Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
To Fight The Enemy Do We Become It?
I have heard all day "experts" saying we must go down to the level of the terrorist in order to defeat them. This includes more survalence, assasination, and working with people who are just as evil as Bin Laden. If this occurs when the dust settles after the comming war, we will find ourselves facing another threat.
here are articles from CNN, what do you think?
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.powell.cia/"]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.powell.cia/[/url]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.ashcroft.congress/"]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.ashcroft.congress/[/url]
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
[This message has been edited by TheEXone (edited 09-16-2001).]
here are articles from CNN, what do you think?
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.powell.cia/"]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/gen.powell.cia/[/url]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.ashcroft.congress/"]http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.ashcroft.congress/[/url]
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
[This message has been edited by TheEXone (edited 09-16-2001).]
Comments
But what trained professional military people must do in order to protect our security should be, and usually is, held separate from the ideals that we pursue as a civilization.
Unfortunately, we live in a world that is not always safe. In order to mitigate the dangers we have militaries. Yet at the same time the makers of civilization, the philosophers, social scientists, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens have a job that is even more important. It is to these people that the responsibility to stay vigilant in our efforts to make a better (more tolerant and loving) world falls.
So we must understand the difference between the terrible burden a military must bare, and our responsibility to be focused on our goal of creating a world where the need for the things a military must do is continually reduced, until it is only a minor part of our experience.
Do we bring ourselves down to the level of the terrorists in our fight with them? Yes and no. If we use our heads, and listen to our hearts, in the end we will move to a human consciousness where these kinds of decisions are not necessary. But for now, there are things are militaries must contemplate in order to defeat a clever, diffused, entrenched, and dedicated enemy.
You have to give up some security to sustain liberty.
We cannot afford in this war of ideology to go against our values, we must stand firm in all that we hold dear, from our cherished rights at home to our conduct in war abroad.
Certain people are using the situation to take away our rights. I belive they act out of a desire to protect the public, but I also belive they are wrong and that we must stop them before things go too far.
------------------
We Live as one, We die as one, We will face the darkness as one.
"Understanding is a Three Edged Sword- Your side, Their side, And the Truth...."
On the other hand I have been very, very proud of the American people, including children, who have been staying vigilant, speaking out, and making it known that while we will not tolerate this kind of action, we want to be a peaceful, tolerant, nation, that is a productive part of the world community.
This is a very, very difficult situation that calls upon all of humanity to do some soul searching so that we can move beyond a world in which some people feel so disenfranchised and threatened that they can only think of terrorist activities as a means of expression, and obviously feel that they can get away with it, and apparently think that it will successfully make the difference they are looking for.
This is a test. I think that we are at a crossroads. Can we make our civilization safe from terrorists and war and also move towards a more tolerant, harmonious world community? Can we neutralize the threat without sacrificing our humanity?
I guess we’ll find out. I hate to think of our chances for survival as a species if we don’t pass this test. It could be our final exam.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 09-16-2001).]
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
Should we allow the sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands who have given their lives in the defense of our nation's founding principles be for naught? If we abandon our freedoms, the terrorists win. We must find ways to combat terrorism within the framework of our guiding principles. Yes, it makes the job harder, but that is part of can make us great.
[b]Just as a follow up to the above-
Should we allow the sacrifices of the hundreds of thousands who have given their lives in the defense of our nation's founding principles be for naught? If we abandon our freedoms, the terrorists win. We must find ways to combat terrorism within the framework of our guiding principles. Yes, it makes the job harder, but that is part of can make us great. [/b][/quote]
Very true. There is one (fairly) simple solution to the plane problem. 1) Weapons/Armed Guard put on each commercial flight. This would not be too expensive in the grand scheme of things. As for the possibility of stray bullets, you could use sedative darts instead of actual bullets. Simple. One other simple thing is seal off the cockpit.
US and NATO forces will do just what they did in the Gulf War... perform precision strikes on military or terrorist targets.
Will civilians be killed? To quote Senator Fred Thompson, "Yes. Absolutely". Terrorists will most likely place civilians in and around military targets. But that does not make the US/NATO out to be just like the terrorists.
Britain, who held considerable influence in the Mideast finally got out.
I agree with Old Poor Richard. I also agree with Nietze (sp?) "Those who fight monsters must beware lest they become monsters. For when you look long into the abyss, the abyss looks into you."
Randy - While I agree with your view of Americans in general, I cannot help but fear that our leaders are using this to form a more militaristic policy, even going so far as to consider lifting the ban on assassination. And, should anybody start assissanating our leaders, where then is our moral standing to say, "This is wrong. Enough is enough."
I have also heard our leaders and many people say, "Bomb them to hell. If there's collatoral damage, so be it." This kind of attitude and thought makes us no better than those we fight, and then we have no leg to stand on when we, in turn, suffer civilian casualties. Bin Laden declared war on us over a decade ago. Just because we have never recognised it does not mean it ain't so.
I am now going to put 5 years of military training to use and duck and cover. I can imagine the flames that are going to head my way for this post...
I agree that we have to be cautious about the policies that our Right Wing-influenced (and in my mind that means military/industrial complex-influenced)government put into action. We must, as a people have the courage to dissent. And this is happening. And people are bringing up past U.S. foreign policies on CNN and ABC and PBS in the states all day long, every day. This is a good sign.
On your other point, it's true that Bin Laden said that he at first simply wanting Westerners out of Muslim holy lands. But I doubt his sincerity in that. Instead I think that, buoyed by his "victory" over the Soviet troops in Afghanistan he now believes that it is possible to take out another super power.
We simply can not allow this horrid, cowardly act go unanswered. And, unfortunately, it will take a dangerous, protracted effort to neutralize the threat. I assume that there will be more horrendous acts of killing by the terrorists before we are through. So we simply must act – with all of the options available.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 09-17-2001).]
I actually agree that we should mind our business. The problem is that we have lots of business in the middle East.
Intruding on Sovereign Territories is always a sticky situation and should be avoided at all costs. But when someone declares war on the US, and then validates it by the actions that Bin Laden has been doing for a decade now, an answer must be given. What that answer is is yet to be determined.
If bombing Afganistan becomes the answer, I will be dissappointed, but then I'm not the one putting my butt on the line to protect the US, and defend her in the future.
I'm also not the one who makes the determination over intelligence, or the one who had to get it.
We can listen to all the armchair strategists till we are blue in the face, but what have we done to justify our judgement calls?
We all gave these people this job to do, let us let them do it.
On another note, I am concerned about this trend of losing our freedoms little by little, even to the point of infringing on the Constitution.
Arms control only controls the arms held by legal citizens, and does nothing to fix the guns used by outlaws.
Giving law enforcement ever more freedoms in their ability to infringe on our privacy and our rights also worries me, and for good reason.
I fear that the US will end the way so many countries have always ended, from within.
If we attack, the difference between us and them will be that they chose innocent civilians as their targets. We will strike only at those who take up arms against us.
Nick
[b]I don't think you will be flamed Knave.
I actually agree that we should mind our business. The problem is that we have lots of business in the middle East.[/b][/quote]
If you mean strategic staging areas and puppet states then you are correct good sir. I will concede that the U.S. should keep AT LEAST one vintage WWII tank in Kuwait in case Sudam comes a knockin' but otherwise the U.S. needs to get its ass outta there (MidEast). I mean, Christ, they've still got a base in Okanawa, Japan. How do I know? A soldier there was just convicted of rape not too long ago. And infamy induced by acts as such are only further compounded by the fact that the war WAS MORE THAN F*CKIN' FIFTY YEARS AGO!!! Whether that base is of critical strategic importance or just a fun place to launch and lose recon planes over China, this is an affront 'cause it is well known Japan couldn't beat up the Vatican. And if they aren't welcome in Okanawa they sure as hell ain't welcome where their "Capitalist Imperialism" has, instead of built on a nation with a firm basis in war reparations, torn several down to impoverished, dictatorial states.
[quote]Originally posted by JackN:
[b]Intruding on Sovereign Territories is always a sticky situation and should be avoided at all costs. But when someone declares war on the US, and then validates it by the actions that Bin Laden has been doing for a decade now, an answer must be given. What that answer is is yet to be determined.
If bombing Afganistan becomes the answer, I will be dissappointed, but then I'm not the one putting my butt on the line to protect the US, and defend her in the future.
I'm also not the one who makes the determination over intelligence, or the one who had to get it.
We can listen to all the armchair strategists till we are blue in the face, but what have we done to justify our judgement calls?
We all gave these people this job to do, let us let them do it.[/b][/quote]
Ya know what I say about those putting their butts on the line, those sifting through the intelligence papers, and those top brass hovering around a large black table in a cigar-smoke congested room, ten miles below Joe's Coca Cola Convenience Mart? Screw it! Either you, as military personel, stand for something or you stand for nothing. And if McCain, some other redneck senator, or Bush is going to go around forsaking everything America's built on and those who died defending it, then, in the name of himself and not America, he should walk up to the enemy and tell them of his plans so they can hack off his arm and beat him with it. What justifies my saying this: the fact that I was raised with morales stating the strong should protect the weak, and that such principles are not worth comprimising in wars of ideology. Because, overall, if such principles are not employed and, hence, no point made then why make the effort? Things are only made worse.
[quote]Originally posted by JackN:
[b]On another note, I am concerned about this trend of losing our freedoms little by little, even to the point of infringing on the Constitution.
Arms control only controls the arms held by legal citizens, and does nothing to fix the guns used by outlaws.
Giving law enforcement ever more freedoms in their ability to infringe on our privacy and our rights also worries me, and for good reason.
I fear that the US will end the way so many countries have always ended, from within.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, same here. Politicians with the balls to fix things like that are a rare bread and they hardly get voted in. So for the U.S., it's uphill from here.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-17-2001).]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Cast your eye back, if you will, to WWII. Germany carefully avoids bombing London, or Paris, keeping strictly to military. Along comes the US... The war goes badly for the allies. Eisenhower comes up with a plan. He invents a policy where we're going to totally **** up the civilians of the country, but that won't wash with the folks back home, so let's call it "strategic bombing." The 8th Air Force will stratigically bomb locations deep inside enemy lines, specifically Berlin and other industrial cities, thereby crushing the German's will to fight.
Now let us turn to 1945 (see if you can guess where I'm going). Truman sees a long fight against an enemy seemingly incapable of surrender. So we drop, not one, but two atomic bombs, killing nearly a million civilians, and wrecking havoc, the repurcussions of which still echo today. Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki were strategically important targets, in fact, quite the opposite. They did, however, have a large civilian population.
Now let us go to the 1960s, Vietnam: Johnson has allowed the commitment of Kennedy's Communist Containment policy to spiral out of control, and had deeply committed us to an unpopular war (it was a big ole hairball of a mess,and if anybody wants to know the short story details, let me know. I wrote a timeline for my history class). The solution was to bomb Hanoi, the Capitol of North Vietnam. We never fought there, so we were going to demoralize them and sap their will to fight. When America finally left Vietnam, they left a once lush and green country, with an ancient culture, as a wasteland. One veteran I spoke with said it reminded him of the moon. We also completely destroyed their culture (we have a long history of that. It's called assimilation to European/American middle class values), but that's another story.
Shall we venture into the Gulf War? We opened the war by what, boys and girls? That's right bombing Bagdad, destroying their infrastructure, and sapping their will to fight... To date, over 5 million civilians have died as a result of our policy towards Iraq (over half of them children), verifiable by the U.N. I know that some people will say that it's Sadam's fault, but let me use a bad metephor if I may. Someone throws rocks through your windows, breaking the glass, messing up the furniature, etc. You check your bank account balance, and can't afford to fix the windows. The person who threw the rocks says that not only are we not letting you fix your windows, we're going to cut off your gas and electricity, and water, unless you let us search your closets for anything that we feel that you shouldn't have...
Now let us turn to the events of last Tuesday. "Some cowardly bastards bombed the WTC and the Pentagon, striking at the very heart of America's financial and military structure, and murdering thousands of innocent civilians..."
I guess the difference between "Cowardly murder," and "Strategic bombings" depends on your point of view...
The question of the topic was "To fight the enemy, do we become it?" I think that in terms of our foriegn policy, we are it.
Postscript - Jack, you said, "We can listen to all the armchair strategists till we are blue in the face, but what have we done to justify our judgement calls?"
I was in Iraq, as were several of my friends... I can tell you shit that never appeared in the news. War is a hideous and terrible thing, and I've seen things that I nobody should see. In war, there is one truth. People die, and it ain't pretty. The politicians make the decisions, and the young people die.
You ask what you've done to justify the judgement call? You're an American, and I fought (well, I fought to save my ass, because some politician decided that should defend freedom in Kuwait, too) so that you could make judgement calls and question the policies of our leaders...
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 09-17-2001).]
Stategic Bombing is the bombing of military targets to remove a state's capability of making war against you. It is not murder, it is simply put, ending a war by making the enemy unable to fight. It has nothing to do with morale of the enemy. If they have a thousand tanks, you blow the refinery up that provides those tanks with fuel, effectivly taking out a thousand tanks.
In WWII, Germany did avoid bombing London, keeping to military targets. Until an accident that caused a bomb load to be unleashed on Berlin. Then Germany targeted civilian targets and Britian responded in kind. The US tried to limit to military targets like the factories that supplied the German war machine, but because of the technoligy of the day, and the placement of those factories, civilans died.
You are absolutly correct. There is only one truth in War. People Die. The difference between what we need to do and those terrorists did, is we try to limit the people that die to those directly involved in the war against us. We did not start this, but we will end it.
As for the use of the A-Bombs in WWII, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were havens for the Japanese war industries. They were purposly left untouched. The dropping of the bombs, although abolutly devistanting, save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Without the display of overwelming superor firepower, the Japanese would have fought for every inch of Japan. The war would not have ended without an invasion.
As for the Gulf war, where we were both at. Did you talk to any of the Kuatii civilians when you were there? I did, and I was informed of stories of rape, murder, and theft perpatrated on them by the Iraq solders that had been ongoing since their invasion. These are people that wanted us there. Our policies toward Iraq were the policies of (at first) a world against a regime that has shown itself to be aggresive against it's weaker neighbors.
Now, I tend to agree with you that the sanctions are only hurting the populance and have no impact on a leader that doesn't give a rats @$$ about his people except for what they can give him. It is time to remove most of the sanctions and try something else. We must be careful though not to destabilize the region. This is why Saddam was not removed in 91.
You may not agree with my views, I do not agree with your views. That is OK, but I do recommend you read your history a little more. We are not perfect in any way shape or form, but over the years, I beleive we a a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.
I was with the 18th ABN. We were in the West, and assaulted into Iraq proper, and didn't get too many chances to talk with Kuwatii civilians, so I take your word, as to the atrocities.
Unfortunately, while I respect your position, I cannot in good consience agree with it. That, I suppose, is one of the things that I like about America, the ability to disagree, yet remain civil...
My points were that:
1) We need to resort to war as a last result, and not a first impulse.
2) Any war will provide casualties, especially civilian ones.
3) Atrocities are inevitible in war. Especially if we do not temper it with thoughtfulness.
Woodrow Wilson once said, "It is a fearful thing to lead this people into war." They don't call war "riding the tiger," for nothing.
[This message has been edited by TheKnave (edited 09-17-2001).]
My points were that:
1) We need to resort to war as a last result, and not a first impulse.
2) Any war will provide casualties, especially civilian ones.
3) Atrocities are inevitible in war. Especially if we do not temper it with thoughtfulness.
Woodrow Wilson once said, "It is a fearful thing to lead this people into war." They don't call war "riding the tiger," for nothing
[/quote]
TheKnave, I am in complete agreement with your points. I once heard war described as the last refuge of politics.
That being said, while I do not look forward to war, and having seen it, I know what it looks like, there are times when fighting for what you believe in must be done.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
The Trade Center was bombed before, and the people in charge of the organization were untouched. Embassies were bombed in Africa and we denounced it as terrorism, and attacked....who? The USS Cole was bombed, and we investigated. TWA Flight 800 was shot down, and even though a fisherman found a boost gas canister from a SAM, we called it an accident. These people believe they can keep hitting us, can keep killing us, and be untouched.
Yes, people die in war. Yes, innocents die in war. If we do not act now, though, innocents will be the only ones who die, and eventually, their numbers will make up for the terrorists we don't eliminate now.
Nick
[b]
The Trade Center was bombed before, and the people in charge of the organization were untouched. Embassies were bombed in Africa and we denounced it as terrorism, and attacked....who?
Nick[/b][/quote]
Then President Clinton authorized and conducted a cruise missile strike against Afganistan and Sudanese bases belonging to Bin Laden.
Unfortunately, the Sudanese chemical munitions plant turned out to be a pharmacudical plant. The Sudanese government told the US about this before the attack.
Also, a couple of our missiles landed in Pakistan, hundreds of miles off course.
[b]Stategic Bombing is the bombing of military targets to remove a state's capability of making war against you. It is not murder, it is simply put, ending a war by making the enemy unable to fight. It has nothing to do with morale of the enemy. If they have a thousand tanks, you blow the refinery up that provides those tanks with fuel, effectivly taking out a thousand tanks.[/b][/quote]
Look for the record I'll straighten it out for both of you. Strategic bombing has been both a euphemism AND a literal term. However, in WWII it was used 5000x more times than not as a euphemism - that is to say a DEMORALIZER. I need only point you to the multitude of fire bombings of the time (Frankfurt, Dresden, whatever).
[quote]Originally posted by Havok:
[b]In WWII, Germany did avoid bombing London, keeping to military targets. Until an accident that caused a bomb load to be unleashed on Berlin. Then Germany targeted civilian targets and Britian responded in kind. The US tried to limit to military targets like the factories that supplied the German war machine, but because of the technoligy of the day, and the placement of those factories, civilans died.[/b][/quote]
I would like to know how British bomber pilots "accidently" dropped bombs on Berlin. What? On their way to the Mediterranian, did they "accidently" hijack a bomber instead of booking passage on an airliner? Did they "confuse" 'southeast' with 'east' on their way there? Make no mistake. In the early years of WWII the allies were so screwed it wasn't even funny.
Britain's plan? Turtle-in on its little island and build bombers up the wazoo. What were they going to use them against? Well, targets such as tanks and bases are out of the question as those are heavily fortified with tons of AA guns and planes and crap and can be easily rebuilt and repopulated. How 'bout destroying Axis factories? Well, maybe... but that still isn't going to stop an incredibly sound industrial base, war machine, and fiecely patriotic populace. Might wanna make the German populace consider throwing Hitler and the Nazi party out of office. I've got it! Bomb the crap out of civilians! And that's just what the allies did.
[quote]Originally posted by Havok:
[b]You are absolutly correct. There is only one truth in War. People Die. The difference between what we need to do and those terrorists did, is we try to limit the people that die to those directly involved in the war against us. We did not start this, but we will end it.[/b][/quote]
Officially, yeah, U.S. policy doesn't advocate the creaming of civies but that doesn't mean they don't have the deaths of millions on their hands - tens of millions. And sorry, collateral damage, even including WWII, should only get you a couple thousand.
[quote]Originally posted by Havok:
[b]As for the use of the A-Bombs in WWII, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were havens for the Japanese war industries. They were purposly left untouched. The dropping of the bombs, although abolutly devistanting, save hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Without the display of overwelming superor firepower, the Japanese would have fought for every inch of Japan. The war would not have ended without an invasion.[/b][/quote]
What about comprimising principles? It was clear the U.S. was going to win so why use such a desperate measure? Moreover, couldn't the industrial complexes of these cities been "strategically bombed"? I mean, was it absolutely necessary to vaporize EVERY industrial complex, including that of food and ammenities)? How 'bout the residential zoning that made up most of these two cities. Did Japan's respective 'Joe', Jane', and little 'Jimmy' need to be blown into another continuum?
[quote]Originally posted by Havok:
[b]As for the Gulf war, where we were both at. Did you talk to any of the Kuatii civilians when you were there? I did, and I was informed of stories of rape, murder, and theft perpatrated on them by the Iraq solders that had been ongoing since their invasion. These are people that wanted us there. Our policies toward Iraq were the policies of (at first) a world against a regime that has shown itself to be aggresive against it's weaker neighbors.[/b][/quote]
So there were reports of Iraqi soldiers doing horrible things to Kuwaitti civilians, eh? That ain't good, I agree. However, I think the death tally, courtesy the American military, TK mentioned has just a skoche more immoral implications but that's just my opinion...
[quote]Originally posted by Havok:
[b]You may not agree with my views, I do not agree with your views. That is OK, but I do recommend you read your history a little more. We are not perfect in any way shape or form, but over the years, I beleive we a a hell of a lot better than the alternatives.[/b][/quote]
Translation of last sentence:
"Hey! We may go to Mexico, get drunk and teepee the El Presidente's new yacht but at least we don't sponsor (state) terrorism, purposely kill civies, and commit other horrible attrocities. Nor have we or will we ever!"
But you see that's the entire point! America has done these things! Does do these things! And will CONTINUE to do these things! I suggest you read up on YOUR history. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img] And it's only when the American people realize this, that it'll change. Thank you.
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
------------------
Captain,Simmonds
[url="http://www.vesta-modeling.de.vu"]Homepage[/url]
[email]chad74656@hotmail.com[/email]
[This message has been edited by Captain,Simmonds (edited 09-17-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Captain,Simmonds (edited 09-17-2001).]
* Missile flying overhead....heard from air: "@#%#$&*^%*!!!!!!!!!"
(woo! Humor came back!)
*duck*
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 09-17-2001).]
A terrorist attacks civilians intentionally with hate and reckless abandon. Their mission is to reak terror, havok, fear, and sorrow on a population. That is their ONLY objective. Political agendas may be sited, but they are [b]secondary[/b].
Our response will be out of justice, not hate. If I felt our response would be weighted down with hate, and blatant disregard for the sanctity of life of innocent bystanders, I would not support it at all.
And according to the NY Times/Gallop poll released this morning, neither would most Americans.
America wants justice, not a piece of bin Laden's (or Afghanistan's) meat.
[This message has been edited by Rick (edited 09-17-2001).]
Yes, let's blow up everyone the U.S. doesn't like including Kent State students, black people, Jews, rednecks, stupid people, smart people, country folk, rap folk, dumbasses, smartasses, communist asses, Chinese, Japanese, the French, anyone with a funny hat or dot on their head, hics, spics, British folk, rich folk, lawyers, geaks, nerds, politicians, babies on buses, fat butt-ugly retards, homosexuals, Bible thumpers, Muslims, New Age folk, morons, lamers, tall people, short people, fat people, Leonardo DeCaprio, Chevvy Chase, feminists, the cast of SNL, anyone living near Area 51, AND... People with funny looking genital(s/ia). Yes! Bomb them all with Cruise Missiles! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] ( [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img])
/end Duckman rant
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-17-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-17-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-17-2001).]
[b]/start Duckman rant
Yes, let's blow up everyone the U.S. doesn't like including Kent State students, black people, Jews, rednecks, stupid people, smart people, country folk, rap folk, dumbasses, smartasses, communist asses, Chinese, Japanese, the French, anyone with a funny hat or dot on their head, hics, spics, British folk, rich folk, lawyers, geaks, nerds, politicians, babies on buses, fat butt-ugly retards, homosexuals, Bible thumpers, Muslims, New Age folk, morons, lamers, tall people, short people, fat poeople Leonardo DeCaprio, Chevvy Chase, feminists, the cast of SNL, anyone living near Area 51, AND people with funny looking genital(s/ia). Yes! Get rid of them all with Cruise Missiles! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img] ( [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img])
/end Duckman rant
[/b][/quote]
I haven't talked to anyone that advocates THAT opinion, Faylorn.
And that's beside the point. He wants to use [b]Cursie[/b] missiles [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img].
-Rick
------------------
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live