18 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57Yes. NATO is blowing up a violent ethnic fanatic organization that has openly attacked one of it's members.
Really are you sure about that?
Every one of these groups - and every culture has them - hides behind their ethnicity to protect them from criticism or challenge. This group is no different. It's no different killing them that it is to kill people of the Christian organization called the Lord's Resistance Army. If you kill one of the LRA it does NOT mean you're killing Christians because they're Christian. Same thing here.
Speaking of violent ethnic organizations that get blown up, look at the title of the thread...
18 Mar 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut did you not Know we are not killing people from the LRA, I think at the very least we are Killing muslims because they are muslims in the sense that politically it is ok to kill muslims. I take it you think the sixteen children that were killed in afghan were fanatics then. You might wanna stop watching Fox news.
Yes. NATO is blowing up a violent ethnic fanatic organization that has openly attacked one of it's members.
Every one of these groups - and every culture has them - hides behind their ethnicity to protect them from criticism or challenge. This group is no different. It's no different killing them that it is to kill people of the Christian orga ...[text shortened]... LRA it does NOT mean you're killing Christians because they're Christian. Same thing here.
18 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57Violence sucks but their thugs started it. Their civilians need to put their thugs on a leash if they don't want outsiders doing it for them.
But did you not Know we are not killing people from the LRA, I think at the very least we are Killing muslims because they are muslims in the sense that politically it is ok to kill muslims. I take it you think the sixteen children that were killed in afghan were fanatics then. You might wanna stop watching Fox news.
By the way:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/
18 Mar 12
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWe are there for strategic reasons concerning the middle east and it's oil we kicked al'qaeda arse out of afghan years ago.
Violence sucks but their thugs started it. Their civilians need to put their thugs on a leash if they don't want outsiders doing it for them.
By the way:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-sends-100-us-troops-to-uganda-to-combat-lords-resistance-army/
Ref your link, Lol, 100 troops after how many years of rape and slaughter, I remain unconvinced of your argument.
19 Mar 12
8 edits
Originally posted by TerrierJackI watched that movie about Sarah Palin a couple of nights ago. Julianna Moore really transformed herself in the role of Sarah Palin. Ed Harris did ok I guess as McCain. It was interesting how the movie had McCain cursing all the time. -- GD, fu*k, etc.
What I want to know is how do we get Sarah Palin to be the Republican nominee.
Woody Harrelson was good as a lead campaigner, and in some ways seemed relieved that McCain was not elected so that Palin would not be VP and one step away from the presidency (e.g., become president if the old beating heart of McCain gave out). Likewise, the speech writer for Sarah Palin could not bring herself to vote for that reason.
To prepare for the VP debate, the staff and Palin gave up on having her understand many issues, and instead she memorized answers without understanding the meaning.
The movie depicted her as not having any idea what is the Fed. She thought the phrase "The Fed" refered to the federal government generically and had no semblance of notion the Fed was an organization dealing with monerary policy. similarly, she did not know that the England queen is merely a head of state and it is the England prime minister the US would deal with in negotiation, or that Korea is two countries, etc.
I know there is a sizable chunk of Republicans who really love Palin, but I think Tim Pawlenty would have been a much better VP pick for McCain.
McCain and Palin -- the two mavericks.
03 Apr 12
Originally posted by moon1969Condi Rice would have been a much better VP pick than Palin certainly.
I watched that movie about Sarah Palin a couple of nights ago. Julianna Moore really transformed herself in the role of Sarah Palin. Ed Harris did ok I guess as McCain. It was interesting how the movie had McCain cursing all the time. -- GD, fu*k, etc.
Woody Harrelson was good as a lead campaigner, and in some ways seemed relieved that McCain was n ...[text shortened]... ty would have been a much better VP pick for McCain.
McCain and Palin -- the two mavericks.