Richard,
It seems you're being jingoistic. Extremely so. It is appalling and
disturbing.
I'm going to rip you a new one, so grab your ass, and see you can
stand a look into the mirror. Of the 1000 people who read this, I'm
guessing 950+ will agree with this assessment of your immoral
presentation.
For all your education on Eastern Wisdom, you're coming-off, below, as
someone who would be saying my country right or wrong and if they
aren't white, kill 'em without regard.
Yes? I have purposefully made the above statement way beyond what I
hope you actually are resonant with, but unless you BACKTRACK BIGTIME,
the above statement is rather a mild piece of scorn compared to what
one should have happen as a punishment for almost any act that would
emerge from the criminal mindset you're espousing.
We invaded Iraq immorally, illegally, with brutal murderous intent and
with stealing oil as our true reason for doing so.
I find you guilty of mindfully ignoring:
1. the suffering of tens of millions of people,
2. the deaths of a million people,
3. the deaths of 4,000 US service men and women,
4. the ruination of our Bill of Rights,
5. the utter disgrace of America in the eyes of the world,
6. the possibility of WWIII,
7. the defense of doing first strike on Iran with nukes, and
8. the private armies that have been formed by BigBiz
And that's just for starters.
BigMedia's brainwashed masses have been forced into a mindset where
24 is considered entertainment, and righteous inquisition is a
concept that's touted as one's civil duty -- see a terrorist,
torture a terrorist. Only the warped personalities in the Roman
Coliseum as they slavered for martyr blood could approach the low
evilness of this conscious disregard for suffering in others.
Richard, are you really this horrid?
If so, you sully the group consciousness here with a black-hearted
intent to persuade us of your blood-thirsty imperialistic marauding
predatory immorality.
If so, fuck you with a KKK flaming cross up your ass and out your
mouth -- just to give you a taste of the hell you're surely destined
to arrive at.
Say it ain't so, Richard, and I'll apologize as creatively as I've
besmirched you above.
Edg
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brian Horsfield wrote:
Richard, are you seriously supporting the McCain
doctrine for continued war?
So, we are agreed that the U.S. is in a war. Then,
I'm thinking of voting for the candidate who can win
the war, not lose it. Ron Paul has zero experience
winning any wars and apparently has no plan of how
to win this one. I want to vote for a winner, not a
loser, don't you? McCain has the most experience in
fighting wars and the most experience in the U.S.
Congress. And McCain is electable - I think he could
be a winner.
Hillary Clinton may be an electable candidate and I
could vote for her as well. She supports the war and
wants to win it - she supports regime change and voted
to authorize the President to use force against Saddam
Hussain. Bill Clinton thought Iraq had something to
do with the war - he bombed Iraq and destroyed a soap
factory and killed a camel.
Every candidate says they will end the war - like
the Democrats said in 2006.
Maybe so, but I'm going to vote for the experienced
warrior. If Duncan Hunter is nominated, I'd vote for
him. He is a Vietnam Veteran - he knows what it takes
to win a war. Hunter also has the best plan to make
the U.S. safe with border security, an essential part
of winning the war.
The civilian death toll is close to one million by
independant estimates using change in the death rates
since the US invaded.
According to what I've read, Saddam Hussien caused the
death of over two million people.
And to a country that WAS NO THREAT to the US, and
had nothing to do with 9-11.
Maybe so, but most of your congressional leaders voted
to oust Saddam by any means neccessary including force.
It's too late to change course now and change your mind
and try to retreat. Losing the war is not an option.
The single most important issue is how to win the war
and how to secure America's borders.
The Iraq war resolution passed the Senate with 77 votes
in October 2002:
WASHINGTON - In a major victory for the White House, the
Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President
Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up
weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N.
resolutions.
Full story:
'Senate approves Iraq war resolution'
CNN, Inside Politics, Friday, October 11, 2002
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
