. I have the weirdest boner right now. Yes sir, I am a little gay for your essay and I'm not ashamed to say it.
 
2014-06-15 07:04:23 PM  

evil saltine: Obama is the worst. I long for the days when our foreign policy was a series of keywords: "evildoers", "liberty", "mushroom cloud". Bush was a guy you could have a beer with humiliate in Scrabble.


FTFM
 
2014-06-15 07:40:59 PM  

xtech: Rann Xerox: xtech: TL:DR

your blog sucks, so bad.

you sound awfully butthurt subby.

I always wondered if Dick Cheney had a personal fluffer.  I hope he pays you well.

stoplikingwhatidontlike.jpg


Then by all means, please explain what you disagree with in the blog post, and why you disagree with it.
 
2014-06-15 07:44:01 PM  

mindset zero: I think no matter what course the U.S. takes in this mess in the middle east we ARE going to back to war mode. The U.S. should pull out our troops, grab some popcorn, and sit back and see what happens. But I really think our time over there is far from over.

R.I.P. for the 6,717 (and counting) for the servicemen and women never coming home.


Not to mention those that came back and killed themselves.
 
2014-06-15 07:58:51 PM  
Is it bad that I read some of that in the voice of The Ultimate Warrior?
 
2014-06-15 08:24:05 PM  
Wow.
 
2014-06-15 08:27:27 PM  

Cyclometh: I'm a tiny bit tempted to do an audio version of that. As rants go, that's a good one.



img.fark.net


Seriously, let me know when it is up on iTunes.
 
2014-06-15 08:39:08 PM  

Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.


We need McGovern more than ever. He saw more combat than the losers in the Bush White House combined.
 
2014-06-15 08:43:31 PM  

ArcadianRefugee: cman: This made me realize something

There is no word that has a definition similar to "we" but implies that they only took part in it indirectly such as cheerleaders or spectators.

Some levity to lighten things up.


I don't know what a step above the internet is, but whatever it is, that clip won it.
 
2014-06-15 08:58:40 PM  
Does anyone here actually think going into Iraq (Part II) was a good idea? Anyone with half a brain could tell exactly where Rummy & Co. was going with the rhetoric. And now the same douchecanoes want Iraq (Part III).

If this country hasn't learned yet, right from wrong with respect to warfare, it is truly beyond hope.
 
2014-06-15 09:22:28 PM  

way south: If you're not in favor of interventions, why join a volunteer force that's done nothing but that for the better part of the last century?

/I you just want to "defend your nation" then simply wait long enough and war will come to you.


Little thing in some country called Afghanistan, not an intervention, just a little warring brought to our shores.
 
2014-06-15 09:30:54 PM  

Darth Macho: Ah, a classic W-era antiwar "web-log" post. For those of you interested, here's how these used to be received back in the day.

http://www.fark.com/comments/316122/Retired-Marine-colonel-has-a-few -q uestions-to-ask-his-commander-in-chief-about-Iraq

Some other choice Fark comments threads. Note that most of these pre-date alts, trolling and Poe's Law and are prime examples of authentic douchebaggery.

http://www.fark.com/comments/47950/Iraq-could-be-real-mastermind-fin an cier
(one of the first Iraq War threads. September 19, 2001)

http://www.fark.com/comments/88327/In-survey-most-Americans-want-Ira q- to-be-next-target

http://www.fark.com/comments/223826/How-a-War-With-Iraq-Will-Change- Wo rld

http://www.fark.com/comments/268963/The-case-against-war-with-Iraq

http://www.fark.com/comments/288064/Colin-Powell-calls-for-evidence- be fore-Iraq-strikes

http://www.fark.com/comments/349764/UN-passes-resolution-on-Iraq-wea po ns-inspections

And here's a big one. Over 500 comments.
http://www.fark.com/comments/474538/Pentagon-reports-US-ground-force s- have-entered-Iraq-no-link


Wow, they used to delete trolling posts back then?
 
2014-06-15 09:42:08 PM  

xtech: TL:DR

your blog sucks, so bad.

you sound awfully butthurt subby.


And yet you spent the time and effort to post in this thread.  Damn, I wish the Mods could go back to deleting posts when they are this pathetic and trollish.
 
2014-06-15 10:52:09 PM  

orclover: "WE?"

We? Should be a pin or T-shirt that every vetran wears from here on out. This wasnt a football game, this was a war. A really really shiatty war.


Already a t-shirt, Orc.

http://www.rangerup.com/shutup.html

/Veteran
//OIF/OND
///You farks go first indeed!
 
2014-06-15 11:10:34 PM  

FarkaDark: way south: If you're not in favor of interventions, why join a volunteer force that's done nothing but that for the better part of the last century?

/I you just want to "defend your nation" then simply wait long enough and war will come to you.

Little thing in some country called Afghanistan, not an intervention, just a little warring brought to our shores.




One war of many we've gotten involved in.
When you sign up you don't get to pick which nation you're going to be fighting. That's the presidents job.

/of course if no one signed up then we'd go back to drawing lots.
/but that doesn't guarantee the war you're sent to will be any more noble than the others.
 
2014-06-16 01:36:33 AM  

PanicMan: "This time you farkers goddamned well tell me why."


Just ask the Project for the New American Century.
 
2014-06-16 01:46:36 AM  
I still have friends that not only insist, but demand that I acknowledge, that Saddam DID have Weapons of Mass Destruction and WAS in league with Al-Qaeda. They outright refuse to believe anything else, and tell me I've been brainwashed by the 'Lame Stream Media' to believe otherwise.

Then again, I have them as friends because we aren't in the same echo chamber of thought. We have civil, well thought conversations about things like this, and after overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they fall back on me being brainwashed. I exist as centrist as I can be, not letting hot button issues like Abortion or Gun Control take me too far from the center (I'm for abortion and want to arm the world, for the record), and I get information from both extremist sides of the spectrum.

As hard as I try to be a centrist, I tend to fall left, but realize the folly of the left and their inability to accomplish just about anything, because they're too busy fighting for the rights of the super minority (what about albino, ginger Native Americans? How can we accommodate them in our Beach party?). The Left can be feckless and distracted on the minutiae of a topic, so I tend to stay away from calling myself a Liberal.

What this guy said, I've been saying for the last 13 years, but he is, admittedly, more involved in the situation, far more invested and much better driving his point home. Verbosity is my sin. In the end, this guy is absolutely correct about his points, even if I don't agree with them 100% (race was never an issue for going to war, it was a by-product of the racist right wingers (not all are racist) back here at home, as a way to differentiate the enemy, similar to the pejoratives we used for the Germans and Japanese in WWII), but he has strong valid points throughout.

Rock on, former soldier. Keep preaching the Word. And forget the naysayers that will call you a coward, or Un-American, or that you don't love this country you put your life on the line for. That's how they fight those opposed to the wars: Psuedo-Patriotism and Cherry Picked Religiosity.

For all the Right Wingers, I simply put out this quote: "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross." Now go look at the back of your SUV and tell me how many magnetic ribbons and flags you are displaying.
 
2014-06-16 03:23:22 AM  

corteran: Agreed with every word.

That being said, my secret, dirty little fantasy for this insurgence happening, and now that a carrier group is on the way into the gulf, is for our President to go to a joint session of congress and say the following

"Our military is ready, we know who the enemy is and where they are. Constitutionally only Congress may declare war. If you wish our troops and ships committed, declare war, put in place taxes and revenue to pay for it up front and give me clear and concise goals for our military leaders"

I would be glued to C-SPAN for the ensuing Republican meltdown.


OBAMA IS A POOR LEADER AND MUST BE IMPEACHED NOW!

There, I just summed it up for you.
/good to see at least ONE person remembers that Congress is the one that controls the purse strings and the right to declare war, John McCain sure doesn't
//but if Obama ordered troops deployed, well then he's an imperialist usurper dictator who needs to be impeached the first time a Humvee full of American soldiers gets blown up, but in the meantime must be held accountable for every penny spent...right?
 
2014-06-16 03:37:43 AM  

kpaxoid: Saw Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI) on CNN this morning.  I believe she is a Democrat.

She gave a very clear and unemotional description of what the issues are and why there should be NO U.S. intervention in Iraq, including air strikes.

Meanwhile, Sen. Graham was comparing the current state to 911.


Yes, she is.  Also a military officer who served in logistical support in Iraq, and a Hindi.

I'm pretty sure she's trying to be as different from her father as possible.  (Mike Gabbard is a homophobic hard-line Christian who never served, sells health food quackery AND toffees, and only runs as a D because he knows how local politics work)
 
2014-06-16 03:50:58 AM  
Lee Jackson Beauregard:

/"Neocon warhawk"?  Moi?

No, you twit.

My point was that today's Americans can not, do not, think the way they thought in WWII.

You imagine we could still sacrifice for the greater war effort, and pull together against a common foe.  That the populace is willing to sacrifice for their soldiery, and that the soldiery is being put into harm's way for a worthwhile effort.  That taking down Saddam back then and taking down whoever the fark is tooling around in Iraq today is the equivalent of America's stepping up against Hirohito and Hitler.

Instead, the propaganda posters of those days have been repurposed for the express intent of viciously silencing the opposition-and political discourse has decayed along the same lines.  That was the entire point of the original article, that the casus belli is NOT as good and clear as it was back then.

Then there's the matter of taxes and rationing, which was the point of the original poster.  Today's neocons want it all-a war, and tax cuts.  Military purchasing and debt control.  The idea that you can't have it all is lost on them, if they can blame Obama on the fact that they are not getting it all.
 
2014-06-16 07:47:20 AM  

Ishidan: Lee Jackson Beauregard:

/"Neocon warhawk"?  Moi?

No, you twit.

My point was that today's Americans can not, do not, think the way they thought in WWII.

You imagine we could still sacrifice for the greater war effort, and pull together against a common foe.  That the populace is willing to sacrifice for their soldiery, and that the soldiery is being put into harm's way for a worthwhile effort.  That taking down Saddam back then and taking down whoever the fark is tooling around in Iraq today is the equivalent of America's stepping up against Hirohito and Hitler.

Instead, the propaganda posters of those days have been repurposed for the express intent of viciously silencing the opposition-and political discourse has decayed along the same lines.  That was the entire point of the original article, that the casus belli is NOT as good and clear as it was back then.

Then there's the matter of taxes and rationing, which was the point of the original poster.  Today's neocons want it all-a war, and tax cuts.  Military purchasing and debt control.  The idea that you can't have it all is lost on them, if they can blame Obama on the fact that they are not getting it all.


That poster looks an awful lot like one Bill Maher re-imagined.  Weren't those generally designed to question the blind patriotism behind the war?
 
2014-06-16 07:58:14 AM  

Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.



And yet, the local news was interviewing the relatives of soldiers down at Fort Bragg and asking them should we go back or not, and most were saying "we don't want to stop now that so many of our friends and relatives have died over there". I was thinking "what, you want to send more soldiers there to die because other soldiers died before them?"

With no exit strategy or goal or even a freaking idea how to turn Iraq into a democracy, all we'll be doing is making someone else's wife a few years from now say "we can't leave now, all those dead soldiers will have died for nothing if we do".
 
2014-06-16 09:57:33 AM  

Ishidan: taking down Saddam back then and taking down whoever the fark is tooling around in Iraq today is the equivalent of America's stepping up against Hirohito and Hitler.


How do you figure this? Of what correlation are you using? In 1991 our invasion of Iraq was because the deal for the Iraqi pipeline didn't go through. Saddam wanted to use his Republic Army to guard the pipeline, and since it was OUR pipeline, Bush 1 wanted OUR troops guarding it. It quickly fell apart and the invasion of Kuwait was the McGuffin to launch the invasion. Popular support fell fast, so we ding dong dashed his palace and came home.

The 2003 invasion used 9/11 as the McGuffin, and there was nothing but lies to support the invasion, and by the time it was all found out, their excuse was: "Well, we just can't pull out now..." He had WMD's that WE gave him to use against Iran, that's how we were sure he had them, they were stamped with Made In The USA.

This time? This McGuffin is poor at best, are we going to use "We made the mess, we might as well clean it up!" as the excuse? Who is Hitler and who is Hirohito in your scenario? Trumping Saddam up as one of these 2 was laughable, as we rolled right through Iraq so fast their army literally gave up. If someone attacked American soil, how many 'insurgents' do you think would be fighting the invading army? You don't suppose that's what happened in Iraq? It doesn't matter if Obama is in office, or Bush is in office, you step foot on American Soil and you'll have to fight for every inch, not because of the Army, but because of the civilians. Why can't this apply to the countries we invade? Why do the civilians fighting for their homeland suddenly become terrorists and insurgents because they are resisting us every step of the way?

Your analogy is bad, and I fear your excuses to send the military back to Iraq are just as bad. I'm guessing you'll say there's some leader of AQ that is going to take over and he must be stopped before he takes power. There's more than sending in troops for fighting a war. After 11 years of this bullshiat, all propagated on lies, the American Public is not too keen to start it all over again because of some unnamed boogeyman.

I'm still curious why the Republicans HAVE to build up a boogeyman to be at odds against. I'm sure it comes down to keeping military funding rolling in so their stocks and partners continue getting rich, but this ever pressing need for a black hat to pit against our white hat is a bit overdone at this point.
 
2014-06-16 12:00:22 PM  

Bendal: Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.


And yet, the local news was interviewing the relatives of soldiers down at Fort Bragg and asking them should we go back or not, and most were saying "we don't want to stop now that so many of our friends and relatives have died over there". I was thinking "what, you want to send more soldiers there to die because other soldiers died before them?"

With no exit strategy or goal or even a freaking idea how to turn Iraq into a democracy, all we'll be doing is making someone else's wife a few years from now say "we can't leave now, all those dead soldiers will have died for nothing if we do".


Sunk costs fallacy.
 
2014-06-16 12:29:49 PM  

corteran: Agreed with every word.

That being said, my secret, dirty little fantasy for this insurgence happening, and now that a carrier group is on the way into the gulf, is for our President to go to a joint session of congress and say the following

"Our military is ready, we know who the enemy is and where they are. Constitutionally only Congress may declare war. If you wish our troops and ships committed, declare war, put in place taxes and revenue to pay for it up front and give me clear and concise goals for our military leaders"

I would be glued to C-SPAN for the ensuing Republican meltdown.


Perfect!
 
2014-06-16 12:33:39 PM  
Holy fark shiat this...
 
2014-06-16 01:59:39 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Ishidan: taking down Saddam back then and taking down whoever the fark is tooling around in Iraq today is the equivalent of America's stepping up against Hirohito and Hitler.

How do you figure this? Of what correlation are you using? In 1991 our invasion of Iraq was because the deal for the Iraqi pipeline didn't go through. Saddam wanted to use his Republic Army to guard the pipeline, and since it was OUR pipeline, Bush 1 wanted OUR troops guarding it. It quickly fell apart and the invasion of Kuwait was the McGuffin to launch the invasion. Popular support fell fast, so we ding dong dashed his palace and came home.

The 2003 invasion used 9/11 as the McGuffin, and there was nothing but lies to support the invasion, and by the time it was all found out, their excuse was: "Well, we just can't pull out now..." He had WMD's that WE gave him to use against Iran, that's how we were sure he had them, they were stamped with Made In The USA.

This time? This McGuffin is poor at best, are we going to use "We made the mess, we might as well clean it up!" as the excuse? Who is Hitler and who is Hirohito in your scenario? Trumping Saddam up as one of these 2 was laughable, as we rolled right through Iraq so fast their army literally gave up. If someone attacked American soil, how many 'insurgents' do you think would be fighting the invading army? You don't suppose that's what happened in Iraq? It doesn't matter if Obama is in office, or Bush is in office, you step foot on American Soil and you'll have to fight for every inch, not because of the Army, but because of the civilians. Why can't this apply to the countries we invade? Why do the civilians fighting for their homeland suddenly become terrorists and insurgents because they are resisting us every step of the way?

Your analogy is bad, and I fear your excuses to send the military back to Iraq are just as bad. I'm guessing you'll say there's some leader of AQ that is going to take over and he must be stopped before he takes power. There's more than sending in troops for fighting a war. After 11 years of this bullshiat, all propagated on lies, the American Public is not too keen to start it all over again because of some unnamed boogeyman.

I'm still curious why the Republicans HAVE to build up a boogeyman to be at odds against. I'm sure it comes down to keeping military funding rolling in so their stocks and partners continue getting rich, but this ever pressing need for a black hat to pit against our white hat is a bit overdone at this point.


Read the whole paragraph, Sparky.
 
2014-06-16 02:49:40 PM  

TwoBeersOneCan: Gonz: UNC_Samurai: And we've seen combat vererans become the most ardent opponents of war, like George McGovern.

I'm not comparing myself to McGovern, but as a combat veteran, I'll say this:

War is dumb. War is bad. War is wasteful, in every sense imaginable. We should avoid it.

You could also borrow from General Smedley Butler.

"War is a racket.  It always has been.  The few profit and the many pay.  But there is a way to stop it.  You can't end it by disarmament conferences.  You can't eliminate it with peace parlays at Geneva.  Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out with resolutions.  It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."

"The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent.  But war-time profits... ah, that is another matter.  Twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, even eighteen hundred percent - the sky is the limit."

He has lots of good ones.



Gil Scott -Heron
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7vSEBR_T5o&feature=kp
 
Displayed 158 of 158 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report