Time to Arrest the Leaders of the Anti-War Movement,

by LuckyLucy 37 Replies latest social current

• 

  Nathan Natas

  [With apologies to the infidel artist, : Cole Porter]

  TITLE: Brush Up Your Koran

  [From "Kiss Me Khadafi"]

  Brush up your Koran
  Start reading it now
  Brush up your Koran
  And the houris you will wow

  Just declaim a few lines from Osama
  And they'll think you're a heck of a fella
  If your blonde won't respond when you flatter 'er
  Tell her what Yusuf told Zulaikha
  And if still to be shocked she pretends, well
  Just tell her not to dally while she's at the well
  Brush up your Koran
  And they'll all do salah
  Brush up your Koran...

  If your goil is a burkha-clad dream
  Treat the kid to a Midsummer Nights dream
  Take the wife of the French embessida
  and give her a taste of Sharia
  If she says she can't buy it or like it
  Make her take it.. KA-POW! Blow 'er brains to shit
  Brush up your Koran
  And they'll all do salah
  Brush up your Koran...

  If you can't be a martyr and do it
  They will not give a damn or a damnlet
  Just recite an occasional surah
  And your lap'll have Honey upon it
  When your houris is pleading for pleasure
  Let them sample you measure for measure
  Brush up your Koran
  And they'll all do salah
• 

  Abaddon

  Nathan, you seem to be under the misapprehension that the war is against Isalm.

  The war isn't against Islam. Most Muslims are as peacable as most Christians. Viewed over time (i.e. the past 1,500 years), I think most Muslims are more peacable than most Christians.

  Now, can you show the nice boys and girls at home that you actually have a clue, or will you continue to make chillingly similar statements to neo-nazis and completey erroneous linkages?
• 

  hawkaw

  Will ....

  Yeah what about Vietnam?? If more Americans would have stood up to their government and said this war was wrong, less Americans would have lost their lives.

  You are correct. Also, if Kennedy was running the show after 1963, I believe he would have gotten out of that area. One final point ... if America truly went to war in Vietnam instead of fumbling the political ball, they would have been able to win the war and saved many American lives.

  The "fog of war" is a phrase I like the best. It suits this situation well. The "Carter doctrine" is the foreign policy the American's are using. And the American government, for political reasons cannot afford another terrorost attack on its land. It must look like its doing something - no matter what. It will take out those countries it feels can harm it the most because they feel they are at war right now and it will try to rationalize and justify with what ever methods (rightly or wrongly) it comes up with. That is the "fog of war" - right Hillary Step?

  This dictator is pond scum in my mind and truly does need to be replaced. The problem in my mind is and always has to be .... "the end game". What are we replacing him with and what kind of investment are we going to be looking at over the years. Is it worth having tens of thousands of troops in the area or not? What is going to happen to the troops exposed to the chemical weapons. What is going to happen to the oil fields (that are under extreme high pressure and have much more explosive methane gas and posionous/explosive hydrogen sulphide gas compared to the Kuwait wells) that will be demolished.

  The "facts" of the matter are we are already at war. Iraq's weapons have fired on the coalition planes over the years and the air forces are bombing different places in Iraq. American and British special forces are already in the country. As with any war there will be those videos like the "Highway of Hell" from the 1991 Gulf War.

  It should be noted that the facts of the matter are no matter if we do or don't attack Iraq, those Arabs who take issue with Israel (and not Saudia Arabia) are going to come after the USA. Just like the USA, OBL or other terrorist will use whatever rationalization (may it be troops in Saudia Arabia or Israel or we are rich nations or whatever) to "unleash hell".

  Whether this war is right or not - that issue was settled about two months ago ... The war has begun and the major battle is about to start - rightly or wrongly.

  Its time to stop ... no matter what side you are on ... and support our troops who are risking their lives for your freedom.

  As for the peace activitists etc .... they should and will be allowed to protest. To prevent the protests is wrong and it would be polticial suicide.

  hawk
• 

  Simon

  The "facts" of the matter are we are already at war. Iraq's weapons have fired on the coalition planes over the years and the air forces are bombing different places in Iraq. American and British special forces are already in the country. As with any war there will be those videos like the "Highway of Hell" from the 1991 Gulf War.

  It must be noted though that we have been attacking the Iraqi's for the last 10+ years with no UN sanction. The no-fly zones are not a UN thing but an Angl-American (WT phrase ) thing. They have now started bombing ground-targets which is surely the opening shots of a war (without honestly declarnig it) and this has no legitimate claim behind it other than "we want to soften you up in case we decide to invade".

  I would be surprised if they didn't fire back from time to time.
• 

  William Penwell

  George W and the boys seem to think this war will be a cake walk. There is no doubt the Americans will win the war but it maybe more costly than they think it will be. If this war goes longer than the US administration is predicting and the cost are high. When thousands of Americans being sent back in body bags, the economy starts taking a hit etc,. I predict that the American public will turn on the Republican administration faster than a pit bull on a poodle. I would say now that George W will go down in history like his famous daddy did in 1992.

  As far as the Vietnam War was concerned, it was wrong. The US had no business being in there. In the end the communists took over anyway at a lot higher of human cost than if they would never have gone in there.

  Will
• 

  hawkaw

  Well Will .... I think anyone with half a head would recognize that if the war does not go well as per your suggestions that any political master would lose office. Of course the "lamestreet press" will try to set the bar as to what they deem as going well or not. I can still remember the Halfganistan war and how the press thought it was going not well .... balh blah blah ... and then almost all of the country is won ....so then the press went on about how long the Battle at Kandahar was taking and how many American troops are going to die to take Kandahar and look what happened. Then the press went on that ... well ... they didn't get OBL ... so the war failed .... Yeah right.

  The fact of the matter is Bush 43 has NOT said that this war will be a cake walk. In fact he has said the opposite when it comes to the war on terror (and he considers this campaign to be part of the war on terror - rightly or wrongly). It is the lame street press and its pundits that think this war will be a cake walk. The administration has been very careful "not to go there" and it is the democrats who have failed politically to bring this issue up and calling the adminstration to task on the issue.

  I still say that most people in this world refuse to talk or listen about is the after affect - what is the USA administation planning to do with a post war Iraq. Its the same with halfganistan Sure at some point we will get most of these terrorists but ... what do we do with the country and how are we going to be there. From what I see ... it will be decades.

  Just a couple of minor points on Bush 41. Bush 41 did not loose the office over the Iraq war. He lost office because a weak economy and 8 percent unemployment, a division within the Republican party (Ross Perot (sp?)) and doing a 180 degrees on his pledge of no new taxes going out the window. Oddly a few months before Bush 41 was to loose the election, the US economy had turned around based on his administration's low interest rate policy. But Bush 41 was a poor speaker and did not think on his feet very well. What did the "prince of darkness" call him .... oh yeah ... "goofy looking". If Bush 41 had united the "right", kept Ross in check and ... instead of doing the "right" thing (raising taxes) ... kept his his promise .. he would have won that election.

  Bush 41 did win the first war with Iraq and he, along with James Baker should go down in history for their outstanding job at getting the world to rally around the cause. That is how he will be remembered.

  I have already commented on the Vietnam stuff. But the USA, based on its foreign policy (rightly or wrongly) at that time - stop spread on communism - did have an interest in the region. The problem was the USA administrations didn't understand the need to go all the way. As such what the Johnson adminstration did was wrong and thus, should have left when they had the chance (same goes for Nixon).

  hawk
• 

  William Penwell

  Your right it was Senior Bushes poor economic showing that lost him the 1992 election. Same as what is happening now. Junior Bush is hoping that we will forget his poor domestic economic policies by sidetracking the American voters with a war in Iraq. I can't see that by 2004 that the American people will forget these facts and vote him back in with a big majority unless there is a miracle turn around in the economy. But people have short memories and stranger things have happened.

  Will
• 

  hawkaw

  In my mind Will it was a combination of poor economic output, poor speaking ability, 180 degree switch on the tax issue and the split in the conservative vote that killed Bush 41.

  Actually Will ... American output lately has not been that bad. Unemployment is still below 6 percent. Compare that to Bush 41 who had to deal with unemployment at 8 percent. Compare that to Canada's 7.5 percent umemployment (which we are really happy about BTW). The American economy never really went into recession if one actually looks at the numbers. Not bad for a country who immediately lost 50,000 jobs on one beautiful September day in New York.

  Last year the stock market tanked not because things weren't going well but that the "rich boys" were getting caught ripping off the investors. As much as I hate to say it Bush 43 has actually done the right thing (I think he was forced though). Putting new people in play at the SEC and charging/convicting those responsible. He still has to show more back bone though with even tougher enforcement to give the investors a peace of mind. Another thing that really hurt was the Shipping strike on the "left coast". So little lamestreet press play but .... ohhhh .... what a kick in the head to the American economic performance.

  The killer for the American economy is the "perception" to the American people of high oil prices. And fixing that has more to do with the strike in Venezuela than with Iraq. It is so vital that the Bush administration put its eyes and ears to that situation. Fixing that problem will solve things ten times better than any tax cut they propose. I kinda wonder if they, the Americans, will invade Venezuela if that situation is not resolved by the summer. On a side-bar this Ven. strike has to be the weirdest strike I have ever seen - employees wanting to work but management is on strike - go figure. But, the division in Ven. between the rich people and the Government of the day is crippling the American economy more than anything. I kjnow there is no love lost between the American and Venezuela governments. Watch this Ven. event next after Iraq is done (or should I say ... once Iraq is banished to page 30 in the New York Post).

  hawk