For a couple reasons: If you dont tell people what it means, all the compact disc logo says to consumers is: "This is a small plastic wafer with a hole in it"
And when you get right down to it, that's all the compact disc logo really does me. What I'm talking about is putting the logo on/everything/- makes no sense. A lot of CD Jewel cases have the logo. Sounds completely stupid, doesnt it? The Logo is meaningless on a jewel case: You can stick a DVD or a mini-pizza in it. Some of my CD-Rs have the logo on it. Again, meaningless: If I burn an MP3 CD, it can't play on anything that has the same logo on it, it can only play on a device which can read MP3s - a completely unrelated format. With so much tension between companies wanting to use the logo even with broken discs, it seems much more likely that these "rejected CDs" were from people who just didnt want to slap an extra logo on their CD- or on their CD/case/. Here's an old Rage Against the Machines CD I just grabbed randomly. No indication from the outside that a standard CD exists inside. Here's an old Third Eye Blind CD. The only "Compact Disc" logo on this one is on the inside of the plastic case. Not on the outside, not on the inside, but on a/container/, which seems to be saying nothing more than "this container is designed to hold a disc of these dimensions" Miles Davis, same thing. Charlie Parker, no sign of a logo/anywhere/, yet I find nothing which can't read it.
Obviously if a CD doesnt play on your player, you'll return it. I never meant to imply otherwise. But for lack of/logo/?
You aren't helping.
Re:Supporting the fighters
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
"Dont worry if it's right or wrong. Act like it's right."
I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. If only you werent posting as AC perhaps you could actually reply with a clarification.
An inexplicable "No", along with an equally inexplicable "They", combined with an utterly inexplicable italicized "not working" and a general assumption that there was a purpose behind your typing- Did you read what I said as saying that consumers like you reject CDs when they can do what they want with them? I have no idea wtf you were trying to say in your post.
You and nobody else cares about a logo. It's not something they look for. I've never rejected a CD for lack of logo. I dont think I have any without a logo, but I dont know. Before this whole DRM thing started, I had always thought that it was stupid how everything has that logo on it. I still do. I've rejected hundreds of CDs for excessive price. I've made thousands of downloads for lack of availability.
How about something that monitors what music I like and what music I skip past, and automatically generates a playlist linking various songs together? [He listened to X all the way through, but skipped past Y, then listened to Z. However, after listening to Q and P, he would listen to Y all the way through- so when he skips past Q, dont play Y, go to P]
"mood-based" playlists that generate themselves. Why not?
When I downloaded "Fight Club" I used the $4 I would have spent renting it in order to purchase some light automatic firearms and held 27 people hostage for 9 days in a small town in Florida. But incidentally, I liked the movie so much that I used the money I stole from an unwed pregnant woman before shooting her in the stomach to rent the movie. It's my right to time-shift, who says I can't time-shift backwards?:)
There are already at least 3 special editions of the Fellowship by itself. After releasing these 3 of just ONE movie so successfully, why stop? I expect at least 20 seperate releases of LOTR DVD material
Lord of the Rings, with its 5-27 different versions, has completely alienated, at the very least, me. When I watched Lord of the Rings in theaters, I thought "This is it. This is the movie that I will buy a DVD player to see."
After three "special edition"s, I do not intend to ever buy Lord of the Rings on DVD. As for the Animatrix, I'll probably just buy the DVD and download it to watch. Or maybe just download it to watch.
Yes, we still rely on those old and arbitrary divisions. But you know what? There/is/ a reason we kept them: they're good. An hour is a good amount of time to wait for something to happen. You could give or take a few minutes off of it, but an Hour really is a good length- much shorter, and you wouldnt be waiting long enough, much longer and you dont want to wait so long [for example,/three/ hours]
See, these original divisions are based loosely on astronomy, sure. But it was/man/ who decided how much to divide up.
People who want to use a decimal-based system for dividing time are morons.
Obviously the above post is phrased quite poorly, but I do hope that I managed to get my point accross.
Shut up. Your opinion doesnt matter. You are wrong./. editors don't want to be accused of censoring anybody, so they let absolute SHIT through. To editors: Cut the bullshit comments off the article, and auto-post them as a reply. You're not censoring anybody, and we dont have to read the lolomglol!!!ers
Nobody ever leaves their house at 5AM, that's why nobody ever leaves their house at 5AM. Such is annoying.
Me on the other hand, I just get bored no matter what time it is. Arguing about important things get people all excited for no reason. It's much better to pick something random to get a person to go "ah", about. Would anyone change their mind about Jesus being a fag? Of course not. But telling somebody that they made what ammounts to nothing more than a typo? I have discovered the ultimate secret of winning arguments.
Most people, if you shove them, will shove back. Even if it doesnt fucking matter. So a debate of/at least/ the level of inteligence you'd get from screaming "Jesus is a fag!!" [or, conversly, "Jesus is not a fag!!"] in order to get a responce.
And you can win. Getting an electronic version of something I wouldnt accept a non-electronic version of counts as winning to me.
So because there is no manpage, people everywhere are going to type "man chowder", yes, perfect sense there. But then, maybe after reading in full the vast multitude of words comprising your post, I had still missed something. So, what is it that I would have seen if I possessed your incredibly superior intellect?
well if you really want to go based on percentage, there's just too many pages out there which are porn. The ratio isnt one which can be expressed well in percent. You know what I'm saying, right? 100%
Not "every" country is against us, but every country we're planning on painting certainly is. Other countries can be considered to be a different Vehicle, possibly an SUV, parked in the next space.
So North Korea can attack us now, has said they want to attack us, calls us evil 24 hours a day, has a huge army- In short, is a lot more capable and able to attack us than Iraq (which can barely get the type of missile required to get to a country/next door/ off the _ground_), and you say we should be attacking Iraq "because the longer we wait, the worse it will get" In North Korea, _it_is_already_worse_. A Lot worse. So why attack the other guy first, leaving our troops in the opposite hemisphere of the most likely places of attack? [I figure your original question has been answered already, so yes, I'm straying from the original guidelines here] Is there really an excuse to attack Iraq instead of North Korea?
-Both are places we fought with and pulled out of -Both hate us -Both are not complying with regulations -Both have lied about complying -Both have switched back-and-forth between admitting and not-admitting to non-compliance -Both want to attack us, and have said they will attack us -One of them can
There's two reasons I can think of: The obvious, Oil. The one that I don't mind ignoring completely after this point but still want to say- "Dad said too." And the Immoral and probably[imo] correct one: Human sacrifices for a live training ground. Sounds a bit barbaric, doesnt it?
As for FOX being evil, I seem to have miscommunicated something. I don't mean that they hype the word evil, I mean that I find them evil, due to their hype. I don't watch either of them, usually, but when someone calls out "Hey, Columbia just exploded!", I'd rather flip to the channel that doesnt feature a flaming logo of the top story and then tries to bully the responces they want out of the people they're interviewing.[no, I can't provide examples, just calling it like I see it. Probably an opinion, but they seem evil.]
I can honestly claim that we intend to kill civilians. I understand that this is just a different way of looking things morally, but since it is something which depends entirely on the person reading it, I know for a fact that I am right and you are wrong.:)
Your painting analogy would be fine if there was a larger panel which was scared shitless that it would be painted, and was able to kill you instantly, and each of the other panels was also afraid that you wanted to paint it too, but all they would be able to do is attack your foot- something they damn well would do if they see the paint coming near.
I have made a reply to another reply to my previous reply, read that one for notes on TV Interviews not meaning diddly.
Now I'm not saying that the government isn't a puppet, but a puppet-body can still have a figurehead on top. The real question is who's pulling the strings. Who influences Sadam? Who makes Sadam angry? If Hitler were killed before WWII, I suspect that it still would have happened.
I'm not the guy who sees a croud of people, pulls the little one out, says "You're all next!" and beats the little guy to a pulp. Even if the croud of people was beating somebody else.
So what do you do instead? Well, you'd call some friends over. Trouble is, when we did that, three people showed up.
And the idea of Americans not being lead by propaganda is laughable. We can't even grab lunch without somebody telling us that somethingoranother is evil. I don't know about "conservative" or "liberal", so if |/FOX\| news is conservative, I've just never been told. I watch 3 minutes of it and all I get out of it is that |/FOX\| news is evil. But that's from hype, I don't know "conservative" or not.
anyway, got things to do, I'll reply to replies later
I'm Probably going to reply to the other reply again, so read that when the time is right. Just wanted to say for the moment that my point was that it is unlikely that there is any "someone" who needs to be stopped. Like I said, Sadam has doubles. Our president has doubles too, but not anywhere near the same extent. Our idea of a double is someone who is the same height riding in a limo with tinted windows, Iraq uses facial reconstructive surgery. I'm just trying to say that it isn't this one guy who's bad. Like I said, we're not trying to fight a country, we're trying to fight an Idea. [please don't reply to this post, I'm planning on making another one in this thread]
Going in to open war, there are yet more lines to be crossed. [jumping around a bit now to help clarify things to come] Okay, now I'm in no way trying to say that the whole of congress is immune. Sure, the whole government is evil, but that's a little harder to swallow, isn't it? I could go off and list each individuall person employed by the US government who is a bad person, but I'm not going to. Mainly because it would take several years, if not decades, to track all that information down. [note that the following sentance is not meant to equate anything, just try to come up with your own metaphore which involves hamburgers and potato chips or something] Osama Bin Ladin is an evil guy, but he's also got bunches of people under him. Yet we tend to say things like [but not exactly] "Osama Bin Ladin's policies are somewhat disagreeable." Such is not meant to imply that others in his organization are not fuck-heads.
I very often wonder why people stress "against his own people" so much when they're trying to be pro-war. He's using them against his own people, you want to blow him up. Are you not working towards the same goal here? Wouldnt it make sense, save time, money, American Lives, to let him keep on gassing his own people? We, on the other hand, want to attack/another/ country. Seems to me like he's got more a right to kill his own people than we do.
"But he's doing it on purpose". If a bankrobber is holding someone hostage, and is pointing a gun at a croud, and you take him out with a grenade- you have just killed both of them on purpose.
Use of the dictionary to attack the above statement will be ignored.
Okay, but "We wouldn't do that". Correct, we would not do that if one hostage is involved. But thousands of civilians? Of course! A blanket-cover of bombs over a city full of civilians is just a good strategy, after all.
[Inserting this here because I just re-read your last block and need to have this said before I hit submit- You have made the grave error of equating !bad with good. Such a thing is incorrect.]
To clarify the final statement, "This" war is the war on terror, a very different thing from a war on Iraq. [to use an example from a previous comment] It would be like declaring war on Europe, and then attacking France. You know how that ends;) [again, you may replace previous metaphor with various fast foods if it pleases you]
We can go ahead and kill Iraq when it's Iraq that we're fighting. A war against an idea canot be won.
And the challenge has been answered, several times, and was already obvious: - in magical happy-world, don't kill Iraq. - In this world, let him kill himself
-OR-
kill Iraq, not terror. It's just finishing up a game that's been delayed.
-OR-
Ninjas. Seriously, they RULE.
Now let's talk about Sadam. "Sadam is evil" blah, is it Sadam or the entire Iraqi government? Does Sadam even exist? There are reports that say nobody has seen the "real Sadam" in years, publically. He could be dead already. What reason would a government have to tell its people that their leader, of whom they have several doubles, is dead? Yes, the allusion I am making is not merely imagined. Unless you are thinking of one I have not thought of, in which case you are wrong.
Has Sadam really gassed "his own people"? Well, who are "his own people"? Iraqi citizens? What does it take to be an Iraqi? Loyalty to Sadam. Sadam has not gassed his own people, would never gas his own people. No one ever would. He just has a different definition of what his own people are. [I realize that the above conflicts with previous sarcastic comments, please comprehend the concept of sarcasm]
I like the word "fucking". I'm not sure why, I just do. See, instead of saying "fucking", I could spend several hours working out a perfectly-worded post which is insightful and has had all the facts in it checked for accuracy, typos, mis-phrasings, mis-quotes, etc, etc. But when I do that right-off, the conversation usually ends right there, and then I feel like I've wasted a perfectly good moment on something which never gets read.
So it's easier to just say "fucking", spread various thoughts out over a few different posts, than to offer a whole responce out in one post which, if ever read, I'll never know.
I have answered some of your questions in another post in this thread, and don't feel like re-typing them, so please go visit that other post.
Now just to see if you're paying attention, and since you've gone through all the trouble of trying to insult me without just admitting to it- Fuck you, whorebitch.
And that would be Bush==Hitler;) Not that I consider such to be true.
Now what we should really do is send a bunch of Ninjas after Sadam. Seriously, have you ever seen a movie with Ninjas in it? Those guys could kill all the Sadams and nobody would hear the screams.
Clarifications: -Rights of US Citizens. -Our WMD, Our refusal to comply with regulations we insist other nations follow, Our developement of weapons which could only be used to attack in the interest of "defence" -9/11 didn't prove anything about foreign governments needing to be stopped, if anything it proved that trying to stop others from attacking us is futile, and perhaps we should focus less on trying to provoke absolutely everybody.
Nuclear powers are going to be developed, already are developed, are going to be used, etc. We are in that age, it will happen. Once we get over trying to stop everybody from getting their hands on American textbooks, I for one think there are slightly more pressing concerns.
Now for terrorism vs the US: You are looking at two potential targets: One is heavily armed, well trained, and pretty much looking for an excuse to step on you anyway. Another is comparatively defenceless, but has ideals or beliefs which are a lot more offencive to you. You choose the defenceless one, 'cause that one you know you can hit.
Are you: a) a 9/11 hijacker b) The President of the United States
And yes, I due tend to ignore the years in which Bush was not president when talking about the things Bush has done during his presidency. I don't see how I'm ignoring that 9/11 was after he was in office when I say that his _ADMITTED_ attacks against american freedoms are out-of-line and bring up serious questions about whether he is fit for office.
Now I have not said that war is bad. I have not said that war with Iraq is bad. _This_ war is bad.
Slashdot Mirror
For a couple reasons: If you dont tell people what it means, all the compact disc logo says to consumers is: "This is a small plastic wafer with a hole in it"
/everything/- makes no sense. /case/. Here's an old Rage Against the Machines CD I just grabbed randomly. No indication from the outside that a standard CD exists inside. /container/, which seems to be saying nothing more than "this container is designed to hold a disc of these dimensions" /anywhere/, yet I find nothing which can't read it.
/logo/?
And when you get right down to it, that's all the compact disc logo really does me. What I'm talking about is putting the logo on
A lot of CD Jewel cases have the logo. Sounds completely stupid, doesnt it? The Logo is meaningless on a jewel case: You can stick a DVD or a mini-pizza in it.
Some of my CD-Rs have the logo on it. Again, meaningless: If I burn an MP3 CD, it can't play on anything that has the same logo on it, it can only play on a device which can read MP3s - a completely unrelated format.
With so much tension between companies wanting to use the logo even with broken discs, it seems much more likely that these "rejected CDs" were from people who just didnt want to slap an extra logo on their CD- or on their CD
Here's an old Third Eye Blind CD. The only "Compact Disc" logo on this one is on the inside of the plastic case. Not on the outside, not on the inside, but on a
Miles Davis, same thing. Charlie Parker, no sign of a logo
Obviously if a CD doesnt play on your player, you'll return it. I never meant to imply otherwise. But for lack of
You aren't helping.
"Dont worry if it's right or wrong. Act like it's right."
Fuck you.
I have no idea what the hell you're trying to say. If only you werent posting as AC perhaps you could actually reply with a clarification.
An inexplicable "No", along with an equally inexplicable "They", combined with an utterly inexplicable italicized "not working" and a general assumption that there was a purpose behind your typing- Did you read what I said as saying that consumers like you reject CDs when they can do what they want with them? I have no idea wtf you were trying to say in your post.
You and nobody else cares about a logo. It's not something they look for. I've never rejected a CD for lack of logo. I dont think I have any without a logo, but I dont know. Before this whole DRM thing started, I had always thought that it was stupid how everything has that logo on it. I still do.
I've rejected hundreds of CDs for excessive price. I've made thousands of downloads for lack of availability.
How about something that monitors what music I like and what music I skip past, and automatically generates a playlist linking various songs together? [He listened to X all the way through, but skipped past Y, then listened to Z. However, after listening to Q and P, he would listen to Y all the way through- so when he skips past Q, dont play Y, go to P]
"mood-based" playlists that generate themselves. Why not?
When I downloaded "Fight Club" I used the $4 I would have spent renting it in order to purchase some light automatic firearms and held 27 people hostage for 9 days in a small town in Florida. But incidentally, I liked the movie so much that I used the money I stole from an unwed pregnant woman before shooting her in the stomach to rent the movie. It's my right to time-shift, who says I can't time-shift backwards? :)
Less chance of inflation.
There are already at least 3 special editions of the Fellowship by itself. After releasing these 3 of just ONE movie so successfully, why stop? I expect at least 20 seperate releases of LOTR DVD material
Lord of the Rings, with its 5-27 different versions, has completely alienated, at the very least, me. When I watched Lord of the Rings in theaters, I thought "This is it. This is the movie that I will buy a DVD player to see."
After three "special edition"s, I do not intend to ever buy Lord of the Rings on DVD. As for the Animatrix, I'll probably just buy the DVD and download it to watch. Or maybe just download it to watch.
Yes, we still rely on those old and arbitrary divisions. But you know what? There /is/ a reason we kept them: they're good. An hour is a good amount of time to wait for something to happen. You could give or take a few minutes off of it, but an Hour really is a good length- much shorter, and you wouldnt be waiting long enough, much longer and you dont want to wait so long [for example, /three/ hours]
/man/ who decided how much to divide up.
See, these original divisions are based loosely on astronomy, sure. But it was
People who want to use a decimal-based system for dividing time are morons.
Obviously the above post is phrased quite poorly, but I do hope that I managed to get my point accross.
Shut up. Your opinion doesnt matter. You are wrong. /. editors don't want to be accused of censoring anybody, so they let absolute SHIT through. To editors: Cut the bullshit comments off the article, and auto-post them as a reply. You're not censoring anybody, and we dont have to read the lolomglol!!!ers
Nobody ever leaves their house at 5AM, that's why nobody ever leaves their house at 5AM. Such is annoying.
/at least/ the level of inteligence you'd get from screaming "Jesus is a fag!!" [or, conversly, "Jesus is not a fag!!"] in order to get a responce.
Me on the other hand, I just get bored no matter what time it is. Arguing about important things get people all excited for no reason. It's much better to pick something random to get a person to go "ah", about. Would anyone change their mind about Jesus being a fag? Of course not. But telling somebody that they made what ammounts to nothing more than a typo? I have discovered the ultimate secret of winning arguments.
Most people, if you shove them, will shove back. Even if it doesnt fucking matter. So a debate of
And you can win. Getting an electronic version of something I wouldnt accept a non-electronic version of counts as winning to me.
So because there is no manpage, people everywhere are going to type "man chowder", yes, perfect sense there. But then, maybe after reading in full the vast multitude of words comprising your post, I had still missed something. So, what is it that I would have seen if I possessed your incredibly superior intellect?
shut up.
That would be reading it fast. Reading it slow gives you "Nat's Ass"..
Perhaps he only thinks he is funny, but actually isnt?
Meanwhile, back in reality, a manpage is considered to be documentation.
well if you really want to go based on percentage, there's just too many pages out there which are porn. The ratio isnt one which can be expressed well in percent. You know what I'm saying, right? 100%
Ignoring the obvious solutions of scalar EM! No one can defeat Tom Bearden! NOBODY! :D
Not "every" country is against us, but every country we're planning on painting certainly is. Other countries can be considered to be a different Vehicle, possibly an SUV, parked in the next space.
/next door/ off the _ground_), and you say we should be attacking Iraq "because the longer we wait, the worse it will get"
:D
So North Korea can attack us now, has said they want to attack us, calls us evil 24 hours a day, has a huge army- In short, is a lot more capable and able to attack us than Iraq (which can barely get the type of missile required to get to a country
In North Korea, _it_is_already_worse_. A Lot worse. So why attack the other guy first, leaving our troops in the opposite hemisphere of the most likely places of attack? [I figure your original question has been answered already, so yes, I'm straying from the original guidelines here]
Is there really an excuse to attack Iraq instead of North Korea?
-Both are places we fought with and pulled out of
-Both hate us
-Both are not complying with regulations
-Both have lied about complying
-Both have switched back-and-forth between admitting and not-admitting to non-compliance
-Both want to attack us, and have said they will attack us
-One of them can
There's two reasons I can think of:
The obvious, Oil. The one that I don't mind ignoring completely after this point but still want to say- "Dad said too." And the Immoral and probably[imo] correct one: Human sacrifices for a live training ground.
Sounds a bit barbaric, doesnt it?
As for FOX being evil, I seem to have miscommunicated something. I don't mean that they hype the word evil, I mean that I find them evil, due to their hype. I don't watch either of them, usually, but when someone calls out "Hey, Columbia just exploded!", I'd rather flip to the channel that doesnt feature a flaming logo of the top story and then tries to bully the responces they want out of the people they're interviewing.[no, I can't provide examples, just calling it like I see it. Probably an opinion, but they seem evil.]
Fucking!
I can honestly claim that we intend to kill civilians. I understand that this is just a different way of looking things morally, but since it is something which depends entirely on the person reading it, I know for a fact that I am right and you are wrong. :)
Your painting analogy would be fine if there was a larger panel which was scared shitless that it would be painted, and was able to kill you instantly, and each of the other panels was also afraid that you wanted to paint it too, but all they would be able to do is attack your foot- something they damn well would do if they see the paint coming near.
I have made a reply to another reply to my previous reply, read that one for notes on TV Interviews not meaning diddly.
Now I'm not saying that the government isn't a puppet, but a puppet-body can still have a figurehead on top. The real question is who's pulling the strings. Who influences Sadam? Who makes Sadam angry? If Hitler were killed before WWII, I suspect that it still would have happened.
I'm not the guy who sees a croud of people, pulls the little one out, says "You're all next!" and beats the little guy to a pulp. Even if the croud of people was beating somebody else.
So what do you do instead? Well, you'd call some friends over. Trouble is, when we did that, three people showed up.
And the idea of Americans not being lead by propaganda is laughable. We can't even grab lunch without somebody telling us that somethingoranother is evil.
I don't know about "conservative" or "liberal", so if |/FOX\| news is conservative, I've just never been told. I watch 3 minutes of it and all I get out of it is that |/FOX\| news is evil. But that's from hype, I don't know "conservative" or not.
anyway, got things to do, I'll reply to replies later
I'm Probably going to reply to the other reply again, so read that when the time is right. Just wanted to say for the moment that my point was that it is unlikely that there is any "someone" who needs to be stopped. Like I said, Sadam has doubles. Our president has doubles too, but not anywhere near the same extent. Our idea of a double is someone who is the same height riding in a limo with tinted windows, Iraq uses facial reconstructive surgery.
I'm just trying to say that it isn't this one guy who's bad. Like I said, we're not trying to fight a country, we're trying to fight an Idea.
[please don't reply to this post, I'm planning on making another one in this thread]
Going in to open war, there are yet more lines to be crossed.
/another/ country. Seems to me like he's got more a right to kill his own people than we do.
;) [again, you may replace previous metaphor with various fast foods if it pleases you]
[jumping around a bit now to help clarify things to come]
Okay, now I'm in no way trying to say that the whole of congress is immune. Sure, the whole government is evil, but that's a little harder to swallow, isn't it? I could go off and list each individuall person employed by the US government who is a bad person, but I'm not going to. Mainly because it would take several years, if not decades, to track all that information down. [note that the following sentance is not meant to equate anything, just try to come up with your own metaphore which involves hamburgers and potato chips or something] Osama Bin Ladin is an evil guy, but he's also got bunches of people under him. Yet we tend to say things like [but not exactly] "Osama Bin Ladin's policies are somewhat disagreeable." Such is not meant to imply that others in his organization are not fuck-heads.
I very often wonder why people stress "against his own people" so much when they're trying to be pro-war. He's using them against his own people, you want to blow him up. Are you not working towards the same goal here? Wouldnt it make sense, save time, money, American Lives, to let him keep on gassing his own people?
We, on the other hand, want to attack
"But he's doing it on purpose".
If a bankrobber is holding someone hostage, and is pointing a gun at a croud, and you take him out with a grenade- you have just killed both of them on purpose.
Use of the dictionary to attack the above statement will be ignored.
Okay, but "We wouldn't do that". Correct, we would not do that if one hostage is involved. But thousands of civilians? Of course! A blanket-cover of bombs over a city full of civilians is just a good strategy, after all.
[Inserting this here because I just re-read your last block and need to have this said before I hit submit- You have made the grave error of equating !bad with good. Such a thing is incorrect.]
To clarify the final statement, "This" war is the war on terror, a very different thing from a war on Iraq. [to use an example from a previous comment] It would be like declaring war on Europe, and then attacking France.
You know how that ends
We can go ahead and kill Iraq when it's Iraq that we're fighting. A war against an idea canot be won.
And the challenge has been answered, several times, and was already obvious:
- in magical happy-world, don't kill Iraq.
- In this world, let him kill himself
-OR-
kill Iraq, not terror. It's just finishing up a game that's been delayed.
-OR-
Ninjas. Seriously, they RULE.
Now let's talk about Sadam. "Sadam is evil" blah, is it Sadam or the entire Iraqi government? Does Sadam even exist? There are reports that say nobody has seen the "real Sadam" in years, publically. He could be dead already. What reason would a government have to tell its people that their leader, of whom they have several doubles, is dead?
Yes, the allusion I am making is not merely imagined. Unless you are thinking of one I have not thought of, in which case you are wrong.
Has Sadam really gassed "his own people"? Well, who are "his own people"? Iraqi citizens? What does it take to be an Iraqi? Loyalty to Sadam. Sadam has not gassed his own people, would never gas his own people. No one ever would. He just has a different definition of what his own people are.
[I realize that the above conflicts with previous sarcastic comments, please comprehend the concept of sarcasm]
Okay, your turn.
I like the word "fucking". I'm not sure why, I just do. See, instead of saying "fucking", I could spend several hours working out a perfectly-worded post which is insightful and has had all the facts in it checked for accuracy, typos, mis-phrasings, mis-quotes, etc, etc.
;)
But when I do that right-off, the conversation usually ends right there, and then I feel like I've wasted a perfectly good moment on something which never gets read.
So it's easier to just say "fucking", spread various thoughts out over a few different posts, than to offer a whole responce out in one post which, if ever read, I'll never know.
I have answered some of your questions in another post in this thread, and don't feel like re-typing them, so please go visit that other post.
Now just to see if you're paying attention, and since you've gone through all the trouble of trying to insult me without just admitting to it- Fuck you, whorebitch.
And that would be Bush==Hitler
Not that I consider such to be true.
Now what we should really do is send a bunch of Ninjas after Sadam. Seriously, have you ever seen a movie with Ninjas in it? Those guys could kill all the Sadams and nobody would hear the screams.
Clarifications:
-Rights of US Citizens.
-Our WMD, Our refusal to comply with regulations we insist other nations follow, Our developement of weapons which could only be used to attack in the interest of "defence"
-9/11 didn't prove anything about foreign governments needing to be stopped, if anything it proved that trying to stop others from attacking us is futile, and perhaps we should focus less on trying to provoke absolutely everybody.
Nuclear powers are going to be developed, already are developed, are going to be used, etc. We are in that age, it will happen. Once we get over trying to stop everybody from getting their hands on American textbooks, I for one think there are slightly more pressing concerns.
Now for terrorism vs the US:
You are looking at two potential targets:
One is heavily armed, well trained, and pretty much looking for an excuse to step on you anyway.
Another is comparatively defenceless, but has ideals or beliefs which are a lot more offencive to you.
You choose the defenceless one, 'cause that one you know you can hit.
Are you:
a) a 9/11 hijacker
b) The President of the United States
And yes, I due tend to ignore the years in which Bush was not president when talking about the things Bush has done during his presidency. I don't see how I'm ignoring that 9/11 was after he was in office when I say that his _ADMITTED_ attacks against american freedoms are out-of-line and bring up serious questions about whether he is fit for office.
Now I have not said that war is bad. I have not said that war with Iraq is bad. _This_ war is bad.
just as soon as "for animal life" doesn't count as a use anymore, right on!