The War on Terror - A Futile Endeavour (2085 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.38 on 92 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Thorpe (View user info) at 2005-01-25 07:46:03 EST
Before I get into the serious part of my post, I'd just like to point out that you cannot declare war on a noun. However considering Bush has managed to declare war on the entire structure of the English language, that hasn't been too much of a problem to him. Also, some of you may tell me that Iraq is not a part of the war on terror, and that I then cannot attack the war on terror by pointing out the Iraq farce. I would have to agree that it should not have been part of it, however it was marketed by the Bush administration as such, and they continually justify their actions by saying "in this post 9/11 world"... so I think it only fair to group Iraq in with the war on terror.
Sorry about the length, but hey, you don't have to read it. It was originally about twice this length, but I got rid of a lot of it on Iraq.
Think back to New York on the 11th of September 2001. The fact that we can refer to the attacks on the World Trade Center by just the date that they occurred on is evidence in itself that the events quickly became a part of the international psyche. On that day, the story goes, the world changed. Freedom itself came under attack. The problem is, numerous attacks, not only on the world trade center but on other western targets across the globe, had already occurred, and some were foiled, some were not. Ask yourself - did the size or location of the target change what the terrorists were aiming at destroying? In not one of bin Laden's speeches has he said that his aim when organising attacks against Americans has been the destruction of freedom. In contrast, his aims are clear and political, if still fucking stupid and fundamentalist. He wants the withdrawal of the West from foreign occupations, and the establishment of an Islamic super-state in the Middle East. The only reason that the world changed after 9/11 was that the Bush administration decided it would.
It is my belief that Bush did not want 9/11 or anything similar to happen, and that if he had had the power to, he would have stopped it. However once it had happened, he and the other neo-conservatives in his administration saw in it an opportunity. The imagery of 9/11 was used to stir the average citizen into a fervour of nationalism and anger which the government could turn on and off like flicking a switch. And this nationalism was used to fuel the commencement of perpetual warfare - a condition under which a conservative administration will always be seen to perform better.
Perpetual warfare, meaning war without end, was epitomised in George Orwell's 1984 (best book ever), where the government of Oceania ensured that Oceania was always, and "had always been", at war with either Eurasia or Eastasia. It's advantages to an administration willing to exploit it are plentiful.
---It allows the government a scapegoat for worsening domestic and economic conditions.
---It makes it no longer necessary for real policy improvements on either the home or international front. War rhetoric is all that is required to gain public support.
---It gives the government an excuse to pursue other goals in foreign policy.
---It gives the government the opportunity to crack down on political dissent by limiting civil liberties, in the name of helping the war effort.
---The state of war can be continually invoked so as to make voters unwilling to change leaders during this period.
---It can be used to justify breaches of international law - in the eyes of the public the winning of the war becomes the most important aim of the nation.
It is clear that Bush is waging a perpetual war by his blatant exploitation of all of the above.
He justified his government's record $7.6 trillion budget deficit by citing the country "being at war", a "national tragedy" and also the recession, despite the fact that he started the war, decided the spending to respond to 9/11, and was debatably responsible for the recession.
The ratio of war rhetoric to policy in his speeches is self evident.
Iraq was completely unrelated to 9/11, yet the government continually tried to establish links beteen Saddam and Al Q'aida. The first thing that Rumsfeld did in a meeting with counter-terrorism expert Richard Clarke, now strongly anti-Bush, after 9/11 was to push him to link 9/11 to Iraq.
Under Bush's newly established Department of Homeland Security, and with the aid of the apparently insidious USA PATRIOT act, essential freedoms such as the presumption of innocence and the right to a trial are being stripped away from the apparently freedom-loving American.
Bush continually refers to the "troubled times" we now live in, despite the fact that he made them so. Anyone who disagrees with his views are labelled "anti-american", and even now most congressional Democrats are yielding to pressure to "unite behind the president" in these times of war.
The breaches of international law are so numerous that I can only name the most obvious examples. War was never technically declared on Afghanistan or Iraq. The captives at Guantanamo Bay are therefore not prisoners of war in the eyes of the US, and are thus not being held in accordance with the Geneva Convention. However, this should mean that they are being held as criminals, as US troops are now in those countries at the request of their governments, and are therefore entitled to be presumed innocent unless convicted. But the Bush administration cannot charge the majority of men kept there, as they did not break any law by fighting invading US troops in those countries - indeed many of them did not fight them and are presumably being held in Guantanamo only so as to further the President's image of being "tough on terrorism". So when they cannot be charged, the administration decides to label them war-criminals so that they can be held "until the war is over", THIS TIME in accordance with Geneva as the circumstances see fit, considering the War on Terror could potentially go on forever. The captives are held offshore, so as to make it even harder for lawyers to demand their right to free trial in the US. Aside from Guantanamo, Bush has also, in defiance of international law, promoted "pre-emptive strikes" as a legitimate means of self-defence. Every time this is called into question, he reverts back to the imagery of 9/11 - what if something else happened - "in the form of a mushroom cloud", as he so inaccurately put it. Even some of the comments he has made over the past few years indicate the truth, including "Well, I don't think you can win it".
Anyway, all that was to prove that George Bush has without doubt exploited 9/11 and used it so as to start a perpetual war, under the guise of combatting terrorism. So these were Bush's alterior motives for the War on Terror. But the motives he continually spouts, about making the world a safer place, and "spreading the wildfire of freedom around the globe", are, in fact, a load of shit.
Firstly the War on Terror has, IN NO WAY, made the world a safer place. It would be lazy to prove my argument by just saying look at the hell-holes that were Iraq and Afghanistan, and aside from the security upgrades that would have occurred after such a disaster, War on Terror or not, the safety of American citizens, both abroad and at home, is now the least guaranteed it has been in recent history. But it isn't just past experience of Bush's past little jaunts that shows the war on terror won't make the world safer - it is the very way that it is waged. You cannot eliminate terrorism with the most accurate and destructive weaponry. Sure, you can eliminate some terrorists, but for every attack aimed at terrorists, in the Middle East and elsewhere, the US adds to the already fervent anti-Americanism and resentment in the region. This culture of victimhood only gives rise to more terrorists, as the children living in war-ravaged cities grow up with the idea that it is the fault of the West that they live in the conditions they do. Violence does not counter violence, it can only perpetuate it. It has been said by many a political leader, and many a retard on Ubersite, that "force is the only language that terrorists understand", to justify a military solution as the only response to terrorist attacks. Force, however, is the language that terrorists understand the least. The terrorists implied by the term's use in the West are not afraid of death - in many cases they look forward to becoming a martyr. The suicide-bomb has become their favoured form of attack. THEY ARE NOT AFRAID OF FORCE. What they are afraid of is losing the minimal public support they do have in the Middle East. The real War on Terror will only be won when terrorists are no longer able to attract new recruits.
In 2001, 150 Nobel Prize Winners, both from the "peace" discipline and from across the sciences, wrote this statement to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Nobel Prize:
"The most profound danger to world peace in the coming years will stem not from the irrational acts of states or individuals but from the legitimate demands of the world's dispossessed. Of these poor and disenfranchised, the majority live a marginal existence in equatorial climates. Global warming, not of their making but originating with the wealthy few, will affect their fragile ecologies most. Their situation will be desperate and manifestly unjust. It cannot be expected, therefore, that in all cases they will be content to await the beneficience of the rich."
The brand of terrorism that we see on the news everyday stems from this potent combination of poverty and sensation of oppression. It is not the radical fundamentalist masterminds that strap bombs to themselves and murder civilians - it is the young, brainwashed and impoverished looking to be rewarded for becoming martyrs. Sometimes they are promised that their family will be rewarded for their sacrifice. So despite what you hear conservative politicians saying, the cause they fight for is not necessarily an uncompromising ever-present religious one: there is a way to prevent future generations being drafted into terrorism.
The way to put an end to this environment which breeds terror is simple, yet extremely difficult. There should be a war on terrorism, not so much a war on terrorists. While raising defensive security, a real War on Terror would aim at closing the gap between the world's rich and the world's poor, adopting non-imperialist foreign policies, abiding by international law, and ending the prevalence of nuclear weaponry in all countries, including the rich countries. There are many advantages to this way of combatting terrorism.
---It is a long term solution
---It is a hell of a lot cheaper than military action
---Nobody dies
The problem is it requires an intelligent and concerned public who are willing to focus exactly what the aim of the War on Terror should be: not "gittin' Osama" but ending the threat that is posed by terrorism by ensuring it does not become a major problem like it will likely be in coming years.
A real War on Terror would also hinge on the success of Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas' plan for peace in Israel, and the creation of an adjacent Palestinian state, encompassing all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, with a section of East Jerusalem as its capital.
Bush has just been elected to his second term in office. He is now claiming a mandate (51% is hardly a mandate) to continue "spreading freedom around the globe", which we can only assume means the same type of freedom he just spread to Iraq. It is now more than ever that Americans need to realise that the War on Terror is unnecessary, futile and being used for insidious motives, and now is a time that they must overwhelmingly show that it does not have public support. (And if it does, do what I'm doing and try to change that).
Or failing that, I dunno, somebody shoot him.
User Reviews
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-05-17 03:20:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This post makes you sound like a political nut or ETS.
But hey ho you look like a starving Tom Hanks.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-17 02:01:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This post is embarrassing, I don't necessarily disagree with it but it's quite overbearing, isn't it.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-17 01:58:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-17 15:48:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
For example, think of if I rebutted some of the more reasonable parts of your essay like this: "You say he is using a war to distract us from the economy. How can we be distracted from a noun?"
----------------------------------
Actually, you've even missed the point a little, there. "Declaring war" is a political action with requirements and rules, not just a verb. Not that it matters.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2007-05-17 01:56:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I think I might have meant you can't declare war on an emotion.
PS. Please don't rebut this post, it's over two years old.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-05-17 01:48:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
I've probably reviewed this before, but let me give it an updated one.
Some of your arguements are reasonable, and my support of your different conclusions varies, though I could not get into a step-by-step analysis here and now.
What I wanted to comment on is what I found had the most philosophical significance: your arguement at the start that you can't declare a war on a noun. I consider that to be one of the most preposterous criticisms of anything I have ever heard, and I regret that honesty requires me to tell you such. You could call any war on anything a war on "a noun." In fact, you could declare any action or decision insignificant because it's just "a verb," and the same with "noun" for any object. What you seem to be (but really aren't) missing is that words represent actual things. Calling an action towards something an action "towards a word" because a word was used to communicate it is just childish. For example, think of if I rebutted some of the more reasonable parts of your essay like this: "You say he is using a war to distract us from the economy. How can we be distracted from a noun?"
But anything that is not complete irrational drivel does not get a -2 from me.
Submitted by Crystle (user info) at 2007-04-25 11:54:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
almost peanut butter, and Asterix rocks
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2007-02-18 20:28:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-09-25 20:38:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by forthewin (user info) at 2006-04-22 12:20:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I truly believe that improving the world is an unattainable goal. Everything just keeps getting worse, and I don't see that changing. Ever. The only thing you can really do is be content with your position in life.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-22 12:01:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by waterbottle(user info ) at 2006-04-22 11:44:41 ( #)
Rank'n: 0
An spendin' piece . Subscribe nigga, get yo issue.. Wiznell written, wizzay read'n, n i'm rizzay of centre. A shawty misguided in places, but generally good . I started yo shit and i'll end yo' shit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-04-22 12:00:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sure I've read this before, so why didn't I rate it.
The best thing that could of happened after 9/11 (excluding aliens turning up and using mind control devices to ensure world piece) would have been for bush to say 'oh dear' and carry on as normal.
Submitted by waterbottle (user info) at 2006-04-22 11:44:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
An interesting piece. Well written, worth reading, and i'm right of centre. A little misguided in places, but generally good.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-04-22 11:28:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2006-01-27 10:39:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
A real War on Terror would also hinge on the success of Palestinian PM Mahmoud Abbas' plan for peace in Israel, and the creation of an adjacent Palestinian state, encompassing all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, with a section of East Jerusalem as its capital.
----------------
Well that's knackered.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2006-01-27 10:16:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I'm sure this post is now on the NSA watch list.
Submitted by minimumdino (user info) at 2006-01-11 20:09:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
this post sure looks serious!
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2006-01-07 18:00:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2006-01-07 16:39:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by c1ndy (user info) at 2006-01-07 08:46:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
this must have been where I saw the picture that gave me the idea. It took me ages to google the same picture today.
Submitted by MavisMing (user info) at 2006-01-07 06:27:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by jagmcmanus (user info) at 2006-01-02 04:18:10 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by KatHunter (user info) at 2006-01-02 04:10:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2006-01-01 21:44:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
OMG RON JEREMY IS ON HIS UPPER LIP!
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2006-01-02 03:59:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by detective_mike_ohara (user info) at 2006-01-01 21:30:05 (#)
Ranking: -1
That's like saying that you can't declare war on 'Germany' because it's just a word. Words represent real things. By going to war on 'terrorism' he's going to war against terrorists and their actions, in an attempt to prevent them.
-------------------------
You're the second person to not read past the first sentence. Firstly, it's "war on terror" not "terrorism" which doesn't make sense in that sentence. I should have clarified what I said by explaining I meant nouns as opposed to *proper* nouns, except that that sentence was just a throwaway cheap shot which I didn't think anybody would be stupid enough to take exception to.
Submitted by Siren (user info) at 2006-01-01 21:44:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
OMG RON JEREMY IS ON HIS UPPER LIP!
Submitted by detective_mike_ohara (user info) at 2006-01-01 21:30:05 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
That's like saying that you can't declare war on 'Germany' because it's just a word. Words represent real things. By going to war on 'terrorism' he's going to war against terrorists and their actions, in an attempt to prevent them.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-09-07 05:31:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2005-09-07 05:12:05 (#)
Ranking: 2
You are a legend. It seems like all the left-wing australians are drying up in these era of fear of "them". (boat people, terrorists or ...)
-==--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
God damn right-wing Australians, with their anti-immigration stance... oh wait.
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2005-09-07 05:12:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
in my dialect these = this
Submitted by jeveuxgagner (user info) at 2005-09-07 05:12:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You are a legend. It seems like all the left-wing australians are drying up in these era of fear of "them". (boat people, terrorists or ...)
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-07 21:21:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And fair enough ellsmall, I don't want someone who'd be put off by something like that reading my stuff anyway.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-07-07 21:20:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
doctorj, that was not intended to be serious. For god's sake people.
Submitted by doctorj24 (user info) at 2005-07-07 12:20:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Your post was good until here: "Or failing that, I dunno, somebody shoot him."
Talk about no class. You seemed to be making sense, but right when you started gaining respect, you suggest assassination. Utter stupidity.
So, good ideas and a fresh perspective, but ultimately it falls flat.
Submitted by ellsmall (user info) at 2005-07-07 11:39:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"However considering Bush has managed to declare war on the entire structure of the English language, that hasn't been too much of a problem to him."
Thanks for making it unnecessary to read past your second sentence, saved me a lot of time.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-17 20:39:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 19:07:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
So you get your shitty Orwellian analogies from Michael Moore as well?
What Bush is doing, whether right or wrong, isn't what Orwell had in mind. He isn't disposing of the goods for the sake of war to keep his people uneducated, for one.
At least you didn't directly misquote him.
-------------------------------------
I'm not saying Bush is creating an Orwellian society, I just credited Orwell for the analogy of perpetual warfare, which you can't deny Bush is using.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2005-06-17 19:07:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So you get your shitty Orwellian analogies from Michael Moore as well?
What Bush is doing, whether right or wrong, isn't what Orwell had in mind. He isn't disposing of the goods for the sake of war to keep his people uneducated, for one.
At least you didn't directly misquote him.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-06-08 20:51:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This post kicked ass. +2. +2 I say!
Submitted by Spam (user info) at 2005-06-08 09:21:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by notwelcomehurr (user info) at 2005-06-08 08:05:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
--
Fucking Spammers...
Submitted by notwelcomehurr (user info) at 2005-06-08 08:05:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Danger_Ranger (user info) at 2005-05-31 23:10:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Too short..
AMANDLA!!...
... no, wait..
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2005-05-31 22:49:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Fuck. Australians kick ass. My fellow Texans, it seems, are nut-jobs. (Except for you, Cookielass, but, hey. You're Scottish anyway).
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-24 05:20:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-18 07:46:33 (#)
Ranking: 2
fuck it. Uber review number 1000. woot for me.
------------------------------------------
3500. And I don't really care.
Submitted by Wazza (user info) at 2005-05-22 06:08:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Yes well there allways has to be a good side to everything, at least the arshole sadam insane will get the kneck tie, and his two rat sons have been elimanated, miss chemical bitch will also get hung up , and so on, .
Now if Bush had not have gone in there none of these arsholes would have ever come to justice .
So at all times we just have to cop the good with the bad.
I predict at the end of the day Iraq will be a better place for people and kids to live.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-22 05:23:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.gizoogle.com/
Go there and translate this page...
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-05-08 19:14:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by blank_mind (user info) at 2005-05-07 13:53:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
Crap dammit, well written shite. Bush is right, you need to destroy all the machinery of terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalists want us (and since I'm Irish you first) all dead, kill us and you go to heaven, its that simple.
-- Agreed. Destroy thine enemies. But does that involve invading Iraq?
Terrorism need to be pulled up at the roots and countries that are invaded need to be turned pro western over the next twenty years. The important thing is that you have impotised their ability to attack, to make money and political allies, oh and incidentally overthrow some of the worst regimes in the world.
-- While upholding the same regimes next door in Saudi Arabia?
The idea of total war works in 1984 because in a book you have no need of money, and only works if you fight an enemy with the power to destroy you, because otherwise there is no fear.
--This "power to destroy you" is a matter of opinion, and opinion is sorely influenced by those who can see a profit out of making you believe one thing or another.
Bush is an idiot but he's the smiling face of an extremely intelligent group of people, is it a coincidence that attacking Iraq would provide the most economic benefit to the usa? No shit it is a fucking war, bush did you a favor and all you Americans do is bitch. I'm aware you're Australian so that wasn't aimed at you, in fact I like your work, but this is idealistic crap.
-- Yeah. It's doing wonders for the American people. Oh yeah! What is it now? 100 billion dollars in taxes to pay for this war? OH but don't worry. Haliburton's making money and we all know that trickle down economics works. Ha ha, ho ho.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-05-07 21:18:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by blank_mind (user info) at 2005-05-07 13:53:16 (#)
Ranking: -2
Terrorism need to be pulled up at the roots and countries that are invaded need to be turned pro western over the next twenty years. The important thing is that you have impotised their ability to attack, to make money and political allies, oh and incidentally overthrow some of the worst regimes in the world.
-- The problem is in the process of doing this the way Bush is going about it, America is making far more enemies than it is creating friends in the Middle East. Just because the new governments of Afghanistan and Iraq are pro-western that doesn't mean hate for the US has decreased in those countries, and it has most probably increased.
The idea of total war works in 1984 because in a book you have no need of money, and only works if you fight an enemy with the power to destroy you, because otherwise there is no fear.
-- If you're trying to say that the perpetual warfare mantra doesn't apply to the war on terror, why the emphasis by the administration that terrorism is "a threat to our way of life" and all the continued scare campaigns? Just because terrorism doesn't have the power to destroy America doesn't mean most Americans haven't be coerced into the fear that it could.
Bush is an idiot but he's the smiling face of an extremely intelligent group of people, is it a coincidence that attacking Iraq would provide the most economic benefit to the usa? No shit it is a fucking war, bush did you a favor and all you Americans do is bitch. I'm aware you're Australian so that wasn't aimed at you, in fact I like your work, but this is idealistic crap.
-- So the Yanks should accept that the war was justified because it gave Halliburton a larger annual profit? The American people got NO benefit out of the war on Iraq - it has cost them extraordinary amounts of money, forced their military into recruitment overdrive, and made most countries in the world hate them.
Submitted by blank_mind (user info) at 2005-05-07 13:53:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Crap dammit, well written shite. Bush is right, you need to destroy all the machinery of terrorism, Islamic Fundamentalists want us (and since I'm Irish you first) all dead, kill us and you go to heaven, its that simple. Terrorism need to be pulled up at the roots and countries that are invaded need to be turned pro western over the next twenty years. The important thing is that you have impotised their ability to attack, to make money and political allies, oh and incidentally overthrow some of the worst regimes in the world. The idea of total war works in 1984 because in a book you have no need of money, and only works if you fight an enemy with the power to destroy you, because otherwise there is no fear.
Bush is an idiot but he's the smiling face of an extremely intelligent group of people, is it a coincidence that attacking Iraq would provide the most economic benefit to the usa? No shit it is a fucking war, bush did you a favor and all you Americans do is bitch. I'm aware you're Australian so that wasn't aimed at you, in fact I like your work, but this is idealistic crap.
Submitted by Wazza (user info) at 2005-04-25 04:34:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Very well written my southern friend,i like your style.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-04-25 04:33:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
1400 in a month? Jesus christ man. Don't you have uni to study?
Oh by the way. You said there was some concert, sometime next weekend or something Thorpe? What and when is that?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-25 04:25:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Holy shit I have too... +2 for that.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-25 04:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You have written 1400 reviews in a month.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-04-25 04:21:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:36:13 (#)
Ranking: 2
he's still the sexiest war president i know.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-04-25 04:08:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I agree with you but I wonder if you are just wasting your time...
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-25 03:50:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I'll try again, then, shall I?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-11 18:29:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This just skipped the MRR!
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-04-11 17:51:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This needs more hits.
HEY EVERYBODY! MORE HITS!
Submitted by Kre8rix (user info) at 2005-03-31 00:06:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
well hey, I never read it before, and it was very well written.
good points too.
+2 for you
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-03-30 23:56:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-30 23:49:58 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well that worked. Nice job getting this onto MRR Thorpe.
*sigh*
----------------------------------
Hitwhore!
*giggle*
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-30 23:49:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well that worked. Nice job getting this onto MRR Thorpe.
*sigh*
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-30 23:19:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
*cough*
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-03-18 08:01:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-02-09 20:56:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
Just so you know, shitfuck said something about wanting to kill Bush, and he had the authorities at his door after domenad reported him. He lives in Canada.
================
Tell me this isn't true.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-03-18 07:46:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~UBERSITE~~~~~~~~~REVIEW~~~~~~~~~~~~NUMBER~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~111~~~~~~~~000~~~~~~~~~~000~~~~~~~~~~000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1111~~~~~~000~000~~~~~~000~000~~~~~~000~000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11~11~~~~000~~~~~000~~000~~~~~000~~000~~~~~000~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~11~~~000~~~~~~~000
fuck it. Uber review number 1000. woot for me.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-02-09 21:08:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
That's bullshit, I'll say it if I want.
However, if Bush was assassinated, the whole American public would go up in arms, at this "assault on democracy", which this time it actually would be. Cheney would come to power, probably win the next election on the grounds of revenge, and we'd be screwed even more.
It'd still be cool to see a good ol' fashioned motorcade shooting but.
Submitted by Degreeless_Capibara (user info) at 2005-02-09 20:56:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Just so you know, shitfuck said something about wanting to kill Bush, and he had the authorities at his door after domenad reported him. He lives in Canada.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2005-02-09 20:56:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
don't mind Schwarzes_Glas- he lives under a rock.
Submitted by Schwarzes_Glas (user info) at 2005-02-09 20:54:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Weak, but you're entitled.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2005-02-09 20:47:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
impressive. you should write for Harper's. this is one of the best things i've ever read on this subject. it's certainly the best Ubersite has to offer. bravo.
Submitted by Umbilical_Cord (user info) at 2005-02-03 00:41:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
All very true.
But empire building makes for much more entertaining news reports.
Submitted by Hairsphincter (user info) at 2005-02-03 00:35:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good one.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-02-03 00:30:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahahah... I taped 124 of the 169 episodes off the TV when they were being shown as reruns on Channel 10 in the late 90's. Now they are all coming out on DVD, so it was all worthless.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-02-03 00:14:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-02-02 23:24:30 (#)
Ranking: 2
here's +2 for beating me to a seinfeld reference:
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-02-02 22:36:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
In reference to Seinfeld, obviously your favourite show in the world, call him Isosceles, or Seven.
---------------------------------------------------------
dangit! i thought i was the only one who knew that one!
-------------------------------------------------------
Thorpe has all the Seinfelds on DVD or some shit like that.
Because he has no life. none.
Submitted by Sassmasterr (user info) at 2005-02-02 23:24:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
here's +2 for beating me to a seinfeld reference:
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-02-02 22:36:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
In reference to Seinfeld, obviously your favourite show in the world, call him Isosceles, or Seven.
---------------------------------------------------------
dangit! i thought i was the only one who knew that one!
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-01-25 22:18:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-01-25 11:28:16 (#)
Ranking: 2
1984 should be read by everyone.
----------------------------
I'm sad to say i haven't had the chance.
Oi Thorpe, do you have it; and if so lend to me.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-01-25 19:33:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Heheheh cop that, Mrwolf. You just got educated!
Submitted by etbeliever (user info) at 2005-01-25 11:59:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The problem is that the people capable of logical, rational thought are not the ones power hungry enough to get into positions of responsibility. Personally I support the idea of philosopher kings - if you want to be in charge you're not allowed and if you become the leader then you must give up all belongings/ money etc so there is no chance of corruption or outside influences making the decisions, rather than your own logical thoughts as to what is the best decision. Somehow I doubt Mr. Bush is aware of philosophical arguments....other than those regarding oil that is.
Submitted by mrwolf (user info) at 2005-01-25 11:41:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Brilliant. Very educational. Though I refuse to have an opinion. See why here http://www.ubersite.com/m/57227
Submitted by Fleadh (user info) at 2005-01-25 11:28:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
1984 should be read by everyone.
Submitted by Pentameter (user info) at 2005-01-25 11:25:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
There should be a war on terrorism, not so much a war on terrorists. While raising defensive security, a real War on Terror would aim at closing the gap between the world's rich and the world's poor, adopting non-imperialist foreign policies, abiding by international law, and ending the prevalence of nuclear weaponry in all countries, including the rich countries. There are many advantages to this way of combatting terrorism.
---It is a long term solution
---It is a hell of a lot cheaper than military action
---Nobody dies
------------------------
Well fucking said.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-01-25 09:58:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
nu-cu-lar
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2005-01-25 09:57:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Preach it, brotha.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-01-25 09:12:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Anyway, in a situation such as Iraq right now, it is necessary to pursue a military solution, considering it is open war. The Iraqi government needs to - it is the unnecessary military solutions often seen in going after terrorists in other countries that I think do the most harm.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-01-25 09:11:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:58:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
That last sentence has a lot of potential to get you into legal trouble. Throw out a blurb saying that it's a joke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I support Thorpe too on what he said. Assassinate the fucking arsehole. What the fuck can anyone do to stop me saying this?
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-01-25 09:02:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeh I was sort of cutting a fair bit out at the end there, I see what you mean.
A democratic government in Iraq will be one of the positives to come out of the invasion, however they will be left with a terrible situation where they will pretty much have to start from scratch in terms of essential infrastructure. And just because it will be democratic doesn't mean that the government won't start pursuing the militants by force, actually it's pretty much guaranteed. It may well send the country into a bloody civil war if it goes that far. The value of democracy is of course one thing that liberals and conservatives pretty much always agree on.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:58:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
That last sentence has a lot of potential to get you into legal trouble. Throw out a blurb saying that it's a joke.
Otherwise, Worth Reading (+0)....Who cares?
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:55:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This is well done. You started out great, but as you went on, you started to give shorter and shorter shrift to the logic in your arguments, to the point where eventually, you were simply claiming that things were true without verification.
I'd also like to see you take on the possibility of the successful installation of a democratically elected and (hopefully) stable government in Iraq. I will acknowledge that this may be a long-shot, but you make the case for the peace-bringing nature of a Palistinian State. Will a democratic Iraq and/or Afghanistan be able to show these disenfranchized individuals that there is hope for a future in a similar way? You don't address these Bush Administration goals at all, but if you are trying to be objective, you probably should.
Still, I can tell that a lot of work went into this, so +2.
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:50:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
True, B@W
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:48:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by DeathJester (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:45:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Bored at work, asshole. Bored at work.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:41:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:17:58 (#)
Ranking: 2
Well written. domenad, jack mccallum et al are going to have seizures.
Because they are the W's left and right nut, respectively.
Submitted by Vomit (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:38:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Excellent post, but can someone explain to me how stupid you have to be to vote that idiot into office for a 2nd term????
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:36:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
he's still the sexiest war president i know.
Submitted by WhatTheHell (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:24:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
VERY well written and thought out... bravo!
This line killed me though... "Before I get into the serious part of my post, I'd just like to point out that you cannot declare war on a noun"
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2005-01-25 08:17:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well written. domenad, jack mccallum et al are going to have seizures.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-01-25 07:53:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
When cutting down the length, I forgot to put in a section about the spending.
Instead of doing it here, I'll work it in to another political post.
Um, subtly.