Because we need to raise the average IQ level in both the US and France, sending him there raises both respectively.
Type-O aside, this doesn't change the fact that all you liberal pansies are nothing but gutless whiners.
apoppin
Lifer
mastertech01
Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
- Nov 13, 1999
- 11,875
- 282
- 126
Two men standing on a view platform overlooking the Grand Canyon. One comments on the awe and beauty of it all. The other simply asks "Man, what the hell caused this huge hole, and what are we doing to prevent it from occuring again?"
Sometimes perspective is lost in perception.
Sometimes perspective is lost in perception.
apoppin
Lifer
However, in your specific and rather extreme example, perception was lost in perspective . . .
(edit: I couldn't resist; it's isn't often I get a triple-play on words.
And was it definitely "glaciers" or river action?
Answers:
#1. Glaciers
#2. Global warming, we'll melt those bastards before they do it again, and divert the flow of extra water to fill the canyon....
Then we will revel in our American genius and buy dual engine speedboats and tow them with our gas guzzling SUVs to the lake and turn the entire area into a capitalist pigs playground, spoiling the environment and the spirit of the savage Indians that pre-occupied our rightfull land.....
Glaciers took that oil with them up to Alaska, which is exactly why we need to drill there NOW, before they take it over to the Soviets...
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
So we should immediately spend $70 billion and hand it to the Palestinians?
No, the policy of extreme Arabs to deny the right of the Israelis to have their own state is the fundamental problem in the Middle East. There is no negotiating with people whose sole purpose is the destruction of the Israeli state as well as the removal of all American interests in the region. When an organization wants to unite everyone under their form of radical Islam, should we all convert and start reading the Koran?
As for Africa, when there is no hope that intervention will work, expending resources there is only a disservice to places where such expenditure can make a difference. It is not only Somalia which has significant problems -- DROC, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, most of western Africa, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zimbabwe and the list continues. One only has to look at what is one of the most successful nations on the continent, South Africa, to see that even a relatively healthy country faces extreme problems when their AIDS rate is approaching 20% of the population. Then, as you alluded to, when we do attempt to provide assistance and are attacked, why should we risk our troops and our resources for those who are ungrateful and/or unwilling to help themselves?
DT4K
Diamond Member
- Jan 21, 2002
- 6,944
- 3
- 81
Because I am willing to spend my tax money to help rid the world of a dictator who enjoys using the murder, rape, and torture of men, women and children to stay in power and keep his people oppressed and impoverished. And who has admitted having tons of chemical and biological weapons, a nuclear weapons development program, and who hates America.
I do NOT want my tax money being given to lazy people so they don't have to work. I do NOT want my tax money being used for someone to go to a drug rehab for the 10th time at $5000 a pop. I do NOT want my tax money paying for someone's methadone because they are too weak minded and selfish to stay off heroin without it.
I do not want to live in a society where people are punished for working hard and being succesful and are rewarded for sitting on their lazy asses and doing NOTHING. I want to live in a society where personal responsibility and hard work mean something.
1) I love hearing you ignorant dummies rant on about personal responsibilty. As if there are a group of people who are opposed to personal responsibility, and you have to "fight" against them. You've been thoroughly brainwashed...congratulations. Put 10 of the worlds most liberal people into a room, and ask them if they are "for or against personal responsibity?". Is anyone in here honestly so daft as to thing that anyone is against that principle? People just dumb every argument down so far that it stops making sense.
No one is opposed to personal responibility you nitwit. Turn off Rush and Fox news for 10 minutes and THINK.
2) What's a terrorist?
a) A guy who blows up a bus filled with civilians, or
b) A guy who flies a plane with a flag painted on the side and drops a bomb on a "terrorist" and "accidently" kills civilians.
<brainless rant> But, but , but....the guy who blew the bus up targeted civilians on purpose, but the F-16 pilot didn't!!</brainless rant>
So give the "terrorists" SAM's, F-16's, and tanks, and then see how many civilains they target. NONE. They'd love to tackle tanks and airplanes, but they can't. So they do what they can with what they have. And Americans would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING given the same situations, GUARANTEED.
No one is opposed to personal responibility you nitwit. Turn off Rush and Fox news for 10 minutes and THINK.
2) What's a terrorist?
a) A guy who blows up a bus filled with civilians, or
b) A guy who flies a plane with a flag painted on the side and drops a bomb on a "terrorist" and "accidently" kills civilians.
<brainless rant> But, but , but....the guy who blew the bus up targeted civilians on purpose, but the F-16 pilot didn't!!</brainless rant>
So give the "terrorists" SAM's, F-16's, and tanks, and then see how many civilains they target. NONE. They'd love to tackle tanks and airplanes, but they can't. So they do what they can with what they have. And Americans would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING given the same situations, GUARANTEED.
Oh man, my brain hurts since I have so many things to say to this but I'm losing them since I'm laughing.
These "terrorists"
1) are the ones who sunk back into their cities to maxamize casualties and draw us into a longer battle.
2) are the ones waving white flags then poping up with an RPGs and machine guns trying to catch us off guard under the shroud of peace.
3) are the ones shooting civilians in the back as they try to flee the city.
4) are the ones putting their weapons caches in hospitals, schools, and mosques putting other innocent civilians in danger.
5) are the ones holding human shields near their dig-in positions, tanks, and government buildings again trying to raise casualties
I don't fault them even though I don't agree with their methods. This is war and we have to accept responsibility for the deaths of innocents, but it would be over much quicker if their commanders weren't threatening Iraqi families for military compliance and using guerilla tactics like suicide bombing and civilian cover. We shouldn't be ashamed of our tactical superiority even if it causes unprecidentally low collatoral damage. The point is to try to make amends the best we can now that the worst is behind. Helping the Iraqi's rebuild is key so that the gloominess of war is eventually shadowed by their improving quality of life.
RT: I'm not necessarily talking about Iraqi "terrorists". Ever point that you raise is valid, but if you were defending your country you (I hope!) would do EXACTLY THE SAME THING!!! You would want to draw the battle out as long as you could, you would want to kill as many of the enemy as you possibly could. <shrug> It's not that complicated. If you did all of those things, the other side would label you a terrorist, while your own people would call you a freedom fighter. It's all the same stuff...depends on which side you're on.
You should work for a polling company. Of course no one is going to admit that they are against holding people accountable for their actions. However, if you look at certain people's positions on certain issues (drug abuse, child abuse, "battered wife syndrome", etc.) there is a distinct and significant stride against personal accountability. It is no one's fault that they committed a crime because something in their past "made them do it". Look at the gun debate -- guns don't kill people; people kill people. Hackeneyed? Sure. True? Definitely. In no murder or killing has it ever been proven that a gun leapt from a holster, desk drawer, or pocket and fired itself while in the hands of the accused. Yet, you would think that, according to HCI, if you eliminated guns you would eliminate murder. I guess murder only became a problem in the Renaissance when guns were created.
Now, I'll stop being nice. You're a little fscking pissant piece of trash for equating those in the military with the scum-sucking terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 on September 11th, not to mention the various vermin active throughout the world. You've just insulted every single person in uniform, and I really do hope you'll find the nearest military installation and spout off in person what you write anonymously online. You might be near Ft. Drum -- go tell the 10th what you think of them.
What's ludicrous is that you apparently have no idea of history because Americans were the exact situation of being outgunned and outclassed militarily but still fought in manner befitting the time period in the late 1700's. I don't recall reading about any bombings of shopping areas or cafes in London during the Revolutionary War period.
Terrorists are not fighting a war by other means. One can argue that the IRA for a time operated in such a manner because they only targeted British troops and police instead of the citizenry. However, they changed their tactics when they started bombing tube stations, pubs, and shopping malls. Terrorists attack civilians because the terrorists are fundamentally cowards and because they seek to sow fear and horror and intimidate those who are in danger from their attacks. The military will never be cowed by attacks on it because that's what the military does -- fight. Civilians are neither accustomed to nor trained for armed conflict and are thus more susceptible to its effects, both in physical and psychological terms.
I think Mom and Dad need to install SurfWatch or something similar on your computer because you're obviously over your head.
Andrew you're obviously too far gone to help. It's just too bad you weren't around in the 1930's and lived in nazi germany so you could have put that great patriotism of yours to use for the germans. You're exactly the type.
Now then, the true idiocy of your post really comes into focus when you talk about terrorists being "fundamentally cowards". I wish you had put that in your first line so I could have stopped wasting my time on your post then. Did you hear that on Fox news? Or was it MSNBC..."America's News Channel"? Pick your 10 favorite cowards of all time, and give them 2 choices: 1) Fly an F-16 at 30000 feet at Mach 1.5 and drop bombs on targets you can't even SEE, or 2) run up to something/someone with a bomb/gun whatver, and blow it up, shoot it, blow yourself up, whatever. Which one do you think the coward is going to choose?
If you want to argue about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of attacking purely civilian targets, fine. Just don't goose-step along to that idiotic mantra that says terrorists are cowards and the military is brave. That's pure idiocy.
Secondly, I'll my opinions about "terrorism" or whatever else I want to post my opinion about, and there's nothing you can do about it. Move to China if you don't like it. If the most intelligent response that you can think of is to hurl personal insults, then I suggest you enroll yourself in some community college courses and at least get some sort of clue as to what your are talking about first.
Lastly, September 11 is NOTHING compared to the amount of death and horror that the people of Iraq have seen over the past 12 years. Nothing. Understand that. The true test of your intelligence is whether you read any anti-american sentiment in that last statement. It's simply a cold, hard, fact. I love america, but I will not be a brainwashed lackey.
Now then, the true idiocy of your post really comes into focus when you talk about terrorists being "fundamentally cowards". I wish you had put that in your first line so I could have stopped wasting my time on your post then. Did you hear that on Fox news? Or was it MSNBC..."America's News Channel"? Pick your 10 favorite cowards of all time, and give them 2 choices: 1) Fly an F-16 at 30000 feet at Mach 1.5 and drop bombs on targets you can't even SEE, or 2) run up to something/someone with a bomb/gun whatver, and blow it up, shoot it, blow yourself up, whatever. Which one do you think the coward is going to choose?
If you want to argue about the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of attacking purely civilian targets, fine. Just don't goose-step along to that idiotic mantra that says terrorists are cowards and the military is brave. That's pure idiocy.
Secondly, I'll my opinions about "terrorism" or whatever else I want to post my opinion about, and there's nothing you can do about it. Move to China if you don't like it. If the most intelligent response that you can think of is to hurl personal insults, then I suggest you enroll yourself in some community college courses and at least get some sort of clue as to what your are talking about first.
Lastly, September 11 is NOTHING compared to the amount of death and horror that the people of Iraq have seen over the past 12 years. Nothing. Understand that. The true test of your intelligence is whether you read any anti-american sentiment in that last statement. It's simply a cold, hard, fact. I love america, but I will not be a brainwashed lackey.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter