Topic: Don't you know there's a war on? (Read 68552 times)

Brentai · « **Reply #20 on:** May 20, 2008, 01:58:46 PM »

Both sides are incompetent, but there's only one we expect anything good to come out of.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #21 on:** May 20, 2008, 02:44:25 PM »

I think the problem is that people look at it in terms of sides, rather than people. It's not a fucking football game. The more we treat it like one, the more we'll find that it is one.

Thad · « **Reply #22 on:** May 20, 2008, 03:26:13 PM »

Of course. And that's the nature of a two-party system.

I would argue (and a certain President Washington would agree) that it's the nature of a party system in general, but I still believe that more parties would be better.

Brentai · « **Reply #23 on:** May 20, 2008, 04:10:20 PM »

Quote from: Bongo Bill on May 20, 2008, 02:44:25 PM

I think the problem is that people look at it in terms of sides, rather than people. It's not a fucking football game. The more we treat it like one, the more we'll find that it is one.

It is one.

Bongo Bill · « **Reply #24 on:** May 20, 2008, 04:14:23 PM »

Is it President Republican, or President Bush?

Thad · « **Reply #25 on:** May 20, 2008, 09:09:19 PM »

The difference only matters if his party starts disagreeing with him.

Brentai · « **Reply #26 on:** May 29, 2008, 11:22:31 AM »

Standard bullets not powerful enough to fight Iraqis.

Soldiers in Iraq are now claiming that they have to first collect at least two M powerups before they can damage the stage bosses.

Kazz · « **Reply #27 on:** May 29, 2008, 12:17:29 PM »

Armor-piercing rounds don't work, because they're not wearing armor! We need cloth-piercing rounds!

Shinra · « **Reply #28 on:** May 29, 2008, 10:13:47 PM »

Quote from: Guildenstern on May 19, 2008, 05:02:00 PM

Fine, fine. Bush lied and that's where we are now.

The problem with Iraq now is that, on an international level, we're obligated to restore Iraq to at minimum a more stable state than it was in under Saddam.

Many worldwide would agree that Iraq is not as stable now as it was under Saddam.

Saddam kept Iraq stable by rolling tanks down city blocks and demolishing apartment buildings every time someone found 30 decapitated bodies in an alleyway somewhere. Look at Baghdad; it's basically split in half between two ethnic groups that hate each other. It's not like this is a new development and a bunch of Sunnis and Shiites decided to shack up in new digs in the middle of a warzone. The truth is, after a few years of getting used to it, the two sides have figured out that America is one thing that Saddam was not; accountable to the international community. The fact that we're not barbarians is the very reason that we'll never be able to stabilize the region. Iraq either needs brutal force, religious guidance, or one of the factions to be utterly obliterated. As long as we're in the region, I think the most likely thing to occur is option #3. I don't exactly expect the islamic ghandi to come into power anytime soon, so option #2 is, realistically speaking, completely out. Option #1 is unacceptable. We're America. We're getting enough heat for what we're doing in the region without dragging religious leaders into the streets and publically executing them.

Kazz · « **Reply #29 on:** May 29, 2008, 11:00:54 PM »

Quote from: Shinra on May 29, 2008, 10:13:47 PM

I don't exactly expect the islamic ghandi to come into power anytime soon

NOBODY EXPECTS THE ISLAMIC GANDHI!

Shinra · « **Reply #30 on:** May 30, 2008, 12:54:31 PM »

how would a passive jihad work

insurgents just going limp in the way of american soldiers

"OH GOD WE CAN'T MOVE THESE TRUCKS BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE LIMP IRAQIS, WARS OVER GUYS"

Thad · « **Reply #31 on:** June 14, 2008, 10:45:31 AM »

WaPo: Key Iraqi Leaders Deliver Setbacks to U.S.

Quote

The Bush administration's Iraq policy suffered two major setbacks Friday when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki publicly rejected key U.S. terms for an ongoing military presence and anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called for a new militia offensive against U.S. forces.

Yeah, it turns out getting us the hell out of Iraq is an election issue there, too.

Kazz · « **Reply #32 on:** June 14, 2008, 10:53:51 AM »

So, I know this has been asked about a billion times over the past four years, but if nobody in Iraq wants us there, why are we there?

Brentai · « **Reply #33 on:** June 14, 2008, 10:57:58 AM »

Obviously so we can secure a supply of cheap oil so that gas prices don't suddenly jump up 80% in a year.

Kazz · « **Reply #34 on:** June 14, 2008, 11:03:35 AM »

Lawl! That worked out.

My biggest fear is that, this time next year, we'll be yearning for the gas to go back down to four bucks a gallon. (I understand that California already is.)

Brentai · « **Reply #35 on:** June 14, 2008, 12:12:06 PM »

I would kill you for four bucks a gallon.

Guild · « **Reply #36 on:** June 14, 2008, 08:17:47 PM »

Gas here is a billion dollars a gallon.

Let's crack open Alaska.

Brentai · « **Reply #37 on:** June 14, 2008, 10:31:46 PM »

Oh, it'll crack open on its own soon enough if we keep driving.

Guild · « **Reply #38 on:** June 15, 2008, 01:18:50 AM »

Mongrel · « **Reply #39 on:** June 15, 2008, 07:11:37 AM »

If we could just make cars that ran on blood, we'd be set.

News:

Author Topic: Don't you know there's a war on? (Read 68552 times)