sexual_chocolate

Trask, it has nothing to do with being a pacifist or not. I think you know from what I've written that I'm not a "pacifist". I guess I can understand your anger, as hard as it might be, but if you were to honestly look at yourself, you'd see your anger has done nothing to improve your life. As a matter of fact, it has only made your life more difficult.

And if we agree that the condemned one has also lost his humanity, then how the hell does killing him in cold blood restore it? God, it sickens me beyond words.

The vile stench that grows in my belly at the thought of a single innocent person being executed by the state sickens me beyond words. How could anyone condone this? Have we lost all trace of what makes us human?

End the embargo. Set conditions. Fair conditions. Ones that a rational mind can agree to.

Oh Trask Trask Traks, you little nincompoop. (At least you have a defense.)

Hello? Hello? Anyone listening? Hello? Pretty slick way to move up the social ladder: Support the big guy!

I see you have fallen for the false dichotomy, hook line and sinker, namely: "If anyone disagrees with the threat Saddam poses to the freedom-loving world, the freedom-loving world where people LOVE freedom, then they simply must be ignorant fools. Naive pacifists." Why don't you guys bark at the lack of freedom in US client states? My frustration knows no end with guys and gals like you....

Egad. Don't make the rest of us wretch, already. Puke puke

Bravo.

Hmmm....

$Kching! $Kching! $Kching!

I was glimpsing through a book a friend was reading, something written by a former US Attorney General (forget his name and book's title, can get), and in it he chronicles US war crimes committed during the first Iraq invasion. Pretty heady stuff. I believe he also speaks of 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. With an attempt at full takeover, one would have to conclude that this number would be eclipsed. Saddam is virtually disarmed as it is. His ability to export war is absolutely attenuated through previous disarmament. His history as human rights abuser is no worse than many US client states. His mistake is that he has challenged the US most overtly, while sitting on the second largest known oil reserves in the world. And he promotes Arab independence. These two make him dangerous to US interests, and, as such, he must be liquidated. All of Bush's idiotic rambling is just an attempt to justify the invasion. His only concern is whether or not enough people swallow his Texas-sized bullshit. I say we MUST stand strong against this despot (Bush), and on Feb 15, join the rest of the world in showing that we will not go along on the mad ride. Trask, Fairweather, Sisu Suomi, et al, I expect to see you at the protest, joining the only sensible alternative to war.

That was hardly an answer to my question, Mongo.

Who was the mind behind Amber?

Has he been tickling your urethra again? Hahahaa!

Shouldn't you have included the seemingly obvious? Drive up to the lake, and hike on the right (west) side, and you'll run into a big boulder with a bunch of lines on it. I don't know of anything else up there?

I'm so sorry! Has it been getting worse lately?

he does so care! He does so care! Neener neener!

Whatever happened to the little reply tag that let others know who you were replying to? This anonymous reply thing sucks, leaving much confusion in its wake.

Gosh darn, I hate to disillusion you, but rope is "koysi", with umlauts on the "o". So "Koysipussi" would be the actual term. Sorry!

! (Song.) Seriously? (Trask.)

Egad, you certainly are dry as an ostrich turd. Let's just say the implication was there (point #1). But to answer your (other) question: I believe some, if not all, of his military manurings were suspect. Serbia I'm not familiar enough to comment on. #2. Excellent point, one that I thought you might make. No, I don't believe only military should be running the gov! I just feel that a cause one pushes for is a cause one should be ready to die for, especially if there is a likelyhood that others might die. Are there things you would die for? Are there things you'd send others to die for, but wouldn't die for yourself? I think the second point speaks of callous cowardice myself, but as I said, I'm a bit old-fashioned that way. #3. Congressional off-spring in the service. Well, I kinda was hoping you'd do a search to get to the bottom of this, but you only use non-factual bluffery to refute me. How irrational of you! I expect statistics and facts, not innuendo! You have Rand rolling in her grave. Search, baby! Google is at your fingertips. Prove me wrong. And yes, GW flew jets, protecting Texas against the Mexican airforce during Vietnam. Good job, George. Hmmm....

Trask, what do you expect the Dems to do? Stand up and applaud with stuff they don't believe in just 'cause their constituents are? Come on, dude! In the past, it's been known as respect, you prick. Hahahahaha! Intentional oxymoron, or unintentional moron. YOU decide!

Never mind!

Beckey route?