IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Define "win"
I maintain that our continued presence will continue to aggravate and inflame the local populace. The more troops we add, the worse this inflaming will be. Our only realistic options are to leave or to create our own totalitarian state.

I've often said in the past, "kill everyone". That would work, but I no longer believe that it would be necessary. I think that we could potentially establish and maintain control like Saddam Hussein did (and whoever follows us undoubtably will).

Given these options, I'd hope that our country would prefer leaving...

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New The ignominy of it all
Even scarier - a 1-2 combo.

Agree - virtually anything we do next shall not be judged 'beneficent or? malevolent' by most occupants possessed of any local power; that's irrelevant: our presence alone creates new robot-bombers in training, faster than we could kill them [kill first; ID afterwards, like Vietnam].

1) The Curtiss LeMay "blow 'em away" contingent lives; it lives in the same reptile brain as has held for 30 years: we could have 'won' in Vietnam by "untying the hands.." ever the code for: nuke the slopes. And today: nuke anyone who isn't "for us" therefore is against us.

2) That no one within the One Party with Two Right Wings dares say publically that, there is NO winning scenario whatsoever, in Iraq explains the absurd dance of this campaign - which pretends that Something will save our ass.

Combine 1 and 2 with the neoconman agenda and Bush's imperviousness to other than Fundie Revelations-based fantasies. Toss in his neurologically attenuated human qualities and it takes little angst to believe that This Admin will use nukes with the least trepidation of any regime in history (USSR included).

After all, with Gawd Directing: what matter if a mere physical world full of arrant sinners be trashed?

Ignominy - wouldn't that be: going out via a plot so improbable as not to rate even B-movie status? X years ago, you couldn't script a disaster flick with the plot we're voting on. (Yeah, they said that about It Can't Happen Here, too - that nutter, Sinclair Lewis!)



Ashton
Just visiting; honest! - I'm *not* a member of that species down there!
     The Economist: Lexington on Divided Government. - (Another Scott) - (10)
         What worries me - (JayMehaffey) - (7)
             I see different problems. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                 Economy fading - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                     Another coupla data points toward fading economy: - (jb4)
             Sincere question - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                 It's going to be ugly no matter what - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
                     Define "win" - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                         The ignominy of it all - (Ashton)
         "No one's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness is safe when - (Arkadiy) - (1)
             No man, woman, or child is safe when Congress is in session, - (jbrabeck)

THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
70 ms