BrotherMan

I recieved this mixed bag of spam today. I have my own ideas that will get sent to the person who gave it to me, but I thought some of you here would like a crack at it also.

I apologize for the ALL CAPS, that's how I recieved it - at least I edited out the >>.

Let's remember two words as we read this, shall we? 'INSANE' and 'LITTLE'. As an American citizen your opinion is no more valid than mine. I can have my opinion on the war and you can have your opinion on the war.

If the best advice you've ever recieved is "Keep It Simple, Stupid" maybe you shouldn't be in the business of giving advice under the guise of political satirist.

If this situation were 'simple' I doubt very much there'd be a war going on.

On the sliding scale of bad to good, yes Saddam appears to be less of a compassionate leader than Bush. That doesn't necessarily mean that Bush knows what he's doing.

And the United States is the only country in the history of the world to ever drop nuclear weapons on a civilian population.

(Help! I want to say: "Not included in that list of defeats are... - <insert American-Indian, blah blah>" basically wars when the French either kicked our ass or helped us kick somone else's.)

If this isn't for oil at some level, then why did Dick Cheney's former company vie for rights to Iraq's oil before the war even started?

The war in Iraq has nothing to do with Osama bin Laden. There is no evidence of a link between the two. To the best of my knowledge, this is a war for the sake of war. Excuses were being made as they went.

No response.

The war on terrorism and the war with Iraq are two seperate issues.

If you make connections like this, then you need to stop smoking what the Dell dude was smoking.

Then why is there talk of liberating them? Did anyone tell the Iraqis that we're not going to liberate them?

Being anti-war and pro-troops are not mutually exclusive.

It did. People don't seem to care for any side of an issue save their own. Stick to comedy, Dennis.

Ensign Steve

First of all, that is not Dennis Miller. You mentioned that, though.

Comments:
Regarding Lybia and human rights, I don't think Lybia is one of the three moderized nations that still executes minors. They are Iran (I think, forgive if it's Iraq), the U.S., and somebody else ??? But I don't think it's Lybia. (man, that argument would be a lot better if I could remember the 2 other countries besides U.S., but you get the idea) Anywho, it's against every human rights charter I can think of (UN, Amnesty International) to execute minors, but the US, especially Texas, still does it.

Also, is calling me an "infidel" supposed to be an insult? I wear that badge with pride. Osama would kill me either way, give that I am a job-holding, book-learning, pant-wearing, sex-having, homosexual white female. I think "infidel" is the least of my problems in that department.

*sigh*

Ensign Steve

I found it! Phew, I feel a lot better, now. More than three, but still, no Lybia.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editori...n03/114837.asp

BrotherMan

I should trust my instincts. Snopes rules all. Thanks, JenniferD!

MzNeko

Me too, 'cept I'm hetero. And if that freak wants to tell me my "place," I'd tell him where he can stick it.

lunachick

Buddrow_Wilson

This is surprising similar to a post I read on a news site's BB just today. To which I replied...

--------------

1) This war is no guarantee of decreasing terrorism. Many INTELLIGENT people are convinced quite the opposite is true.

2) There are many nations on our planet that have brutal, inhumane regimes. We cannot overthrow all of them. So why here? why now?

3) Saddam is far from a direct threat to the U.S. There is some links to terrorism (allowing some terrorists cells to operate in the outer reaches of Iraq, paying stipends to the families of suicide bombers, etc). However, on a grand scheme, his threat is minor compared to the likes of Iran, Saudia Arabia (our ally?) and others. Let's not forget the threat of a certain North Korea and its budding nuclear arsenal with range to hit California. Choosing to attack Iraq with all other threats around us stinks of revenge for daddy. Oh and Iraq has a crap-load of oil, what a coincidence.

4)In response to their use of guerilla tactics: They know they have no chance of winning a war with us in a "fair" fight. They have no reason to trust that we have good intentions. We are invading them and they revert to the only actions that stand a chance of effecting the war. I would do the same. "All's fair in love and war", remember?

5)As much as its non-PC to say so, the monetary cost of this conflict is extremely important. Some estimates range near 200 billion including rebuilding. This is unacceptable, our nation needs these funds, we are increasing our deficits and cutting taxes simultaneously. Does this not ring a bell of concern?

I do not call myself liberal or conservative, why does being against what I think is an irresponsible war make me a liberal? I am not a democrat or a republican. I do not need organizations to think for me. I value logic over emotion.

Any questions?

----------


I'm gonna go check for flaming replies now

Ensign Steve

Very well, said, Bud! :notworthy

Duh, is this not exactly how we won the revolutionary war? Or do we not bother to remember further back than the first Bush administration (or 9/11/01 for that matter)?

Buddrow_Wilson

Thanks Jen! I believe that's my very first not worthy.

RawData

Well, just to give yer head a bit of swellin'...:notworthy
That was a beut of a reply
RD - Just another damn infidel