Way to advocate the pointless loss of human life in order to avoid the "evils" of war.... I think this dumb pacifism thing has gotten way out of hand......
You're both idiots. Yes, possession is a non-crime crime, but figure it out: millions of productive people working, on average producing far more than they consume; or all of them locked up uselessly in prisons, with the additional cost borne by society of hiring guards, people to construct the prisons, etc.
Why don't they teach economics in grade school? That's my suggestion...
Why, because I don't wallow in made-up scare stories or follow some lame enviro-cult? I'm perfectly happy without your illusions, thanks, but feel free to try to "enlighten" me.
What -- are you saving up the universe's order for some future generation? Or is this just "the rapture for environmental retards"? You don't get a fuckin' cookie for preserving the current arbitrary level of randomness in the universe -- not that you'd take it, anyway, at least not without bitching at the cookie maker for unnecessary conversion of sugarcane to an inefficient heat-intensive storage form.
Seriously, it's bad enough to be completely wrong, but to be completely wrong with no sane motivation?
No, because Iran seems desparate to run yet another dumb suicidal war. This time with more serious consequences? Who knows, but hopefully the free world will ignore its pacifists soon enough to avert the need for massive bloodshed, mostly among innocent young Iranians.
Sorry, but I'm a bit tired to respond to all the rest of the weird looney-tunes stuff in your post.
How did that post have anything to do with mine? Did you even catch onto the nation of reference which has
And I wrote:
You're right -- it takes a retard. Arabs (other than a psychotic despot and his hanger-on thugs) gained by far the most from America's liberation of Iraq, and it's the millions of oppressed Iranian youths who would benefit most from a removal of their illegitimate trolls.
I.e., the "nation of reference" that didn't merely threaten Iraq and threaten Iran but invaded Iraq, made things inconceivably better by doing that supposedly odious thing. Pay the fuck attention.
Anybody can put together a list of links to articles by pacifist morons, but that doesn't really say anything about Iraqis' experience after the invasion. In short, millions of people gained their liberty, and hundreds of thousands avoided the fate that the invasion prevented, hacked and raped and slaughtered by Saddam and his ass-headed thugs.
When you're saying that it's odious to threaten (let alone invade) a country like Baathist Iraq or the current Iran, it sadly reflects that you've somehow taken a serious wrong turn: these jackals terrorize and kill millions of people, literally, and for some reason you still don't get that these monsters are not legitimate heads of countries with rights and all that. You may feel that you're standing up for something nice and peaceful, but you're really just falsely ascribing legitimacy to some of history's most brutal psychopaths.
I'm sure you have a hard time relating this to your lonely life, but the U.S. has allies, whom it can help protect, as it did with various of its European allies several times over the last century. When there's a nutcase in the neighborhood like Ahmadinejad working away on WMD, it's wise to take the shit out, especially if it's threatening an ally of yours.
You're right -- it takes a retard. Arabs (other than a psychotic despot and his hanger-on thugs) gained by far the most from America's liberation of Iraq, and it's the millions of oppressed Iranian youths who would benefit most from a removal of their illegitimate trolls. Nothing to do with Arabs.
Why the fuck are you standing up for the twats who make life unlivable for tens of millions of Arabs? Oh, right... you identify Arabs with their non-representative despots, something a lot of morons like to do.
Another commentator in the Sun-Times pointed out that Ahmadinejad's not really out of sync with the "rest of the world"; after all, the latest UN circle-jerk featured Kofi in front of a map with Israel wiped off. I think that's a good reason to ignore the whole "international community" thing about how frequently one should be involved in a war, and that the U.S. would do very well to take out the Iranian nutjobs. (Oh yeah, they're supposed to have some kind of sovereignty... tee-hee!)
After all, isn't that why the Air Force is showing off the new Raptors?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but he saved like forty bucks a month in long distance fees.......
Daddy?
Yes, but not if you used correct grammar... ;)
Way to advocate the pointless loss of human life in order to avoid the "evils" of war.... I think this dumb pacifism thing has gotten way out of hand......
Do you idiots realize how ridiculous you sound?
I post (Score:-1, Libertarian) by default now.
(That's what inevitably happens if you post over a period of time without posting consensus "liberal" drivel...)
You're both idiots. Yes, possession is a non-crime crime, but figure it out: millions of productive people working, on average producing far more than they consume; or all of them locked up uselessly in prisons, with the additional cost borne by society of hiring guards, people to construct the prisons, etc.
Why don't they teach economics in grade school? That's my suggestion...
Hey, where's the foot icon?
"Quaero" is actually Latin for "European man, esp. Greek, who dresses well and has limp wrists."
Ah, but it's hard to know what Apple will be worth beyond next year, since buying AAPL is more like buying Abercrombie and Fitch than IBM or Samsung.
Why, because I don't wallow in made-up scare stories or follow some lame enviro-cult? I'm perfectly happy without your illusions, thanks, but feel free to try to "enlighten" me.
What -- are you saving up the universe's order for some future generation? Or is this just "the rapture for environmental retards"? You don't get a fuckin' cookie for preserving the current arbitrary level of randomness in the universe -- not that you'd take it, anyway, at least not without bitching at the cookie maker for unnecessary conversion of sugarcane to an inefficient heat-intensive storage form.
Seriously, it's bad enough to be completely wrong, but to be completely wrong with no sane motivation?
3. Islamic Revolution. What good is a fancy 4th generation nuclear power station if your country's run by religious nuts under Sharia law?
Worst of all, you'd be caught without a beer.
Also, don't forget to use mount -w with your biont.
Well, yes, you're probably right. But for some reason a lot of America-haters seem to get excitable when you point out that they hate America.
Right. Because Iran might, say, annex Israel?
No, because Iran seems desparate to run yet another dumb suicidal war. This time with more serious consequences? Who knows, but hopefully the free world will ignore its pacifists soon enough to avert the need for massive bloodshed, mostly among innocent young Iranians.
Sorry, but I'm a bit tired to respond to all the rest of the weird looney-tunes stuff in your post.
All right, you got me -- but I wasn't really paying attention ;)
;P
At any rate, I thought Ariel Sharon controlled Bush and the cabal of zionist neocons?
OK -- I've admitted my mistake, now let's have a response to the substantial parts, pacifist.
I would imagine Israel is a bit more concerned with carrying on existing than with maintaining European trade ties.
How did that post have anything to do with mine? Did you even catch onto the nation of reference which has
And I wrote:
You're right -- it takes a retard. Arabs (other than a psychotic despot and his hanger-on thugs) gained by far the most from America's liberation of Iraq, and it's the millions of oppressed Iranian youths who would benefit most from a removal of their illegitimate trolls.
I.e., the "nation of reference" that didn't merely threaten Iraq and threaten Iran but invaded Iraq, made things inconceivably better by doing that supposedly odious thing. Pay the fuck attention.
Anybody can put together a list of links to articles by pacifist morons, but that doesn't really say anything about Iraqis' experience after the invasion. In short, millions of people gained their liberty, and hundreds of thousands avoided the fate that the invasion prevented, hacked and raped and slaughtered by Saddam and his ass-headed thugs.
When you're saying that it's odious to threaten (let alone invade) a country like Baathist Iraq or the current Iran, it sadly reflects that you've somehow taken a serious wrong turn: these jackals terrorize and kill millions of people, literally, and for some reason you still don't get that these monsters are not legitimate heads of countries with rights and all that. You may feel that you're standing up for something nice and peaceful, but you're really just falsely ascribing legitimacy to some of history's most brutal psychopaths.
I'm sure you have a hard time relating this to your lonely life, but the U.S. has allies, whom it can help protect, as it did with various of its European allies several times over the last century. When there's a nutcase in the neighborhood like Ahmadinejad working away on WMD, it's wise to take the shit out, especially if it's threatening an ally of yours.
Looks like the dick's shooting off a bit prematurely, eh?
You're right -- it takes a retard. Arabs (other than a psychotic despot and his hanger-on thugs) gained by far the most from America's liberation of Iraq, and it's the millions of oppressed Iranian youths who would benefit most from a removal of their illegitimate trolls. Nothing to do with Arabs.
Why the fuck are you standing up for the twats who make life unlivable for tens of millions of Arabs? Oh, right... you identify Arabs with their non-representative despots, something a lot of morons like to do.
Another commentator in the Sun-Times pointed out that Ahmadinejad's not really out of sync with the "rest of the world"; after all, the latest UN circle-jerk featured Kofi in front of a map with Israel wiped off. I think that's a good reason to ignore the whole "international community" thing about how frequently one should be involved in a war, and that the U.S. would do very well to take out the Iranian nutjobs. (Oh yeah, they're supposed to have some kind of sovereignty... tee-hee!)
After all, isn't that why the Air Force is showing off the new Raptors?
Another useful idiot -- how depressing.