It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If you think America can cope with another war, read this and weep

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Some of you now say that the war in Iraq was started in in order to secure a greater objective, I see it as a waste of time and it hurt the American reputation around the world.
If the objective was to get the 911 perpetrators, why wasn't Saudi Arabia attacked, or Why wasn't more effort put into Afghanistan?
Seems like everytime someone tries to justify the Iraq war, a different reason is given, that's called flip-flopping.
If the strived for objective is to steal their oil, then it makes sense.

The Vagabond said:


The only expectation was that I follow my orders when push came to shove, and if you ask me, that is the most democratic thing about the Marine Corps, because in a democracy it is not the place of one man with a rifle to veto the decisions of the elected government.

You are not brainwashed...you are not brainwashed...you are not..........
Don't question authority.
Don't question your de-mock-ratically elected fascists, do as they say.
George Bush is my god and is out for the good of all American citizens.
Hail to the Chief...Hail..Heil!

Being in the army has not affected your critical thinking skills one bit!




posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I know plenty of marines, both past and active duty and each and every one of them will echo exactly what I said, so I dont really need you to fess up. You can justify it however you want Vagabond, but it is true that the marines, or armed forces all together, want soldiers who follow orders without a conscience...without the mental ability to refute an order. Thats the way it should be. I am not arguing otherwise. It would be very counterproductive to teach our soldiers to questions morals and motives.

For this very same reason, your opinion has been guided...not decided. You have been instilled with the belief that Uncle Sam can do no wrong apparantly.

I believe our strength as Americans comes from our ability to question the judgement of the people we elect to govern us. You seem to believe the exact opposite. I dont have any ambition to change your mind. I only wish you could make up your own mind, without THE MAN needing to convince you that it is all ok. The latter seems like it is very prominent at present.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
We obviously disagree, but both sides are based on reason.

Fair enough. I can respect that.


And now that the draft can of worms has been opened...
What is your stance if our military is indeed stretched thin, and a draft may be in our future to continue to win our war on terror? Would you still stand firm that not every supporters can be a soldier? Or at least the able bodied?


I believe I already alluded to my answer earlier.
Obviously it would be wrong for those who want this war to be fought, and who are able to participate in this war, to send the unwilling and/or less able to fight in their stead. If we were to go beyond the practical matters of what WILL happen and into the legal/moral realm of what should happen, I would actually say that a draft is simply incompatible with a democracy and should be unconstitutional. I think it was Heinlin who said something to the effect of, "if a nation can't get its citizens to defend it of their own free will, let the thing go to hell".

Back to practical matters however. If a draft comes, it of course has to be weighed against the option of ceasing the war. Since even some hawks do not feel able or willing to fight the war, the number of people who oppose a draft is likely to be greater than the number who oppose the war, and it will simply not be politically viable to institute a draft, providing that it is done fairly (I'm sure the hawks wont mind if we draft the children of Katrina victims or illegal alliens, and since that was never made a condition of anything they have done or recieved it is unjust, therefore close monitoring of statistics in the draft should be undertaken the minute they were to start it, thereby allowing legal action to correct any injustices, make the hawks pay their fair share, and of course causing them to immediately reverse their position on the draft.

In so many words, the institution of a draft can only be successful if there is a tacit understanding that it will be unfairly operated so as to avoid the well-off demographics where hawks are disproportionately represented. Therefore, IF such a thing were to arise, which I consider relatively unlikely since the Democrats are probably taking back the senate and maybe congress as well this November, then monitoring of fairness and legal watch-dogging would be able to kill the draft quickly



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
DaFunk:

But, deep down in your hearts you will know that if you can truely support, and condone the killing of a fellow human being for reasons that have been spoon-fed to you by a gov't that only seeks to control you in every aspect for their good and not your own...you are ignorant...blinded...and lost...


No, apparently they can fully support the death of over 50,000 Iraqi civilians because hey, remember, 3000 Americans died. I don't know what the exchange rate is on American deaths, but apparently it's more than 5 to 1.

And Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 in the first place. But whatever, to me the "war supporters" are the first ones who, in a tight spot, crap themselves and cry and turn into collaborators. People who crow and crow about how tough they are are almost ALWAYS the opposite. People of courage and spirit don't need to bray about like donkeys.

The Vagabond:

Think of it in terms of a chess board; some times you've gotta go out of your way to rub out a pawn; not because that pawn is going to checkmate you, but because something more important is being protected or obstructed by that pawn.


Yep, a chess game involving the lives which your government decides are "expendable". The pawn that you brush away is actually somebody with a family that loves him/her, and a whole world of possibilities.

That pawn is the American or Iraqi writhing on the ground in pain, trying to keep his intestines in his ruined belly through bloody fingers. Losing bowel control in his last moments of life and crying for his mother to help. Weeping and finally dying.

Funny how most Americans are all for death and destruction but when a MEASLY THREE THOUSAND of your citizens die, it becomes the single biggest focus of your country to bring it up over and over to justify your policies. Big deal, right? What's 3000 people? You've massacred possibly upwards of 100,000 Iraqis in the meantime. (Not to mention the half a million children starved during US/UK backed sanctions).

Those people in the Twin Towers were just silly pawns. Forget about them already and move on, huh? It's just a simple game of chess and they were pawns in the wrong sector of the board. Big whoop.

/sarcasm off

jako



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Thanks for that JAKO, I was going to post something along those lines pertaining to the chessboard scenario.

"You mean I am the Walrus, Walter."
"Donnie, you are otta your element!!!"

Thanks also, for reminding me to go home and watch that movie...its been too long. "Ya, ve beleef in nathing Labowski."

[edit on 21-2-2006 by DaFunk13]

[edit on 21-2-2006 by DaFunk13]



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo
The Vagabond:

Think of it in terms of a chess board; some times you've gotta go out of your way to rub out a pawn; not because that pawn is going to checkmate you, but because something more important is being protected or obstructed by that pawn.


Yep, a chess game involving the lives which your government decides are "expendable". The pawn that you brush away is actually somebody with a family that loves him/her, and a whole world of possibilities.


If you don't like the world, go design a better one. There is something wrong with humanity; peace doesn't work for us. Maybe some day, I hope, we'll figure out how to fix that, but the fact of the matter is that this is a world perpetually at that war, and if you're not strengthening your position, you are weakening it.

While those who dream of a Utopia cry their eyes out for the casualties of reality, the pragmatists, who understand the what should be, what can be, and what will be are 3 distinct things, are going to take reality for what it is and take that pawn, however many lives it may represent, just as long as that destruction is working against the potential for even greater destruction, and they're right to do so.


That pawn is the American or Iraqi writhing on the ground in pain, trying to keep his intestines in his ruined belly through bloody fingers. Losing bowel control in his last moments of life and crying for his mother to help. Weeping and finally dying.


I know who the pawn is; I enlisted to be one of them, because taking the risk of being one of a few thousand who take the fall to insure that millions of other lives are not threatened is worth while.


Those people in the Twin Towers were just silly pawns. Forget about them already and move on, huh? It's just a simple game of chess and they were pawns in the wrong sector of the board. Big whoop.


I'm gonna catch hell for being logical about this, but if you weren't being sarcastic you'd be absolutely right. Such is life. They're casualties of war. It is not a matter of avenging them. It is a matter of taking out the threat that hit them before it hits the rest of us.



Here is the bottom line: You're full of gripes about how horrible everything is, but you haven't got an alternative to suggest. In thousands of years of human civilization, nobody has come up with a way to abstain from violence and yet be safe from violence by others.
Well... I've come up with one: Suicide. That's about the only way you're gonna be safe from others (necrophiliacs excepted) without possibly having to hurt others.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I would say you definately view the situation from a soldiers point of view.
I guess one must know when to draw the line, and know which pawns not to touch, which a person in the military knows.
I don't know chess well but some pawns are better pawns.

And to know when not to play chess at all, and not start new chess games is a good rule of thumb as well.


I could go on, but I'll stop



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
It's a sad condition of the Human mammal (I think I spelled that right...sorry, stupid American) that we have to fight wars. It's to be applauded that people exist who question the necessity of war....but all to often no one listens to them.
I come from a long line of soldeirs and scientists. My ancestors came here from England and fought on both sides of the Revolution, they then served gallantly in the doomed Southern Confederacy, died in the trentches of France in WWI and bled and died in Normandy, the Bulge and off the coast of Okinawa. My grnadfather was a Marine Flight instructor for fighter pilots during the Korean war, a cousin was a Marine on the ground in Nam and was injured three times, and an uncle was aboard the USS Iowa during Operation Desert Storm. I will relate this story to my grandfather who used to be a Marine Corps flight instructor.
After Korea he begin doing contract work for the Air Force as an engineer for General Electric. Eventually he moved on to do rocket tests for NASA under the supervision of his direct superior Werner Von Braun (yes the very same Nazi Von Braun), my grandfather then proceeded to do Top Secret work with the military. (He won't tell me what it was but he's alluded to stuff about Roswell type things and Area-51) My grandfather has lived a full life and seen the world, he knows alot about it.
toadmund made the point that maybe we should learn not to play chess games anymore...my grandfather would say that that means you'll just get checkmated by the guy who won't quit playing. I tend to take my grandfathers advice on these matters pretty seriously, he's got real world experience, military experience, and as a Mason, CFR member and a Knights Templar, he's got the mind into the secret societies. (No I'm not in trouble for saying that since most of the stuff you'll hear about those guys is BS) As far as the WOT goes my grandfather thinks its tragic that 9-11 happened, he also thinks we're wasting our time rebuilding a nation of Muslims that'll simply join the anti-Western Jihad as soon as we leave. Leave them in ruins now, it saves having to fight them later.
Unfortunately I have to agree. It's nice sounding and very humanistic to say that we should all just disarm and live peacefully. But remember what ben Franklin said, he who beats his sword into a plowshare, tends to plow for those that don't. Power and force are the only things that the real world respects. You can wax eloquently all you want about peace, the conspiracy theories that brought about this war, and how unjust the actions of one side or the other are...it doesn't matter. Unless you literally KILL all of the fantaics who want to see the end of Western Civilization and the rebirth of an Islamic Caliphate (the rebirth of the one that replaced the Roman Empire) then we will never have peace.
And even then, it's an unrealistic dream, as long as there is a human race, there will be the need for those like Vagabond who have the will to be prepared to sacrifice their lives so that the rest of us don't have to. It's a sad state but unless you can become God, it's the only one that humanity will ever have.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toadmund
And to know when not to play chess at all, and not start new chess games is a good rule of thumb as well.



In a vacuum I'd agree with you 100%. People sometimes seem to think that violence appeals to me, or that I just prefer the simplicity of a violent response, but that's not it at all. If the option of "not playing chess" were there, then I'd be the last one to step up to the board, especially in light of my former career as a pawn.

My belief, however, is that it's something we're simply thrust into. If we could push back from the world and not have interests to protect, we would never have to go to war, and that'd be pretty cool. It's not an option though, because aggression will come to you; not always militarily, but it will come. Consider Ethiopia. Who have they been to war with since Italy? Only themselves (the part of themselves that became Eritrea).

Does that mean that foreigners are leaving them alone? Nope. Ethiopia is synonymous with starvation, so why is starbucks trying to sell me their Rift Valley blend??? There may not be American troops swarming all over their country, but we've got them grabbing their ankles none the less (which, by the way, is completely unjustified; there are moves that need not be made on the global chess board)

It's a sad world. To a limited extent, it's kill or be killed. When somebody has it out for you, and on top of that controls a position in the world which is vital to your survival, the options are limited; sometimes you can back them down and keep them neuteral, usually by threat of force, and it costs nothing to deal fairly in those situations I might add, but when that fails, force is what's left.


Another thing I'd like to point out is that I don't defend the occupation. I defend the decision to take Saddam out. This occupation is a disaster, and it seems to me that the best explanation is that profiteering been given priority over swift accomplishment of the mission and withdrawl.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Good posts on this subject. The conversation discussing "pawns" and personal view points has lacked some realistic value. As pointed out "this is the real world," though most of us view the world through our limited understanding. As with the grandpa who had lived no doubt a full life being involved in the compartmentalized operations he was. That is the deal "compartment". Everyone has their own experience and compartment of which life operates around and through them. Whether you go on to be "educated" at a higher plateau who can know, and even if you did no one could understand what the hell you say, as the grandson had pointed out. I have been told there are two kinds of people in the world, those who think they can fight and those who actually can. I think life is much like this saying and realizing this truth also makes you realize that one must study and practice in order to learn to fight. The individual must have experience in fighting before he can thus discuss fighting, let alone the purpose of waging war or living in peace.


Originally posted by Toadmund
If the objective was to get the 911 perpetrators, why wasn't Saudi Arabia attacked, or Why wasn't more effort put into Afghanistan?
Seems like everytime someone tries to justify the Iraq war, a different reason is given, that's called flip-flopping.
If the strived for objective is to steal their oil, then it makes sense.


If this question must be asked it's simply through lack of knowledge. Thinking of the world as a chess board is also very vague and a poor comparison of which to draw allegories. If you have power in your hands to control armies, wealth, corporate and media direction then you do so carefully, weighing the options whether an evil individual or good. Now there it is the heart of the matter - intention. If one wishes to understand intention one must understand history as all men are driven by such, as well as greed, lust, and envy to name a few.

Why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan? Many intentions and many reasons. Oil? Yes. Historical significance? Yes. Medals and glory? Yes. Combat experience? Yes. Revenge? Yes. I'm sure many of you can develop a large list and be certain of this those fighting on both sides have the same list.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The Vagabond:

While those who dream of a Utopia cry their eyes out for the casualties of reality, the pragmatists, who understand the what should be, what can be, and what will be are 3 distinct things, are going to take reality for what it is and take that pawn, however many lives it may represent, just as long as that destruction is working against the potential for even greater destruction, and they're right to do so.


Aha, I see. You will take it upon yourselves to decide who lives or dies, based on who benefits the most, and based on who DESERVES to benefit the most.

How very megalomaniacal of you.

I’ll continue working for my Utopia, you keep washing all that blood of your hands, and we will see who ultimately ends up leaving this world with a smile. If there’s a God, I’m thinking that he’s not going to be too pleased with, um, your kind. Let’s call them the Non-Meek.


I know who the pawn is; I enlisted to be one of them, because taking the risk of being one of a few thousand who take the fall to insure that millions of other lives are not threatened is worth while.


Oh, I see, how romantic. So Private Smith, the 18 year old kid from Mississippi who just had his face and neck blown away by an IED in Iraq is actually taking that shrapnel for me? COOL. All these soldiers dying thousands of miles away in a foreign land are actually dying so that I don’t have to. So that all the people in, let’s say, Chicago, can be safe? So Private Smith, dead in a pool of blood and gore, has SAVED thousands of lives because he was there to be in the way of that shrapnel that took away the life that he spent 18 years here perfecting.

I am sure his mom will be so happy to hear that. It’ll help her with the fact that she just lost her little boy, right?

Isn’t it more risky for us civilians since we have no formal training and we don’t get to carry around semi-automatic rifles in a platoon of fellow soldiers?

[qupte] Here is the bottom line: You're full of gripes about how horrible everything is, but you haven't got an alternative to suggest. In thousands of years of human civilization, nobody has come up with a way to abstain from violence and yet be safe from violence by others.

Haha, I suggest alternatives to people who I know will probably listen, with an open mind. Pardon me if I judge you not to be an open-minded person.

My solution? Try to be more of a human being. Care a bit more, try to be empathetic to people, try to identify with people’s struggles. If you bothered to, you would possibly see other people’s sides to this, instead of your own narrow-minded point of view.

If it’s always going to be Us VS Them with you, life is going to be one struggle after another, when it doesn’t have to be.

But hey, you’ve stopped reading already, haven’t you, IAF?



-jako

Those who speak the loudest usually have the least to say.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
I suppose I should say this quietly...

The only thing in this world nearly as bad as evil is indifference.

Vagabond, you say the world is evil and full of conflict, so we should just play ball. I say the world is evil and full of conflict, so we should collectively try to change it. Do you roll with death and destruction because you feel hopeless to incite change? Do you honestly live your life by this kill or be killed mentality? Attacking pawns to ensure the rook is never in position to hurt you? It sounds like a terrible existence to me.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Donnie, you're out of your element.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know....



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Im not buying it a beer. Im not renting it shoes. its not taking your turn, Dude. Its a show dog...with papers. You can't board it. It gets nervous. Its hair falls out.


I could do this all day.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I see a lot of misguided ideals in this discussion, belied by a lot of unconscious hypocrisy. Everyone wants a Utopia, everyone wants to be compassionate and get rid of the “us and them” mentality. Nobody has any explanation of how to implement and maintain such a system.
Have you eaten anything that was once alive, or was derived from something that was once alive? Congratulations, deep down, you have accepted the truth. The struggle to survive is going to mean bad news for some, isn’t it? If there is a god (and I’ll let you in on a secret: there isn’t), then he is the one who designed this system and he needs to stop getting mad at us about it and clean up this big mess that he has created.
This goes much deeper that Private Smith taking shrapnel that would otherwise be yours. Private Smith makes sure that you can afford to feed yourself, be sheltered from the elements, participate in the economy that makes those things possible for you. How will the people of Chicago warm themselves, feed themselves, etc if prices are grossly inflated because the predatory economic system which supports itself on the back of the world’s violently oppressed poor is removed?
You’re on a computer right now, which means you have money, which means you almost certainly pay taxes to fund this war. Have you any notion just how many levels of hypocrisy you demonstrate simply by making your posts? If the United States had not aggressively advanced and defended its interests in the way that it has over the course of its history, you would probably not have the job that you do, would not be participating in the kind of economy that you enjoy, and would not be in front of a computer right now. If you would take the moral high ground, you must first cease any consumption which is made possible by exploitation of any kind, and cease any support no matter how passive, for any organization which perpetrates such exploitation. In other words, you must leave urban life, move to the boondocks (don’t buy the land), build your own home, grow or catch your own food, and either make or trade in your own wares for every other necessity. The moment that you buy from or sell to any company which has exploited others in any way, even if only by using gasoline to ship goods, you have contradicted yourself.
Your solution is no solution at all. Let’s ignore the basis of every successful large-scale economic system that has ever been devised; that is your suggestion. This will not end the oppression, only put us on the worse end of it.

I’m not saying play ball with it, I’m saying let’s not commit suicide over it. Look for ways to mitigate it; embrace mutually beneficial solutions wherever viable, try to elevate the condition of the poor to a more acceptable level (keeping in mind that whatever quality the economy can afford the base, there will necessarily be a large and far less prosperous class). Realism gents. You’ve got a terminal AIDS patient, and you’re saying “can’t we just not have AIDS anymore?”. I’m saying this one’s dead, and a lot more are going to die before we even come up with a way to effectively treat the disease, much less eradicate it.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
To those true believers for whom Bush is the next best thing to chopped liver and think that this is just more Bush bashing, let me ask, if we are so powerful, when was the last time the national guard was called up to fight a foreign war? It certianly wasn't Vietnam, if it had been where would uncurious george hid? This is the very reason why we won't be invading Iran anytime soon.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:56 PM
link   
We all must function in the warped societies that we live in.
Why?
Because it is warped, you can't live off the land anymore, you can't live without money, we are accustomed to a certain way of life.

It's what we know, it's broken, but we gotta' live in it.
But to accept it, is like laying down to die, things don't change unless we make change.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
if we are so powerful, when was the last time the national guard was called up to fight a foreign war? It certianly wasn't Vietnam


Always load cranial magazine before attempting to shoot off your mouth.

www.ngb.army.mil...

During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq



The National Guard has rarely, if ever, sat out of a conflict. The very point of the National Guard is to retain a force in reserve which CAN BE CALLED UPON in times of conflict without consuming too many resources during peacetime.

This is one of the oldest types of military organization and its effectiveness has been proven through the ages. Professional soldiers in a standing army form the spearhead of the military operations, sometimes with the addition of mercinaries, and usually supported by a larger component of militia who are generally tasked with the more basic missions while the regulars are assigned the more difficult tasks.

You seem to suggest that if we need the Guard we are in trouble, but I have to disagree. The guard was meant to be used, and it could be argued that we have gone the wrong way by having our regular force be a little too large in comparrison to our reserves. Reserves were meant to be used when the shells start flying.

And for the record: this has spit to do with Bush, at least for me. I am less than confident in the man's leadership abilities and strategic understanding, however that does not mean that 100% of what he says/decides is absolutely polar opposite to the truth, without exception.



posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I hear alot of people on this board and others wanting to "change" the system. Bravo!!!!! I'm all for it, except for one tiny detail: how?
I hate to pay taxes, not because it goes to support a war that will never be stopped by anyones whining about it but because I hate seeign money I WORKED for going to Uncle Sam. It's my money.
I also would like alot less cops, I beleive in the 2nd Amendment, and beleive me, no criminal is leaving my house intact, so I have more to be secure about by my OWN hands than I do some donut sifting moron with a badge who feels empowered to bully the locals.
I also would love to see alot less reality shows on TV, have to hear better music on the radio, and for God's sake eat food that isn't full of chemicals.
Yeah, I'd like things to change...but how?
Forming a giant protest in the streets isn't going to change the system, all its going to do is to piss off the people who have to work for a living and are going to be late for work.
Writing to your congressmen isn't going to change anything. All he is going to do is use your letter as added padding on his desk to bang his secretary with.
Forming a political party won't do it. All that will accomplish is you'll lose lots of money and end up in the where are they now files.
My point is this.
If you want to change the system so bad, the only way you'll effect said change is through force. And force is the only currency of any worth in this world. Carl Von Clausewitz said war is simply politics through greater means. And ironically, by using force to stop force elsewhere, you'll turn into exactly the kind of thing you're fighting against.
I hate politics and politicians, but I realize the danger that exists in this world. And even though I'll never convince most of you that this is a dangerous world where men of greed and lust for power rule elsewhere other than America, I'll say it anyway because its the truth.
Do I like the thought of Iraqi's dying? No, but I like the thought of my friends in uniform dying even less. If I had to choose, I'd choose my freinds and say to hell with the rest. And so would you if you're honest.
Is this a just war? What war is? And what will you do to stop it? What CAN you do to stop it?
Even if millions of people marched in the streets today, right now and demanded a stop to the hostilities, do you really think any body in power either Republican or Democrat will really give a rats arse?
Of course they won't. The Democrats only give the veneer of supporting the anti-war movement, yet their voting record shows otherwise. All they want is for Americans to vote for them so they can spend X number of more years in DC banging secretaries on their desks.
Yeah it'd be nice if we lived in a world where war didn't exist, but sitting back and pretending that it'll just go away won't make it do that.
As far as I'm concerened, right now, this is the best available system we have on the planet.
Sure taxes suck, but their the smallest in the world per capita. Sure the traffic cops are a pain in my ass, but their not as bad as the cops in Shanghai, or Moscow or even Paris. And sure, our politicians are crooked, but so is everyone elses, and besides, ours are more entertaining. (Who wouldn't like to go drinking with Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton?)
Sure Cananda may have more beautifull scenery, butt heir taxes are too high and their government is too obtrusive, not to mention it gets facking cold in the great white north.
Ireland is great, except it rains nearly all the damn time and if your not into constant drinking and soccer and U2 concerts, you're screwed.
The EU has lots of history and some of the greates scenery on earth, but I'd rather keep my civil liberties.
China is stunning, who wouldn't like to go hiking in the Chinese hills? But I'd rather not live under a regime that regulates EVERYTHING I do.
SO I think I'll keep America, faults and all. And if anyone can figure out a way tio change the world without Armaggeddon and the second coming...give me a call.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join