You're doing a heckuva job, Georgie

[earllogjam]

Does anyone know how many Al-Queda terrorists there are?

10
100
1000
10,000
100,000?

How can we justify the resources we are allocating to fight something we have no clue about? It's like swinging punches in a pitch black room.

 

[rob_just_rob]

The implications of the world's largest oil reserves falling into control of non-friendly hands is unthinkable

One could probably attribute this quote to Osama bin Laden as well.

On what grounds does the US feel entitled to have access to other people's natural resources?

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

As long as it's not your erection!



That almost made me pee my pants.

I'm glad somebody got my subtle joke.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

On what grounds does the US feel entitled to have access to other people's natural resources?

Believe it or not, there's a sizeable portion of our population genuinely puzzled that someone'd even ask that question given that the White House once described American consumption habits as "blessed."

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer

 

[ManlyBanisters]

You said

We're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in Afghanistan.

So I said

Bull shit. You're in Iraq for the oil and as a jumping off point to Iran and the Brits are there cos that is what the Saudis wanted.

Oh - and you will lose - but that is by-the-by.

So this

I'm in Iraq?

FUCK.

No wonder I can't find anything to eat but falafels.

Wait... what is it I'm losing again?

isn't just pedantry - it is unjustified pedantry

I'm glad somebody got my subtle joke.

Well excuse the fuck out of me for not having read every (any) post you've ever written so I can tell whether the fuck you are joking or not.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I'm in Iraq?

FUCK.

No wonder I can't find anything to eat but falafels.

Wait... what is it I'm losing again?

I thought you were in Suk Kyo Dong (actually a real place), so I guess we were both wrong. They have falafels in Iraq?

oh, good. That should lend another 5-10 years or so to the shelf-life of my favorite gas-guzzling toy... before the oil runs out and all hell breaks loose and we have to live in caves.

Naw, we won't live in caves. If we moved into the caves, we likely would find and capture O. bin-L. What then?

Does anyone know how many Al-Queda terrorists there are?

10
100
1000
10,000
100,000?

How can we justify the resources we are allocating to fight something we have no clue about? It's like swinging punches in a pitch black room.

I couldn't help but see a joke in that one... "How many terrorists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, they are too busy screwing with our Department of Homeland Security."

I'm glad somebody got my subtle joke.

Oh, yes, it was so subtle, like a Bösendorfer concert grand landing on my head...:biggrin1:

Well excuse the fuck out of me for not having read every (any) post you've ever written so I can tell whether the fuck you are joking or not.

C'mon, ManBan. He's not that hard to figure out. If one of his posts makes you wrinkle your brow and say "HUH?" he's most likely being funny... he does it well.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

The joke was that I took the very common and cliche talking point "we're fighting the terrorists over there (which means everywhere that Americans can't find on a map) so we don't have to fight them here (which means at home)" and repeated it, but with the overt change of replacing the pronouns. It would have taken absolutely no foreknowledge of me or any of my posts to notice the change. My point (insofar as any comment meant almost entirely to get laughs has a point) was to use a silly and ridiculous talking point to illustrate that while the United States military is tied up "fighting terrorism" in Iraq... as per the article referenced by the OP and as has been pointed out by myriad other critics of U.S. foreign policy of late... the REAL terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan are being left relatively unmolested. There are more layers of nuance and meaning that you could pull from that one intentionally misused phrase, too. Given the context of this thread, if I were to have said that and actually meant it it would have made absolutely no sense at all and would hardly be worth refuting anyway. Again, none of it has anything at all to do with my previous posts to this board.

As for you using "you're," suck it up. Again, I was joking. You know what a joke is, right? If everything in this thread is going to be serious, I could have commented on the fact that it's ridiculously easy to bait the America haters out there into idiotically lumping every single person in the country together as the same person, but I didn't. I deflected your uncalled for attack with humor. I don't see how I was being pedantic. If I were I would have pointed out something about second-person plural conjugation. Much to the contrary, I was being jovial. I could also have pointed out that "we" (though I must admit I had very little to do with it) already won the war a long time ago in Iraq, if that's what you were referring to us losing. We've now entered into an occupation. Occupations aren't won or lost, they just end. The current administration doesn't want this one to do so.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Oh, yes, it was so subtle, like a Bösendorfer concert grand landing on my head...:biggrin1:

yay, someone got my other joke.

C'mon, ManBan. He's not that hard to figure out. If one of his posts makes you wrinkle your brow and say "HUH?" he's most likely being funny... he does it well.

I think you're giving me too much credit. But I have to take issue with your use of the abbv "ManBan." This is just about the last place in the world I would have expected to see that written.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

The joke was that I took the very common and cliche talking point "we're fighting the terrorists over there (which means everywhere that Americans can't find on a map) so we don't have to fight them here (which means at home)" and repeated it, but with the overt change of replacing the pronouns. It would have taken absolutely no foreknowledge of me or any of my posts to notice the change. My point (insofar as any comment meant almost entirely to get laughs has a point) was to use a silly and ridiculous talking point to illustrate that while the United States military is tied up "fighting terrorism" in Iraq... as per the article referenced by the OP and as has been pointed out by myriad other critics of U.S. foreign policy of late... the REAL terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan are being left relatively unmolested. There are more layers of nuance and meaning that you could pull from that one intentionally misused phrase, too. Given the context of this thread, if I were to have said that and actually meant it it would have made absolutely no sense at all and would hardly be worth refuting anyway. Again, none of it has anything at all to do with my previous posts to this board.

As for you using "you're," suck it up. Again, I was joking. You know what a joke is, right? If everything in this thread is going to be serious, I could have commented on the fact that it's ridiculously easy to bait the America haters out there into idiotically lumping every single person in the country together as the same person, but I didn't. I deflected your uncalled for attack with humor. I don't see how I was being pedantic. If I were I would have pointed out something about second-person plural conjugation. Much to the contrary, I was being jovial. I could also have pointed out that "we" (though I must admit I had very little to do with it) already won the war a long time ago in Iraq, if that's what you were referring to us losing. We've now entered into an occupation. Occupations aren't won or lost, they just end. The current administration doesn't want this one to do so.

OK - look - I saw your dumb/joke post, took it at face value and hit reply - if that makes me an asshole then pass me the badge. Whatever.

I apologise of accusing you previously of pedantry - I had no idea of the heights of pedantry you could reach - but which you have now illustrated amply in your above, overlong response.

My 'uncalled for attack' was not a personal attack - it was a comment - I'm sorry you perceived it as an attack. My response to your humourous response was simply to point out that, not being an avid reader of yours, I had taken you at face value. You're now getting your panties in a twist over this - calm down. It was a misunderstanding.

On-topic point: Just because the administration of one, or more, of the invloved nations says that the war is over does not make it so. Also - I was referring to the upcomming war with Iran, not the ongoing war in Iraq. In years to come our descendants will look back on the invasion of Iraq in a very similar way to the way we view the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I'm sitting naked in front of my computer again. My panties are folded neatly in a pile beside me.

Your "comment" was and assumption that I was an idiot. Not a clear-cut attack, granted, but an unecessary assumption on your part.

I know the post was overlong. That's what happens when you have to explain jokes, though. I was attempting to bore you into submission.


and again, the United States (I'll drop the incorrectly inclusive pronouns now) won the war in Iraq a long time ago. We defeated the Iraqi military, disbanded it (and later regretted doing so, but still, we did it), deposed Saddam Hussein (who was later executed), occupied the country and set up the government there.
What's going on there now has nothing to do with that war. There is an insurgency fighting against the American occupation of the country. There are terrorist groups that have filtered into the country for the opportunity of killing Americans and/or destablizing a government that they do not support. There is a civil war waging for control of the country that the United States wouldn't even be involved in except that they are trying very hard to suppress it.
The US is now involved in an occupation of Iraq. Nobody wants to say that because the American people by and large DO NOT want to stay in Iraq forever. You are actually AIDING George Bush's plans by calling this a war. Wars are winnable. Wars are something the country is supposed to rally behind and support. Wars have clear goals and objectives and targets. George Bush wants desperately for everyone to think that what's going on in Iraq is part of "the greater War on Terror" for precisely these reasons. It's this kind of logic that is making it very difficult for many people to face up to reality. If the United States pulls out of Iraq they haven't lost anything, because there was nothing to win by staying there unless we think we are going to stay there forever and set up a colony. None of the people in the USA want that. None of the politicians will publicly announce that they want that. I think that secretly Bush and Cheney probably DO want to set up permanent military bases there, but they are LOATHE to admit it.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I'm sitting naked in front of my computer again. My panties are folded neatly in a pile beside me.

Stop - you're making me horny...

Your "comment" was and assumption that I was an idiot. Not a clear-cut attack, granted, but an unecessary assumption on your part.

There are so many idiots in the world - I just applied Occam's razor and, for once, it failed me.

I know the post was overlong. That's what happens when you have to explain jokes, though. I was attempting to bore you into submission.

Sorry, wassat now? - I was nodding off..

and again, the United States (I'll drop the incorrectly inclusive pronouns now) won the war in Iraq a long time ago. We defeated the Iraqi military, disbanded it (and later regretted doing so, but still, we did it), deposed Saddam Hussein (who was later executed), occupied the country and set up the government there.
What's going on there now has nothing to do with that war. There is an insurgency fighting against the American occupation of the country. There are terrorist groups that have filtered into the country for the opportunity of killing Americans and/or destablizing a government that they do not support. There is a civil war waging for control of the country that the United States wouldn't even be involved in except that they are trying very hard to suppress it.

So there is a war and the US are involved? So we agree.

The US is now involved in an occupation of Iraq. Nobody wants to say that because the American people by and large DO NOT want to stay in Iraq forever. You are actually AIDING George Bush's plans by calling this a war.

I very much doubt that anyone gives a hairy hoot what I, or most of the rest of (true) Europe have to say about this.

Wars are winnable. Wars are something the country is supposed to rally behind and support. Wars have clear goals and objectives and targets. George Bush wants desperately for everyone to think that what's going on in Iraq is part of "the greater War on Terror" for precisely these reasons. It's this kind of logic that is making it very difficult for many people to face up to reality. If the United States pulls out of Iraq they haven't lost anything, because there was nothing to win by staying there unless we think we are going to stay there forever and set up a colony.

That, I should imagine, was pretty much the plan - but with a puppet government - like the Bristish did in setting up Iraq after WWI. And yes - it is absolutely colonialism - what else can you call PNAC?

None of the people in the USA want that. None of the politicians will publicly announce that they want that. I think that secretly Bush and Cheney probably DO want to set up permanent military bases there, but they are LOATHE to admit it.

Well - I half agree with you - no one wants to admit that is the way it is. But America is trying to be a colonial power. Not for 'good', or 'right', or that funny little non-functioning political philosophy called democracy
- but for plain old fashioned money. Same as it ever was.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

So there is a war and the US are involved? So we agree.

We agree on that point. But you also said "we" (the United States) were going to lose that war. We're not in a position to lose this war any more than the French were in a position to lose the American Revolutionary War or the American Civil War. They were involved in both wars, they niether won nor lost either of them.

The war that America won, against Saddam Hussein and his army, was over a long time ago. Note this is NOT the popular interpretation in the United States. By incorrectly positioning the Iraqi civil war raging now as an extension of the war between America and Iraq, that creates the possibility of America losing, which in turn creates a rationale for staying.

I very much doubt that anyone gives a hairy hoot what I, or most of the rest of (true) Europe have to say about this.

just curious, but where is the (false) Europe? Quebec?

no one wants to admit that is the way it is. But America is trying to be a colonial power.

Once again, and maybe it's just a poor choice of phrasing on your part, you seem to be suggesting that everyone in the country is in on the machinations of Bush and Cheney. Are you actually suggesting that the average citizen of the United States has some vested interest in their country being a colonial power? By using "no one", which seems to include everyone in the country because that's whom I was talking about when I made the statement you were replying to, and then following it up with "America" as represented by the actions of her executive branch... you seem to be mixing the two things together. The average American could give fuck all about the world outside the country's borders. It takes something like 9/11 to get any of them to care or notice. Also, I, and most of my fellow citizens, had the same amount of input in the decision to go to war in Iraq as you did. Which is to say, approximately none.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

We agree on that point. But you also said "we" (the United States) were going to lose that war. We're not in a position to lose this war any more than the French were in a position to lose the American Revolutionary War or the American Civil War. They were involved in both wars, they niether won nor lost either of them.

For the third time - I was never originally referring to the IRAQ war - I was referring to the upcoming IRAN war. My original 'you will lose' comment was in reference to that. Read back.

just curious, but where is the (false) Europe? Quebec?

I was using the term 'true Europe' to refer to a false Europe, well spotted. False Europe refers to America's east Atlantic aircraft carrier, some people call it the UK. The UK, by it's actions, is not a part of the European Union. It acts against the interests of greater Europe (see the Maastricht Treaty for an example*) and refuses to overtly tie it's economy into ours. It is an American lapdog that should shit or get off the pot vis EU membership.

*Broadening the EU is all very commenddable - but we need to deepen first - the Bristish successfully stonewalled that, retarding European progress significantly. All because America does not want a power block with the clout to tell them off.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Thank you for the use of boldface. That clears things up.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Once again, and maybe it's just a poor choice of phrasing on your part, you seem to be suggesting that everyone in the country is in on the machinations of Bush and Cheney. Are you actually suggesting that the average citizen of the United States has some vested interest in their country being a colonial power? By using "no one", which seems to include everyone in the country because that's whom I was talking about when I made the statement you were replying to, and then following it up with "America" as represented by the actions of her executive branch... you seem to be mixing the two things together. The average American could give fuck all about the world outside the country's borders. It takes something like 9/11 to get any of them to care or notice. Also, I, and most of my fellow citizens, had the same amount of input in the decision to go to war in Iraq as you did. Which is to say, approximately none.

To answer your edit:

OK - fair point - please read 'America' as 'the current administration in America' - I think it is reasonable to refer to the government of a country just by the country name. It is common practise. I am aware of both the dissent and the apathy of the vast number of American citizens in regard to the subject at hand.

Example: Most of France does not give a flying fuck whether we say 'un email' or 'une courriel' but France's official position is that 'courriel' is the only acceptable phrase - therefore I would say "France insists on using 'courriel' in place of 'email'" - even though for a large chunk of the population that isn't true.

I think you are picking at straws there man - because I am in no way the only person in this thread to refer to the government of a country just by the country name. It is very common practice.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Thank you for the use of boldface. That clears things up.

:tongue:

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

It's just that you seem to go back and forth between referring to the American governement and the American people without pause or explanation. Not that you are referring to a nation's government by the nation's name.

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

I was using the term 'true Europe' to refer to a false Europe, well spotted. False Europe refers to America's east Atlantic aircraft carrier, some people call it the UK. The UK, by it's actions, is not a part of the European Union. It acts against the interests of greater Europe (see the Maastricht Treaty for an example*) and refuses to overtly tie it's economy into ours. It is an American lapdog that should shit or get off the pot vis EU membership.

*Broadening the EU is all very commenddable - but we need to deepen first - the Bristish successfully stonewalled that, retarding European progress significantly. All because America does not want a power block with the clout to tell them off.

The British are not as happy to jump on board the EU bandwagon because they're already internationally significant without needing to band together with everyone else on the continent. The same can't really be said about the rest of Europe. They're guarding their own self-interests the same as every other country. The mainland EU members recognize that joining forces they are stronger. For the UK, it's not nearly that cut and dry.

and just because France and Germany like to badmouth the USA whenever they get the opportunity doesn't mean that they aren't just as complicit in US foreign policy as the British are whenever it happens to suit them.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

It's just that you seem to go back and forth between referring to the American governement and the American people without pause or explanation. Not that you are referring to a nation's government by the nation's name.

Actually - I don't see where I have referred to the American peolpe once - except explicitly to answer your critique. All my comments refer to the current administration. Please read them as such (and get off your high horse while you're at it).

The British are not as happy to jump on board the EU bandwagon because they're already internationally significant without needing to band together with everyone else on the continent.

Used to be - used to be - they are in no way as influencial as they used to be. They were a world power when they had colonies - that has been slowly dying, along with their influence, since WWII.

The same can't really be said about the rest of Europe.

What? I'm sorry - are you really writing off France and Germany as world players? - oh dear. I'm afraid you are a propoganda victim. France and Germany pretty much function as a unit these days and wield a lot of power - inside and outside Europe.

They're guarding their own self-interests the same as every other country. The mainland EU members recognize that joining forces they are stronger. For the UK, it's not nearly that cut and dry.

Europe is a unit - we have to be. Of course we are stonger together. In the same way that Arizona benifits from being allied with Massachusetts. Check my profile - 'Federal Republic of Europe' isn't there as a joke - it is what I believe in. If the UK does not want to be part of that then it should get all the way out and go the NAFTA route.

and just because France and Germany like to badmouth the USA whenever they get the opportunity doesn't mean that they aren't just as complicit in US foreign policy as the British are whenever it happens to suit them.

Again - you read too much of the proganda press. Chirac was extremely reasonable about French opposition to the invasion of Iraq. He said (not verbatim) that France is America's friend and that the war in Iraq was a mistake and a friend points out when someone is making a mistake. Sarkozy is even more pro-American than Chirac was. Merkel is also pro-American in the broarder sense, although again opposed to the war in Iraq. You yourself say that many American citizens are opposed to the war - are they also 'badmouthing' America? Are they anti-American? Your government seems to think so - I thought you were of a different opinion.

(Disclaimer: Please read all country names in the above text as referring to the administration of the country in question, unless otherwise explicitly stated)

 

[B_NineInchCock_160IQ]

Used to be - used to be - they are in no way as influencial as they used to be. They were a world power when they had colonies - that has been slowly dying, along with their influence, since WWII.

haha. yes, this is very true. But Germany has fallen harder and faster, and France has been in decline since... when? Napoleon? ::chuckle:: I knew that comment would get your goat.

I'm not on a horse, incidentally. I'm just very tall.