if you only support those who oppose the war, you are supporting an ideology lived out in an individual.
what if i only give credit to those who want to "kill hadjis"? in the main am i any different?
Bush to ignore commission, send more troops:
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
what if i only give credit to those who want to "kill hadjis"? in the main am i any different?
I said that troops are people. I never said anything about what those particular people believe, or that my willingness to support them depended upon their belief systems.
As a matter of fact I don't recall saying anything about MY opinions as to supporting the troops at all.
Supporting a "cut-n-run" policy seems a good way to support the troops to me.
After all, this would mean support for the policy of moving them out of harm's way.
As a matter of fact I don't recall saying anything about MY opinions as to supporting the troops at all.
Supporting a "cut-n-run" policy seems a good way to support the troops to me.
After all, this would mean support for the policy of moving them out of harm's way.
I suggest going after the greatest risk first.
We can discuss other risks afterwards...
Well, I think that the whole "support the troops" thing has become muddled, but I do, in general principle, support the troops but not fully support the war. Just as a soldier can perform his duties while disagreeing with their objectives, I support the troops but not the cause they (ostensibly) fight for.
I support my country: its ideals, its general system of government, the freedoms that form the core of its identity. I have seen a good part of this country and have met wonderful people all over. I support their goodwill and communities. In a sense, then, I support the ideals and the potentials of my country.
What the government does (or, one could say, a part of the government) has little to do with that.
A nifty euphemism comes to mind now..... We've been playing "just the tip" with the ME for awhile....now it's time to push forward....
Yeah! FVCK 'EM ALL!
normally, just this is enough. but if the greatest risk offers a lesser reward than a slightly lesser risk...
wrt intentional harm inside our borders, the threat of terrorism is negligible to the point of being non-existent. the specter of domestic violence is a reality for millions of us, however.
we can eliminate the threat of terrorism toward the u.s. overnight if we made as policy to submit to any present & future demands of islamofascists. this does not seem rational, but it is a solution w/ guaranteed results (for those who submit).
certainly, i don't expect you to suggest we stop resisting terrorism; maybe we should just redefine the rules of engagement, to include offering incremental legitimacy to terrorists; i.e., redefine "bad guy"?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
so instead of wagner's "flight of the valkaries", we should blare luther vandross from our gunships?
that's b/c you're 3 pints in arrears.
funking work
irate2:
Did your third wife beat you?
Or, you know, stop fvcking with people's sh1t.
Yeah it is pretty broad right now.
it's ok; i fully deserved it.
just a minute...i'm almost there...wait for me, wait for me, waaaaiiitttt forrrrr meeeee.....
ok, go make me a sandwich
fixed.
Indeed.
Too bad their demands are convert of die. Also, there is no such thing as an islamofascist, stop getting your buzzwords off CNN, it makes you sound stupid.
And what will that do? We will go from "bad guys" blowing themselves up in an attempt to generate fear, to "not so bad guys" blowing themselves up to generate fear.
We have a term in programming called duck-typing, if it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it's a duck, no matter what you call it.
There was a crazy guy in Boston that used to do that, but you could tell him apart from the real ducks by the intermittent screaming fits. Real ducks have a very hard time pronouncing "****ing whore!!!" with their beaks.
but i bet you could get waaay more patè from his liver, than from the liver of a duck.