Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I would get all PC on your ass here, but what's the point? They're just animals, so bomb 'em 'til they glow. And God bless America.

Ty,

This is either some carefully choreographed play where Sebby's holding the football so you can kick it through the uprights*, or Sebby's just fucking with you.**

(As an aside, when it's not connected to any serious statement, I must admit that "glow a funny color" isn't a bad line.)

Gattigap


* In which case, it's unseemly. Stop it.
** In which case, it's unseemly, but for a different reason. Continue at your leisure.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Sure, that would have been consistent with American values. Well, the Republican Party's, anyway.



I agree with you, except replace "good" with "bad" and so on. You'd be right about the terror war if it was a zero-sum game. We'll be paying for this one for years.



Except when it isn't. Hitler thought the British would cave after Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain, but he was wrong.



And this explains why radical Islam has conquered the entire world, except for Syria and Iraq.



I would get all PC on your ass here, but what's the point? They're just animals, so bomb 'em 'til they glow. And God bless America.

1. If you are raised in a Madrass to know nothing but the Koran and believe life's sole purpose is extermination of infidels, its hard to make a case you're not an animal. You're vlue to the planet is several grades below the cattle grazing outside.

2. Americans need to get over their "American values" in regard to killing enemies. We want safety, but we don't want to do what's necessary. I agree that the Patriot Act is wrong, but I'm fine with mass execution of radical Islamists. Radical islam is like preganancy - it is or it isn't. Kill it or run from it, but stop teasing it and retreating to see what it does next.

3. Dunkirk and Britain didn't involve smart bombs, daisy cutters and laser guided artillery. We can and should give these people the armaggedon they're begging for. I don't care how Islamist these people are, if they a full force horror show of the craziest shit we have in the arsenal, they'll probably think twice before fucking around with us again. Or they'll be dead. Preferrably the former, but the latter is just as well.

4. The only ARAB nations where radical Islam was stunted are Syria and Iraq. This Islamic thing is cancerous. Assad was right - catch it early and wipe it out or it'll get you later. Wait until Mubarak dies and there's a power vacuum in Egypt. The lunatics will make a massive dash for power. Egypt is a time bomb.

My point is that we should not be in Iraq dicking around. We should have handed it to the Baathists (who we could pay to kill all the Islamists) and focused the full force of the military air power on Pakistan's provinces in a Dresden style bombing campagin which will burn out the Queda leaders there. Sure, getting OBL and the heirarchy of Queda won't end anything, but it will be forever befroe those waterheads get organized to that level again, and in the interim, we can get our home security in better order.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
* In which case, it's unseemly. Stop it.

OK. Your turn.

Overheard at Dunkirk: "Gor blimey, they may have panzers and Stukas, but at least they haven't invented the daisy cutter yet."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

One more. I can't resist.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. If you are raised in a Madrass to know nothing but the Koran and believe life's sole purpose is extermination of infidels, its hard to make a case you're not an animal. You're vlue to the planet is several grades below the cattle grazing outside.

If you are raised in Philadelphia to know nothing of the Koran and believe that Muslims believe that life's sole purpose is extermination of infidels, it's hard to make a case that they're not animals. You will think their value to the planet is several grades below the cattle grazing outside.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. Your turn.

Overheard at Dunkirk: "Gor blimey, they may have panzers and Stukas, but at least they haven't invented the daisy cutter yet."

Also overheard at Dunkirk: The French army had twice as many tanks as the German army. What in the deuce happened to them? Blimey!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Also overheard at Dunkirk: The French army had twice as many tanks as the German army. What in the deuce happened to them? Blimey!

The answer to this question can be found in this history of the fall of France, which is excellent:



The best French and British forces moved east into the Low Countries to try to meet the German forces as far on the other side of France's borders as possible, seeking to avoid a repeat of WWI, when Germany seized much of France's industrial capacity early on. The main German line of attack, through the Ardennes, met the worst French forces, and cut off the main French and British forces from their supply lines and the Channel ports. Dunkirk was the only port not taken, and it remains a mystery why this was.

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because Arabs only respect force, right?

Correct, assuming that within the context of your post (and the one it was replying to) force is broadly construed to include "panties on the head", whether placed there forcefully or not.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
Correct, assuming that within the context of your post (and the one it was replying to) force is broadly construed to include "panties on the head", whether placed there forcefully or not.

Not so. If an Arab lets you place panties on his or her hand, it means he or she will not respect you in the morning.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. Your turn.

OK, I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm wrong.

Certainly Sebby's enjoying that moment in the sun where it's not clear (at least to me) whether or not he's being serious.

Regardless, I'm coming around to your view that some of the material is too tempting to resist. Like:

My point is that we should not be in Iraq dicking around. We should have handed it to the Baathists (who we could pay to kill all the Islamists) and focused the full force of the military air power on Pakistan's provinces in a Dresden style bombing campagin which will burn out the Queda leaders there.

While certainly unorthodox, "Give Iraq Back to the Baathists" is certainly a refreshing concept for the Administration to consider. Maybe Karl Rove could find a way to spin the bumper stickers that will result.

Gattigap

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not so. If an Arab lets you place panties on his or her hand, it means he or she will not respect you in the morning.

I was not an english major but is there a difference between forcefully and forcibly? If so, as long as the panties are placed there forcibly, then you get respect. Ask Lindy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
I was not an english major but is there a difference between forcefully and forcibly? If so, as long as the panties are placed there forcibly, then you get respect. Ask Lindy.

Unlike you, I've never quite been willing to pay 99 cents a minute to talk to her, but the thought is tempting.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Given all of the recent (a) violence against the Iraqis and (b) kidnappings of foreign nationals, including diplomats of Arab countries, can we finally agree to put to bed the myth that the violence in Iraq was a result of our "occupation" and instead attribute it to the fight against a democratic Iraq, as outlined in AZ's letter?

Of course, that's part of the reason for at least some of the resistance.

However, Club, we still have about 138,000 U.S. troops in Iraq -- who patrol with the Iraqi police force and National Guard. The current government of Iraq is appointed by a process moderated by the U.S. and U.N. Therefore, even if democracy will give the iraqi government credibility, democracy doesn't exist yet.

So, if you think that the "occupation" is over and that Iraq is now a "democracy", you're living on Mars. If you think Bush has governed as a centrist, you're living on Pluto.

S_A_M


P.S. Consider, for example, his environmental, energy, and labor policies. Are you suggesting that running government policies principally for the interest of big companies is somehow "liberal"?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unlike you, I've never quite been willing to pay 99 cents a minute to talk to her, but the thought is tempting.

What are you a luddite of sorts, sts??!? I use the $19.99/mo live webcam feed hook-up. The Master Sgt. Lindy hook-up, iyw.

If you ever give in to your temptations just remember, you have to provide your own pair of panties. My mom lent me a pair-it seemed that much more West Virginny. No offence.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Another left-wing conspiracy theory bites the dust. Tsk tsk.

Those records still don't cover the Alabama period.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The current government of Iraq is appointed by a process moderated by the U.S. and U.N. Therefore, even if democracy will give the iraqi government credibility, democracy doesn't exist yet.

The current head of Iraq is a former Baathist & CIA source turned strongman installed by the U.S. government and dependant on U.S. troops; one of his first actions was to declare that a state of emergency justified martial law. Of course, maybe it will all work out nicely in the end.