Pushback

Here's how to persuade the citizens of the late great empire America to end the war;

don't go to work for a week,
don't shop, don't pay, bring the economy to a standstill, take a page out of Gandhi's book of tricks.

The country will never recover, but sometimes that's the price you have to pay.

And as for cleaning up the mess, give Bill Gates a call.

I live in NYC and we saw quite a number of protests during the run-up to the war and after. We started calling them "pro-fests" because every cause got jammed together Anti-War people marching next to socialists and the "Anarchist Drum Corps" (irony possibly intended). I agree, these marches seemed at times like an end in and of themselves, something to make us at home feel like we make a difference while they ultimately have no effect. Furthermore, I feel like those in power can turn the cameras on such a protest and say "look what an open society we have..." and proceed to do whatever it is they always intended to. Showing up in numbers to voice concern and outrage does nothing if the powers that be don't care. Do we believe that the President and Congress 'fear' these protests? They've become the order of the day and I imagine expected in a way as method for the 'mob' to release tension. I think the larger question for us now is what truly constitutes 'protest' now. What action can citizens engage in that will truly get the attention of the government and let them know that business as usual is not working. This is why I, like the poster above, feel our only hope lies in ECONOMIC protest. Boycotting gas would be one way we can let the world know we truly do not want to fight wars for oil.

Terry--you bring up a point in your post I think you should delve into further-WHAT will stop the violence in Iraq? The largest number of deaths are resulting from Iraqi on Iraqi violence that has nothing to do with us in a way. We started this, but we are not the one's responsible for the continued killing. When will the leaders of the Arab world take a stand and say enough? Where is the Muslim leadership that stands against Muslim on Muslim violence? We can never solve that particular problem with our military might no matter how many troops you surge in there, so, given that, WHAT can solve it?

The compulsive gamblers in charge have dropped nearly a trillion dollars into this crap shoot and they are intent on throwing More of the countries resources down the same hole.

We are told that we must continue with this stupidity because it will honor those that were killed by their blunder! How can causing thousands of more lives to be destroyed make-up for those that are already lost?

Interesting that Hillary generated more discussion than this topic. That's significant in a way-significant of the fact that no one has any idea anymore what to do about this never-ending struggle.

"The largest number of deaths are resulting from Iraqi on Iraqi violence that has nothing to do with us in a way. We started this, but we are not the one's responsible for the continued killing."
*We* started this? Really?? Hmmm... does the genocide, murder, torture and associated violence committed by Saddam and the Ba'athists against the rest of the Iraqi people prior to 2003 *not* qualify as "Iraqi on Iraqi violence"??? If not, then just exactly what was it? I'm getting confused. Did recorded history *really start* on January 21, 2001 - or March 20, 2003?

See, this is where the "Peace Now" folks' cover is completely blown, as they demand their altruistic cake (in places like Darfur) while wanting to eat it (through cut-and-run policies in Iraq) too. And Terry's observations point toward what's at the root of this phenomenon.

Ever since Al Gore failed to carry his own home state in 2000, it's been required liberal procedure to bash President Bush in retribution on every issue, in every venue, in every way, from every possible direction - though the heavens fall! As a result, virtually ALL of the negative attitudes, malfeasance, lies, misdirection, fauxtography and biased information about Iraq that we've seen fomented by Anti-Bush Politicos (fka the Democrats) and the exempt media has not been to achieve "Peace", but to destroy Bush, the Republicans, conservatism and anything else that stands in the way of the neo-socialism championed by people like Hillary, Kofi, Gore, Reid, Pelosi, Soros, Redford, Clooney and their ilk. Hate THIS war because it's BUSH's war. THAT is where the "We started this" lie came from. THAT answers the question of why these so-called "anti-war" protests have become far-left "pro-fests".

"When will the leaders of the Arab world take a stand and say enough? Where is the Muslim leadership that stands against Muslim on Muslim violence?"
Excellent question. Answer: to date they are demonstrably nowhere. Which begs the question: are you getting this Muslim thing yet? Tribal and religious blood feuds spanning centuries? Martyrdom? Mass murder? Institutionalized hatred and demonization of Jews? Execution of gays? Dictators? Fatwa? Jihad? "Honor" killings? Total subjugation and dehumanization of women? The list goes on and on. Simply observing this behavior, the conclusion is inescapable that what we have in (too) much of Islam is a genuinely psychotic culture that, among its worst adherents, glorifies murder and suicide in the name of religion. But it's become non-PC - even "Islamophobic" - to point all this out for some reason. As a result, it's Bush and the "evangelicals" who are demonized by the left for their religious beliefs. It's madness on both shores.

What can solve the problem is exactly what the U.S. is presently trying to do: replace the culturally self-destructive mentality that pervades much of the Middle Eastern leadership with the basic elements of what made much of the *rest* of the world such a livable place. Those would be self-determination in the form of representative democracy, private property, individual and religious freedom and the type of prosperity that - so far - only a thriving economy can provide. You don't make changes like that - from the conditions as they were in Iraq back in 2002 - in just a few years. We had troops protecting Europe from the USSR for decades. And South Korea. And Japan. But there's something wrong with keeping troops in Iraq to protect the Iraqis from Iran, Syria, al Qaeda and the rest??? What sort of idiotic double standard is that? Answer: a double standard aimed at destroying the guy who won when Gore couldn't convince his own home state to vote for him.

Personally, I'll vote for exiting Iraq when the Iraqi government can handle the security there and the democratic process they've started has taken firm hold. Either they'll figure out the rest for themselves with the civilized world as a model or they'll continue killing each other just as they've been doing in other psychotic cultures (e.g., in Africa). If we do that much, at least we'll have done what we set out to do per the Joint Resolution back in 2002. If we do that much, we won't have a repeat of the left bashing conservatives for "deserting" the Iraqis as they claimed GHWB did in the 90s (think of the "pro-fests" we'd have had if he'd suggested sending troops into Iraq back then!!). If we do that much - knee-jerk, Bush-bashing snark notwithstanding - the world WILL be safer for it.

Did wining the election for the presidency in the US appoint G. W. to be sheriff of all the known world?

When those Islamics decided that they did not like the way we lived and sent those hijackers to blow up our people it made us mad didn't it?

Just why should the rest of the world be grateful for us to come charging into their countries to change their way of life?

Maybe Al Gore would have been the best choice, rather than a man that sees his election as a chance to carry out a vendetta against Saddam Hussain, and using the armed force's as his henchmen!

As you said the people in that region have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning, maybe it took a Saddam Hussain to keep them in check. G.W. and his command lied there way into this war, let them lie their way out!

Think that if we spent the nearly trillion dollars beefing up security here at home we might be able to rest a little easier. Those brave souls that gave their lives in the misguided attempt to bring sanity to an insane situation is more than a gamble, it was asinine!

What threat is it to say I will kill you, to someone who thinks that to die while fighting is automatic heaven?

Those people have been sitting on top of trillions of dollars worth of oil and yet only a few use their wealth to help their own people live better lives her and now so they want to at lease live to see their children enjoy being born before they are told they must die for Islam!

I guess they are like some us here who cannot not think beyond party affiliation. Being a republican or democrat cannot give life back to those sent into harms way; by a boob!

"Did wining the election for the presidency in the US appoint G. W. to be sheriff of all the known world?"
Did someone suggest that it did? Is the U.S. pursuing defensive military action throughout "all the known world" or in just a few strategic locations?

"When those Islamics decided that they did not like the way we lived and sent those hijackers to blow up our people it made us mad didn't it?"
You think they murdered thousands of innocent people because they don't like the way we live? Hmmm...

"Just why should the rest of the world be grateful...?"
No one's asking for gratitude. Just asking for them to stay out of the way if they can't see, understand and address the problem.

"Maybe Al Gore would have been the best choice, ..."
Yet he couldn't convince his OWN HOME STATE, so then again... maybe not.

"As you said the people in that region have been fighting and killing each other since the beginning, maybe it took a Saddam Hussain to keep them in check."
By killing Iraqis at a higher rate than the recent violence? Your statement doesn't make any sense.

"Think that if we spent the nearly trillion dollars beefing up security here at home we might be able to rest a little easier."
As opposed to the... wait... HOW MANY terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11??

"I guess they are like some us here who cannot not think beyond party affiliation."
True dat!!

You think they murdered thousands of innocent people because they don't like the way we live? Hmmm...

Are they or are they not out to promote their brand of allegiance to Islam, and if we were the same as they would they attack us?

"Just why should the rest of the world be grateful...?"
No one's asking for gratitude. Just asking for them to stay out of the way if they can't see, understand and address the problem.

We want them to stay out of the way, in their own part of the world; The U.S. has lead the way to go thousands of miles from our shores to push our agenda down someone else's throat with our military. Saddam Hussein was their nut; and it was their choice to do away with him!

We have what some may consider a nut-job of our own, would we think it wrong for some foriegn power to take him out!

If Saddam Hussein was killing his own people at the rate we are; he would have killed most of them after twenty years in control!

It is the arrogant attitude of many of us in the U.S. who feel that we have rights that the rest of the world should not have. We have been claiming ownership to the resources of this planet for too long already.

If as we think we are smarter than they; then we need to develop ways to meet our energy needs without stealing from others, with our guns!

Both of those that fought against us during WW two have bought us out by producing better products than we. They have taken our lead and beat us with superior effort!

If we were practicing democracy as we say; then we would not have to push it with a gun. If we were not control by the lobbies and their agenda; perhaps our model of democracy would sell better. If we clean up our own house, then what we say might go farther!

Dat True!

"Are they or are they not out to promote their brand of allegiance to Islam, ..."
Waiting for some sort of point here. Don't see one.

"The U.S. has lead the way to go thousands of miles from our shores to push our agenda down someone else's throat with our military."
No. It is true that the U.S., UK and Australia led the way - accompanied by over 40 other countries (how soon they forget). But no one is pushing any unwanted agenda. The Iraqis have voted for a Constitutional Democracy - THREE TIMES. And they've done this in numbers that should make American voters ashamed. The military is there, now, to give them the breathing room to finish the job.

"If Saddam Hussein was killing his own people at the rate we are; he would have killed most of them after twenty years in control!"
At the rate WE are???? At what rate are WE killing Iraqis???? And you should do some actual research on this. In 2003, Tom Grey noted that "along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power." And we've learned a LOT since 2003.

"It is the arrogant attitude of many of us in the U.S. who feel that we have rights that the rest of the world should not have."
Now you're just contradicting yourself... arrogantly, I might add. Earlier, you claimed we're pushing our agenda - liberty through democracy, which we hold most dear - down the Iraqis' throats. Now you claim we don't want them to have that. Please make up your mind.

"...we need to develop ways to meet our energy needs without stealing from others, with our guns!"
Wow. Where's your source on this?? Oil is paid for by everyone who uses it - Russia, China, France, India AND the U.S. How do you think the Iranians and Saudis are funding all that terrorist activity?

"If we were practicing democracy as we say; then we would not have to push it with a gun."
But... then... there was that little matter of the American Revolution, which required guns and bloodshed to achieve independence and democracy. And another war, with guns and bloodshed, was required 29 years later to preserve it. And another war 50 years after that, with more guns and bloodshed, to secure freedom and democracy for ALL Americans. And another war, with guns and bloodshed, was required to liberate Europe from Hitler and the Nazis. So much for your silly platitudes. Can't tell you how depressing it is to live in a world where so many folks think they don't need to fight for the liberty they enjoy.

"Are they or are they not out to promote their brand of allegiance to Islam, ..."
Waiting for some sort of point here. Don't see one.

The point is that if we were like them they would not have attacked us. It is understood that one faction is fighting with the other, yet for the most part the fighting is between different sects of Islam.

Not that any of the things done by either group qualifies them for the peace prize! The Pope received death threats for telling the truth about this so-called religion.

I do not pretend to know how many of these Iraqis, Saddam Hussein killed; yet for the most part the conditions of their country seemed better than what they have now, due to G.W. vendetta.

In the so-called noble wars (if there is such a thing) There was a greater provocation than G. W. lies about weapons of mass destruction! G. W. had the high ground when he went after those responsible for the unprovoked attack of 9/11/01. But not lying his way into this war!

Perhaps you are too young to remember when America's oil companies own all the oil coming out of the middle east, and around the world. When the countries began to take them back

Did the people of Iraq ask us to remove Saddam Hussein from power? Were we asked to bomb them back into the middle ages as some have suggested that we do?

Since when do we care how many people are killed by the despots that rule over them. If we cared universally then we would have done something about the other massacres happening around the globe. Or is it only where we get our oil from that raises our morality?

How about the injustices here in our own backyard, when will we put as much money and manpower to fix our house. Or are we ruled by the special interest groups that tell us what is important and what is not; do we care with the same fervor for the well being of all people, or just those who are sitting on top of oil reserves?

Let's think, Noriega, the Shah of Iran, Saddam, Osama, and...?

How many enemies of America exactly were friendly, formed, given power or armaments by the same?

Stopping war could be as simple as stopping the American buddy system.

But without the war economy where would we be?

Eisenhower was right.

"The point is that if we were like them they would not have attacked us."
Uhm... there are billions of people in the world who are not like them. Still waiting for the point, I'm afraid.

"I do not pretend to know how many of these Iraqis, Saddam Hussein killed;"
Sure you did. Go back and read what you wrote.

"...for the most part the conditions of their country seemed better than what they have now..."
"Seemed" being the operant word in that sentence. The FACT is that no one was paying much attention before we got involved. Even CNN, who KNEW about Saddam's actions, refused to report them. Either way, so you think oppression by a homicidal tyrant and 70-125 murders a day by Saddam's regime was "better"?? Wow.

"In the so-called noble wars (if there is such a thing) There was a greater provocation than G. W. lies about weapons of mass destruction!"
Really? Which "lies" were those? Sounds like you're confused about what he said, versus what all these folks said: www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

"Perhaps you are too young to remember when America's oil companies own all the oil coming out of the middle east, ..."
You're kidding, right? And you claim that's how things work today? It is TODAY we're talking about, right - not 100 years ago??

"If we cared universally then we would have done something about the other massacres happening around the globe."
You, apparently, just don't get it. Nations act on national interests. When two tribes in Africa decide to wipe each other out, even the UN (whose supposed job it is to deal with such things) can't justify intervening. However, when a tyrant with access to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threatens his neighbors and others, it's in the nation's interest to defend itself and its allies against those threats. We learned this the hard way with Hitler. No reason to repeat that mistake with Saddam.

"How about the injustices here in our own backyard, ..."
No one's stopping you from dealing with them, whatever they are. What are YOU doing? Remember... "Ask not..."

"The point is that if we were like them they would not have attacked us."
Uhm... there are billions of people in the world who are not like them. Still waiting for the point, I'm afraid.

The point that I'm referring to is this; if they fight and kill themselves then no one need do anything, just sit back and wait until they destroy themselves.

There were no Weapons of mass destruction, and G. W. and crew knew it, they were also told, it was unlikely that Saddam, had anything to do with the attack on 9/11/.

Had G.W. finished the job of going after Osama, he would not be called into question at this point in time!

Going after other tyrants no matter where they may be is not necessarily the Job of the U.S. alone!

"If we cared universally then we would have done something about the other massacres happening around the globe."

You, apparently, just don't get it. Nations act on national interests. When two tribes in Africa decide to wipe each other out, even the UN (whose supposed job it is to deal with such things) can't justify intervening. However, when a tyrant with access to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons threatens his neighbors and others, it's in the nation's interest to defend itself and its allies against those threats. We learned this the hard way with Hitler. No reason to repeat that mistake with Saddam.

Then you echo the statement that our morality is connected to how much we can profit from the folks involved, that is what bring out our concern. That is why we did not raise an eyebrow at the genocide that is on going in Africa?

Now we know that the north Koreans have weapons of mass destruction, yet they don't have any oil is that why we have not tried to take out that despot?

It has not been 100 years since the big oil companies were thrown out. Starting with Abdul Nasser in about 1956.

The point of our discussion is almost fruitless, since neither G.W. or the Islamic fighter will ever see our post or stop and think. If those followers of Islam were able to think then they would have ceased killing each other. If G.W. could could think he would see that throwing more money and live away, will not cause those bent on destruction to ever wake up and smell the coffee!

"The point that I'm referring to is this; if they fight and kill themselves then no one need do anything,..."
And you think this explains why the "Islamics" killed thousands on 9/11?? Hmmm... I think you missed a step somewhere. You may want to go back and reread.

"There were no Weapons of mass destruction, "
Really? Your proof?

"and G. W. and crew knew it,"
You've read their minds??? You KNOW what they knew?? Your proof?

"they were also told, it was unlikely that Saddam, had anything to do with the attack on 9/11/."
And who claimed otherwise?

"Had G.W. finished the job of going after Osama, he would not be called into question at this point in time!"
That is pure, unadulterated B.S. But it doesn't matter. No one stopped going after Osama - he's still being pursued and is likely holed up in a cave somewhere. He wasn't in possession of chemical and biological weapons, and building a program to create nukes (all according to the Usual Suspects - see the previous link) while threatening his neighbors and committing overt acts of war in violation of the 1991 Treaty. Saddam was. So Congress approved the use of military force to remove him and liberate the Iraqis. What part of all that is unclear to you?

"Going after other tyrants no matter where they may be is not necessarily the Job of the U.S. alone!"
And of course in this case it wasn't. There were 50 countries involved in removing Saddam. 15 of those initially sent troops in 2003. That number grew to 35 by March of 2004.

"Then you echo the statement that our morality is connected to how much we can profit from the folks involved,"
No. Try thinking OUTSIDE THE BOX that WaPo, ABC and the rest have built for you. Nations are responsible for defending their people and those of their allies. Ultimately, that is why U.S. forces are in Iraq.

"Now we know that the north Koreans have weapons of mass destruction, yet they don't have any oil is that why we have not tried to take out that despot?"
He's on the list. So is Amadinnerjacket. One psychotic megalomaniac at a time, okay?

"It has not been 100 years since the big oil companies were thrown out. Starting with Abdul Nasser in about 1956."
OK - 50 years ago. It doesn't matter. You STILL didn't answer the question.

"The point of our discussion is almost fruitless, ..."
Of course it is - mostly because you refuse to actually look at the facts as they have transpired since Radical Islam's most recent declaration of war on the West. It's "all about oil" in your mind. Enjoy that - it's a popular misconception.

Goy--do you have a blog? you have so much to say you should have a blog.

Should be linked via my signature. :-)

It doesn't matter what you Lib's think...We are winning the war and will end it in victory. The protests won't amount to anything.

Thanks

A War Veteran

"The point of our discussion is almost fruitless, ..."
Of course it is - mostly because you refuse to actually look at the facts as they have transpired since Radical Islam's most recent declaration of war on the West. It's "all about oil" in your mind. Enjoy that - it's a popular misconception.

My misconception? With all of the despots in the world to chastise why the ones where the oil is?

The misconception was and is going to war for a vendetta, against the mouse that roared! There has been no end to the saber rattling by those misguided Islamic groups since the beginning; not that their threat should be taken lightly; yet as one contributors put it, we have armed most of these despots that now turn their weapons on us.

And because they have some money we welcome them to our shores, to form fifth column here in the good ol U.S. of A

For the most part we don't seem to care about the politics or religious affiliation; if they have enough money, then we welcome them into the U.S.

It has only now come to the fore that we should be a little more diligent about who is coming to dinner.

With that said; how do we disengage from this mindless conflict. Do we owe our citizens better management with their sons and daughters that have stepped up to the plate to defend our nation, and the waste of thousands of lives and billions of dollars that could be better spent.

The Islamics think war is their ticket to heaven; why would they ever want to stop what they believe is their only purpose for living?

G.W. is chomping at the bit to take the bait that that other despot inthedinnerjacket, is putting forth. When war is to be fought we must fight; yet fighting is not to prove you are the toughest guy on the block!

That childish mentality
is for those turban waring bearded miscreants!

REMEMBER SAN JUAN HILL!

Man, gimme a break. We've been fighting Islamists since the days of the Barbary Pirates.

"My misconception? With all of the despots in the world to chastise why the ones where the oil is?"

When you can produce some factual, causal relationship between removing Saddam and the fact that the country sits on oil, do fire away. Until then, yes, it's your misconception. Venezuela is now run by an America-hating communist dictator whose country sits on oil reserves. Think you can figure out why the U.S. isn't moving on *him* militarily?

"The misconception was and is going to war for a vendetta, against the mouse that roared!"

Right - that's another good misconception. Also a popular fallacy.

"There has been no end to the saber rattling by those misguided Islamic groups since the beginning; not that their threat should be taken lightly;"

Please make up your mind. Is it just idle "saber rattling" or is it a mortal threat, to be taken seriously? Each case has to be decided on its own merits. You don't get to generalize over ALL "Islamic" groups (and of course Saddam was not one, anyway).

"With that said; how do we disengage from this mindless conflict."
Well the first step is to understand that it's not a mindless conflict. It is a battle in Radical Islam's War Against the Rest of the World. The next step is simple: stick it out there militarily, politically and economically - *just as we did in WWII and the following occupations in Japan and Germany* - to allow Iraq to begin the process of bringing the rest of the Middle East into peaceful civilization with the rest of the world.

"The Islamics think war is their ticket to heaven; why would they ever want to stop what they believe is their only purpose for living?"

The hard core among them won't. Not even if you withdrew all troops from Iraq tomorrow. So you have two choices. You can flee and wait for them to come after you, hoping you can kill them first. Or, you can kill them where they stand and demonstrate to their potential allies and converts that their way will not be succeed, no matter how many people they kill.

"G.W. is chomping at the bit to take the bait that that other despot inthedinnerjacket, is putting forth. When war is to be fought we must fight; yet fighting is not to prove you are the toughest guy on the block!"

And this, of course, is just exactly the way the media has trained you to see the situation. The mullah theocracy in Iran effectively declared war on the U.S. over 25 years ago. Its leadership has comfortably sponsored global terrorism, with oil money, from the relative safety of their geographic location and control over part of the world's oil supply. But now a neighboring country threatens to mature into a democracy and, in the process, threatens to destroy their control of the Iranian populace as well, which will spell their doom. The empty rhetoric coming out of Iran, which attempts to leverage global envy of the U.S., is nothing but mortal fear. And the President knows it.

the fact that the country sits on oil, do fire away.

Iraq's Oil Reserves: Untapped Potential
While its proven oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks Iraq second in the world behind Saudi Arabia, EIA estimates that up to 90-percent of the county remains unexplored due to years of wars and sanctions. Unexplored regions of Iraq could yield an additional 100 billion barrels. Iraq's oil production costs are among the lowest in the world. However, only about 2,000 wells have been drilled in Iraq, compared to about 1 million wells in Texas alone.

All you need do is ask Google, how much oil is in Iraq!

The next thing to ask is, could there be a connection between the oil people that have G.W.s Ear and the war. I know G.W. said that he was peeved at Saddam, because Saddam threaten his daddy. That sounds like a Vendetta. Yet Saddam was our buddy when the Itold-olcockamaniact was in power in Iran!

I am convinced that most of the bearded wonders are missing a few pages and that they need to be watched. Yet the greed by which we operate we have already allowed some to slip through the cracks.

You think that fighting in Iraq is putting them is check? If anything by our continuing the fight is encouraging many other to join in the fray. To them it is the proving ground.

About the despot in South America he is probably on the list also, but as you said earlier one crackpot at a time!

I don't think the maninthedinnerjacket is in fear of anything Iraq can muster at this point, when Saddam and his army could not defeat them they have nothing to fear from the rag-tag group there now!

"Iraq's Oil Reserves... blah, blah, blah..."

Uhm... you missed the part where you show some sort of causal relationship between all this meaningless data and Saddam's ouster. Speculation and innuendo don't qualify as either factual or causal. Sorry.

"If anything by our continuing the fight is encouraging many other to join in the fray. To them it is the proving ground."

And fleeing the scene would encourage even more. Either way, better there than here.

"About the despot in South America ..."

Again, you didn't answer the question. No surprise there. In fact, it would be far simpler to go after Chavez' oil, if that were the real goal. It's not.

"I don't think the maninthedinnerjacket is in fear of anything Iraq can muster..."

A democratic Iraq with the U.S., UK and Australia, etc., as allies would be far more potent than Saddam ever had a chance of being. You were right earlier: pointless discussion. You apparently can't understand what a democracy right next door to Iran would mean to the mullahs. Therefore you will never understand the strategy behind making Iraq a success.

I can hardly believe how stupid most americans are today. live for the now right?

As if Pres Bush can publically say what and why all the reasons are for us being in Iraq.

Ya, he is supposed to tell us all about the lying backstabbing leaders in most all the countries in the region, and that despite what their leaders say- intelligence demands that we need to be close for immanent strategic reasons.

why think about tamorrow? why be smart a keep a base like we did with germany after WW2? squash the ants as they come out of the hole. that would make too much sense

September 13-15, 2006

RAGE, RAGE, RAGE!
I can not pull myself out of this rage.
I can not stop the stupidity.
Stuck in the status quo.
RAGE, RAGE, RAGE!

My tax dollars support Israel
My gas dollars support Muslims
My tax dollars kill Muslims (genocide by proxy)
My gas dollars kill Americans.

Stuck in the status quo, (stuck in the middle with you)
While shrub and his friends get richer (industrial military complex)
And poor Americans paint the sands red! (with their blood)

Fantasy rules the world and blood flows.
Peace (in the Middle East) will never succeed as long as,
Fantasy rules and humanity suffers.
People die while fantasy prospers.

Stuck in the status quo, (stuck in the middle with you)
While shrub and his friends get richer (industrial military complex)
And poor Americans paint the sands red! (with their blood)

We are killing each other because we live in different fantasies. (religious stupidity)
Radicals created Israel. (radical jews)
Radicals created radicals (Islamists).
U.S. tax payers (pay to) create radical Islamists (that attack us.)

Stuck in the status quo, (stuck in the middle with you)
While shrub and his friends get richer (industrial military complex)
And poor Americans paint the sands red! (with their blood)

When will humanity rid itself of this fantasy world of stupidity? ( religion)
Weakminded Religious idiots killing weakminded religious idiots.

RAGE, RAGE, RAGE!
I can not pull myself out of this rage.
I can not stop the stupidity.
Stuck in the status quo.
RAGE, RAGE, RAGE!