THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Quote:

In my opinion, the envious are more to be feared and they are the ones actually winning.

Je ne comprends pas mon ami

What you talkin' 'bout?

0 Replies

Foolish question . . . it's predicated upon an assumption that your interlocutor actually knows what he is talking about . . .

0 Replies

Yes, but I can still ask can't I?

You never know what will happen next.

0 Replies

Good point . . .

So please stay tuned
So you won't miss a minute . . .

Of the agonizing holocaust . . .

0 Replies

So please stay tuned
So you won't miss a minute . . .

Of the agonizing holocaust . . .

Where did that come from?

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Quote:
In my opinion, the envious are more to be feared and they are the ones actually winning.

Je ne comprends pas mon ami

What you talkin' 'bout?

i think he's trying to say that there's more to fear from those who are envious of america's wealth/power/whatever than from our own out of wack administration.

and that we are getting nowhere in iraq?

oh, welllll...

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

Where did that come from?

From Tom Lehrer (and i screwed with the lyrics a little), its his World War III Marching Song:

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But while you swelter
Down there in your shelter
You can see me
On your TV.

While we're attacking frontally
Watch Brinkally and Huntally**
Describing contrapuntally
The cities we have lost.
No need for you to miss a minute of the agonizing holocaust. Yeah!

Little Johnny Jones, he was a US pilot,
And no shrinking violet was he.
He was mighty proud when World War III was declared.
He wasn't scared, no siree!

And this is what he said on
His way to Armageddon:

So long, mom,
I'm off to drop the bomb,
So don't wait up for me.
But though I may roam,
I'll come back to my home
Although it may be
A pile of debris.

Remember, mommy,
I'm off to get a commie,
So send me a salami
And try to smile somehow.
I'll look for you when the war is over,
An hour and a half from now!
_____________

**Brinkly and Huntley were the "anchormen" for the NBC evening news on television in 'Merica in the 1960's.

0 Replies

Thanks to all for your contributions in aid of my better understanding

But lets be honest, they're all shots in the dark no?

Smile

0 Replies

except of course for Tom Lehrer who is like a laser in a tunnel

0 Replies

My definitions

ROOTERS: want everyone to be and have more.
GREEDY: want themselves to be and have more.
JEALOUS: want themselves to be and have more than others.
ENVIOUS: want everyone to be and have less.

Who is winning?

0 Replies

Thanks for definitions Ican, everything clear now

0 Replies

Wait. I want to go back to this:

Quote:

...in my opinion, Bush further destabilized what was already rapidly destabilizing and headed for another confrontation with the Iranian Mullas. Are we or Saddam more likely to win such a confrontation and stabilize the area to prevent our "groveling on the ground like a dog before allah or, [becoming] unconverted, dead"?

So, now this is new, right? A new slant on why we invaded? Saddam was about to be confronted by the Mullahs of Iran so we overthrew him to prevent the Iranians from gaining a strengthened position?

Well, that doesn't seem to have worked out either, does it? Or does anyone think the Mullahs of Iran have been somehow reduced in influence in the Sh'ia areas of Iraq.

Joe

0 Replies

Even evil has it's purpose Joe. While catalytic in nature Sadam served a purpose albeit an evil one.
Ask the question ..... 'what would America be like under a totalitarian Bush regime'? Are we different from the Iraqis in our commitment to 'live free or die'?
Why do we so easily forget our lessons learned?

"A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr

0 Replies

Quote:

Iraq on fire

The Bushites, who dominate every single rung on the ladder of violence-escalation in Iraq, have recently been systematically choosing escalation over de-escalation... And escalation is what they have got. Only a small portion of this news is even getting heard in the US.

We heard a little about the incident on Haifa Street in Baghdad on Sunday, when Iraqis crowded jubilantly around a burning US Bradley Fighting Vehicle and then were strafed by US helicopters shooting down at them from the sky. Many Iraqi civilians were killed, and many more injured. One of the injured was Salam's friend Ghaith, who went to the scene as a photog to get some pix. Salam urges us to go look at some of the pix Ghaith was able to shoot, anyway, regardless of his injuries.

If you go that gallery of Getty Images photos, you can scroll down for more and more great images, and click on each one for an enlargement.

PICS

0 Replies

Quote:

Who wins and what is the prize?!?

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

... So, now this is new, right? A new slant on why we invaded? Saddam was about to be confronted by the Mullahs of Iran so we overthrew him to prevent the Iranians from gaining a strengthened position?

No! It is not a reason, much less a new reason for removing Saddam. My primary reason for wanting Saddam removed has not changed. I wanted to stop Saddam from harboring the al Qaeda driven out of Afghanistan into Iraq. Well Saddam has been stopped but others are working hard to take his place, and we are stumbling in our attempts to stop them.

My discussion with Don'tTreadOnMe had to do with other probable consequences of, not reasons for, removing Saddam.

So far the only alternative advocated here is to turn over the presidency of the US to an incompetent Senator who some hope will turn over the Iraqi problem to an incompetent UN. This alternative offers no real hope for a solution.

While the incumbent president is obviously stumbling, there is at least some hope that he may yet stumble on to what will provide a tolerable solution.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote

Quote:

While the incumbent president is obviously stumbling, there is at least some hope that he may yet stumble on to what will provide a tolerable solution.

Unbelievable that is a statement for the ages. The bumbling president dug this hole for the US and the only thing we have to look forward to with him at the helm is a deeper hole. When a team fails they fire the manager not give him a raise and hope for the best. Failure deserves it's own reward. A kick in the pants on the way out. You on the other hand are hoping that he will stumble on to a tolerable solution.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

When a team fails they fire the manager not give him a raise and hope for the best. Failure deserves it's own reward. A kick in the pants on the way out. You on the other hand are hoping that he will stumble on to a tolerable solution.

Incredible! So to punish the president we should replace him regardless of the fact that the only available alternative has repeatedly demonstrated that he would do far worse. Who then really gets punished? We Americans do.

Masochists unite! Bah!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Incredible! So to punish the president we should replace him regardless of the fact that the only available alternative has repeatedly demonstrated that he would do far worse.

Incredible indeed . . . ipse dixit, it is not axiomatic that Kerry has demonstrated that he would do far worse, not even once, let alone repeatedly. Your partisan slip is showing, you might want to dig under your skirt and hike it up . . .

0 Replies

agreed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know