Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So how long until we war with Iran?

1246

Posts

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Besides, this is all just a matter of time until Ahmedinijad gets thrown out. He's extremely unpopular inside Iran, and alot of them think his rhetoric about Israel and the Holocaust is as stupid as we think it is.

  • SneezerSneezer Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Also, afghanistan is rather rapidly becoming exactly what it was before NATO went in there.

    That's because we broke the first rule of international conflict: Don't invade Afghanistan.

    Our leaders need to play Risk more often.

    Just be glad that he doesn't play defcon

    tmpphp0si07o.jpg
    Available for weddings, bar-mitzvahs and risings of the people against oppressive states.
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    This thread is comedy GOLD.

    Spoiler:
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Seriously though, I could have swore I heard a while back that the Iranian people (not the president or the Ayatollahs) were taking a slightly more open minded stance towards the US.

    Is that true or just wild internet ramblings?

    Spoiler:
  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    How is he supposed to get congress to agree to it?
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Seriously though, I could have swore I heard a while back that the Iranian people (not the president or the Ayatollahs) were taking a slightly more open minded stance towards the US.

    Is that true or just wild internet ramblings?
    Yeah I heard that too... before we royally fucked up Iraq.

  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Its true. Though not so much to America anymore. They arent Arab by and large but I doubt very many Americans can make that distinction.

    Virtue flourishes in the most unexpected places.
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    I think a war with Venezuela is more likely than a war with Iran.

    Although not in the next several years, that's for sure.

    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • edited May 2007
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Its true. Though not so much to America anymore. They arent Arab by and large but I doubt very many Americans can make that distinction.

    This is indeed a very important distinction. These people have a vast and glorious pre-Islamic history which they are (mostly) proud of. I mean, their national epic poem (which I believe is rather strictly banned there) is all about how lame the Arabs are, and fuck them for conquering Persia and making us Islamic.

    So, yeah, they're actually probably one of the most westernized, open-minded Middle Eastern nations, though you wouldn't hear it from their politicians.

    There was a very interesting article in the sunday NYTimes magazine a few weeks back by Thomas Friedman about oil, and it mentioned how in countries with substantial oil revenues, oil prices have a direct inverse correlation to measures of freedom (openness of the press, fairness of elections, etc). As oil prices rise, freedoms and liberalism decline. Which is why Iran no longer has a president who talks about a "dialogue of civilizations" (the 90s wasn't that long ago, was it?), but rather one who denies the Holocaust and is generally batshit insane.

  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Honestly, sometimes I think the best thing for our country right now would be for the government to institute a draft.

    We may be at war with Iraq right now, but if you're not in the military (and didn't read or listen to news) how would you know at all that we're at war? American culture as a whole really hasn't made any sacrifice for this war, at Bush's request. After 9/11 there was a window of opportunity where he could have (and maybe should have) asked Americans to just about anything and we probably would have done it. But what did he do? He tells our nation to just go on doing what they're doing and that he'll take care of everything.

    It's that apathetic nature that I believe is what kept Bush from being voted out in 2004. If us civvies were forced into a draft and were made to sacrifice for the war. I think that would stir the nation into a more active role in its government and serious changes would be made.

    One can hope anyway.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    VoodooV wrote: »
    Honestly, sometimes I think the best thing for our country right now would be for the government to institute a draft.

    We may be at war with Iraq right now, but if you're not in the military (and didn't read or listen to news) how would you know at all that we're at war? American culture as a whole really hasn't made any sacrifice for this war, at Bush's request. After 9/11 there was a window of opportunity where he could have (and maybe should have) asked Americans to just about anything and we probably would have done it. But what did he do? He tells our nation to just go on doing what they're doing and that he'll take care of everything.

    It's that apathetic nature that I believe is what kept Bush from being voted out in 2004. If us civvies were forced into a draft and were made to sacrifice for the war. I think that would stir the nation into a more active role in its government and serious changes would be made.

    One can hope anyway.


    The only problem with that approach is whatever politician seriously proposes it may well get lynched.

    Then? Maybe it would have had some power. Now? Nobody wants to go to war with the kind of leadership we've been scrapping from the barrel, nor with the "intel" dregs we've been getting either.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Seriously though, I could have swore I heard a while back that the Iranian people (not the president or the Ayatollahs) were taking a slightly more open minded stance towards the US.

    Is that true or just wild internet ramblings?

    Well, the position of the hardliners has been weakening as of late. Ahmadinejad's crew has been losing support and seats in other parts of the government, and there has been a decent amount of backlash against him. I'm not sure that they are "open minded" towards the US, but there is a growing opposition to the antagonism against the west.
    Honestly, sometimes I think the best thing for our country right now would be for the government to institute a draft.

    We may be at war with Iraq right now, but if you're not in the military (and didn't read or listen to news) how would you know at all that we're at war? American culture as a whole really hasn't made any sacrifice for this war, at Bush's request. After 9/11 there was a window of opportunity where he could have (and maybe should have) asked Americans to just about anything and we probably would have done it. But what did he do? He tells our nation to just go on doing what they're doing and that he'll take care of everything.

    It's that apathetic nature that I believe is what kept Bush from being voted out in 2004. If us civvies were forced into a draft and were made to sacrifice for the war. I think that would stir the nation into a more active role in its government and serious changes would be made.

    One can hope anyway.

    We've had this argument in earlier threads, but I think that supporting the draft on these grounds is really stupid. Your main goal, which is to get out of Iraq, is much more straightforward to accomplish without resorting to introducing suffering or threatening suffering to a large group of unwilling people. I won't get in the issues of the efficacy of a draft from a military standpoint as they aren't that relevant when compared to the political issues.

    But really, instituting a draft in the current climate has a snowball's chance in hell compared to congress pushing through a timetable for withdrawal. It would be silly to think otherwise.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    I think he meant that instituting a draft would make our leaders think much more carefully about sending troops into combat overseas, and it would force the public to actually consider it as "do we really want to let a bunch of our people get killed for this cause?" So it would be considered when in the planning stages, not as it applies to Iraq right now.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    I think he meant that instituting a draft would make our leaders think much more carefully about sending troops into combat overseas, and it would force the public to actually consider it as "do we really want to let a bunch of our people get killed for this cause?" So it would be considered when in the planning stages, not as it applies to Iraq right now.

    Eh, could be. I doubt a draft would be a realistic proposition even in that situation though. There could be other measures less than a draft that could accomplish similar ends though, such as prevention of running the war on the dole. But compusary service has had a severe mark on it from the Vietnam days that probably won't go away any time soon even if there is an upswell in patriotism such as following 9/11.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    plsu the fact that a conscript army is worse than useless these days....

  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    No I meant it as Savant described earlier. And yes, I know its a rather unethical means of getting us out of Iraq, mandating that civvies be drafted, and therefore, inevitably die, just to stir the people up so that something is finally, truly, done instead of just more rhetoric.

    I just feel that at this point, Bush isn't going to change, that asshole is just going to ride it out and let the next president clean up the mess he made. I know it will never happen, but I believe he should be impeached. I'm not entirely confident that the next batch of presidential wannabes will do a much better job and I just figure that the only way to change that is to increase the outrage of your average American in regards to this war. And what better way than to stir up that rage is to make your average joe fight this war and not just volunteers.

    Once again, yes, I realize its a shitty way of doing it, but that I think it would work. But yeah, as Derrick suggested, I doubt it will ever happen as any politician that seriously suggests it will be committing career suicide. It may not be a good way, but were it to happen. I'd be willing to bet we'd get out of Iraq VERY quickly if more of your average citizenry was forced to shoulder the burden of fighting the war.

  • VoodooVVoodooV Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hell, all you really gotta do to end this war is draft two people: The Bush daughters.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    VoodooV wrote: »
    No I meant it as Savant described earlier. And yes, I know its a rather unethical means of getting us out of Iraq, mandating that civvies be drafted, and therefore, inevitably die, just to stir the people up so that something is finally, truly, done instead of just more rhetoric.

    I just feel that at this point, Bush isn't going to change, that asshole is just going to ride it out and let the next president clean up the mess he made. I know it will never happen, but I believe he should be impeached. I'm not entirely confident that the next batch of presidential wannabes will do a much better job and I just figure that the only way to change that is to increase the outrage of your average American in regards to this war. And what better way than to stir up that rage is to make your average joe fight this war and not just volunteers.

    Once again, yes, I realize its a shitty way of doing it, but that I think it would work. But yeah, as Derrick suggested, I doubt it will ever happen as any politician that seriously suggests it will be committing career suicide. It may not be a good way, but were it to happen. I'd be willing to bet we'd get out of Iraq VERY quickly if more of your average citizenry was forced to shoulder the burden of fighting the war.

    Representative Rangel has brought up a draft bill periodically over the last couple of years with similar motivations as you have. However, it has pretty much been buried immediately everytime, and accomplished little more than being a political stunt. He has a left enough and strong enough political base that I doubt it has hurt his career much though.

    That's also one of the main reasons why I attack the draft on the grounds of feasibility whenever it comes up. There is too much evidence suggesting it is politically impossible in the current climate.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    "It'll never pass" isn't an argument on why it shouldn't pass, but it seems to be the consistent one against a draft on these forums and it's kind of annoying. The only reason it has an unlikely chance to pass is because people refuse to seriously discuss it in mainstream media. Obviously it's necessary for politicians to have that kind of mindset but when citizens and journalists (political commentators, for those of you who don't speak American) do it and it impacts their opinion of the issue then it's just retarded. Conscription should be a fucking amendment, as far as I'm concerned.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I thought the consistent argument against the draft was that it was morally wrong to force people to shoot foreigners just because their boss/president/commanding officer says so.

    And I think you're too innocent - rich and powerful people will always have ways of keeping their kids out of trouble. The answer isn't a draft to wake people up - the answer is stop voting for morally bankrupt warmongers.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2007
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I thought the consistent argument against the draft was that it was morally wrong to force people to shoot foreigners just because their boss/president/commanding officer says so.

    And I think you're too innocent - rich and powerful people will always have ways of keeping their kids out of trouble. The answer isn't a draft to wake people up - the answer is stop voting for morally bankrupt warmongers.

    You overestimate Americans. As David Cross said, the people pulling the voting levers don't care about that kind of thing. They just want the $300 Sharper Image gift certificate that one candidate promised.

  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited May 2007
    It's times like these that I wish the United States government hadn't re-installed the Shah into power after a democratic revolution threw him out in the 1950s.

    Fixed that for you.

    Whoops! Our bad.

    sig.gif
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »
    I thought the consistent argument against the draft was that it was morally wrong to force people to shoot foreigners just because their boss/president/commanding officer says so.

    And I think you're too innocent - rich and powerful people will always have ways of keeping their kids out of trouble. The answer isn't a draft to wake people up - the answer is stop voting for morally bankrupt warmongers.

    You overestimate Americans. As David Cross said, the people pulling the voting levers don't care about that kind of thing. They just want the $300 Sharper Image gift certificate that one candidate promised.

    Yeah, I think somebody's missing the subtle point that back in 2001-2003 or so we were a nation of warmongers. The president was, at the time, reflecting the will of the people. So it's unreasonable to assume that the people would stop electing warmongers until they stop being warmongers themselves.

    Having one's kid forcibly sent to Mosul to play bomb magnet might just do the trick. Granted, as has been pointed out in the many draft threads some subset of those warmongers would probably support the idea, thinking it makes their kid a man or whatever. But you can bet your sweet ass that a ton of parents, regardless of their political leanings, would be none to pleased at the idea.

    But this is all irrelevant now. There's no way such a thing is possible with an ongoing war...it would have to have been implemented before the war started.


    Anyway, Iran. Short of a draft, we don't have the forces. Even with a draft, we don't really have the equipment. Not gonna happen.

  • SavantSavant Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hoz wrote: »
    "It'll never pass" isn't an argument on why it shouldn't pass, but it seems to be the consistent one against a draft on these forums and it's kind of annoying. The only reason it has an unlikely chance to pass is because people refuse to seriously discuss it in mainstream media. Obviously it's necessary for politicians to have that kind of mindset but when citizens and journalists (political commentators, for those of you who don't speak American) do it and it impacts their opinion of the issue then it's just retarded. Conscription should be a fucking amendment, as far as I'm concerned.

    This is rather naive. Each time that Rangel has brought up the draft over the past few years the media has covered it and made some noise. Maybe you haven't noticed it, but I remember hearing about it multiple times and saying "not this again" to myself. It's not a matter of the media or reprogramming or anything like that.

    And, like I said before I doubt even in a overpatriotic period such as following 9/11 that you could push a draft through. Vietnam killed the notion of drafting people for wars in bumfuck nowhere or even in preparation for such. There are going to need to be some major changes before a draft will be institiuted democratically here.

  • danielof2k6danielof2k6 __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    To those of you who sneer at the possibility of a draft,

    How can you be so clueless???

    When the American military is already stretched beyond it's means in a foreign occupation, what makes you think the government would HESITATE to draft us in the event of a national emergency (I.E.: following the next inevitable disaster).

    Let's be honest here, if we go to war with Iran or any other country, if ANYTHING tips us beyond our capacity, we are going to see a draft. And considering the current state of America, I don't foresee people fighting back like they did in the '60's. No. We were shocked and appauled at protests being violently broken up back then,
    but now: we have become used to the notion that protestors will be oppressed, under the Patriot Act anybody who commits a criminal act may be labeled a terrorist. In effect; Draft dodgers will be thrown in prison as will the general opposition of a draft, or war with Iran etc.

    I wish I could claim tinfoil hat on this but I see it happening and it scares me.

  • danielof2k6danielof2k6 __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    It also scares me that people continue to deny the possibility for war with Iran, when so many officials and the commander in chief himself are visibly burning bridges with Iran.

    I watched Condoleeza Rice DENY that Iran ever offered to sit down and talk with America, all while Iranian civillians are crying out in protest. 'We are not the enemy'. Politicians in the middle east are desperate to avoid becoming the next Iraq, and the current administration won't even acknowledge their offers for peace.

    Is none of this a cause for concern?? Does war with Iran really seem that impossible?? Like I said, read the writing on the walls.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    When the American military is already stretched beyond it's means in a foreign occupation, what makes you think the government would HESITATE to draft us in the event of a national emergency (I.E.: following the next inevitable disaster).

    The election process? I mean, it'd probably happen because it would be necessary...but trust me, they'd hesitate.
    Let's be honest here, if we go to war with Iran or any other country, if ANYTHING tips us beyond our capacity, we are going to see a draft. And considering the current state of America, I don't foresee people fighting back like they did in the '60's. No. We were shocked and appauled at protests being violently broken up back then,
    but now: we have become used to the notion that protestors will be oppressed, under the Patriot Act anybody who commits a criminal act may be labeled a terrorist. In effect; Draft dodgers will be thrown in prison as will the general opposition of a draft, or war with Iran etc.

    I wish I could claim tinfoil hat on this but I see it happening and it scares me.

    Wrong-o. It's been said before, I'll say it again: the level of apathy somebody can manage about something is inversely proportional to the direct effect is has on them. When you can be forcibly sent to go get blown up, you're a helluva lot more likely to go start up a protest. And provided we aren't talking about illegal immigrants, when that protest gets broken up that's some voter's kid getting shot in the face with rubber bullets. That's a voter's kid getting sent to jail. That voter has friends, and other family members, and coworkers. Whose kids may also be in school. And who also may be facing a draft. And so on, and so forth.

    The entire political dynamic of wars and war protests changes under a draft.

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Don't see the draft (moral considerations aside) as a fix for these kinds of war.

    It's been my experience that conscription solidifies and calcifies existing conflicts by making the entire population involved in the violence.

    Something I've seen time and time again is that getting shot at by people, and seeing your friends shot at and killed, changed peoples opinions. People who might otherwise be open-minded or tolerant of the 'enemy' come to hate them. And why not? The 'enemy' tried to kill them!

    I've seen this with Turkish men and their attitudes to the Kurds, to British soldiers in Northern Ireland in the 70s, Israeli soldiers and many more. When an entire generation gets sent out to fight, they WILL end up hating the enemy, regardless of whether there's a good reason for the war.*


    *(If such a thing exists)

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    posh and McDermott both have decent points. There is many a WW2 vet in Australia who just outright hates all the Japanese, and they certainly aren't afraid to tell you so. And you know what, that's the damn right they fought for I suppose, so I'm hardly going to say they shouldn't - but by the same token, it's not really the greatest thing to have decades later.

    Buuut....McDermott is also right in the sense that the less something affects you the more apathetic you can be about it. I would argue to a certain extent this is necessary - an effective leader is the one who balances understanding those under his command with knowing that he has a job to be done. But, by the same token, it does mean that attitudes such as mine pre-Iraq can exist more easily "well we should try it at least once" <- oh man was I misguided lol etc.

    I don't think a draft is really the answer we're looking for, I think effective leadership is the answer we're looking for. Iraq might have turned out quite differently had it been remotely well planned, people serving there might actually feel like they're doing something good and useful rather then being set up to be the next round of vietnam-vets. Alternatively it might never have happened because damnit Afgahnistan was the much better bet regarding country building but it's virtually off the radar now. Whatever the case, it's fairly certain that people are pissed enough now that whatever the reason there will be no ground occupation of Iran. This of course doesn't preclude the media friendly "bombing the fuck out of them" campaign.

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    To those of you who sneer at the possibility of a draft,

    How can you be so clueless???

    When the American military is already stretched beyond it's means in a foreign occupation, what makes you think the government would HESITATE to draft us in the event of a national emergency (I.E.: following the next inevitable disaster).

    Let's be honest here, if we go to war with Iran or any other country, if ANYTHING tips us beyond our capacity, we are going to see a draft. And considering the current state of America, I don't foresee people fighting back like they did in the '60's. No. We were shocked and appauled at protests being violently broken up back then,
    but now: we have become used to the notion that protestors will be oppressed, under the Patriot Act anybody who commits a criminal act may be labeled a terrorist. In effect; Draft dodgers will be thrown in prison as will the general opposition of a draft, or war with Iran etc.

    I wish I could claim tinfoil hat on this but I see it happening and it scares me.

    Well, at least you can take comfort in the fact that you are wrong.

    The government would hesitate to institute a draft because they would lose their jobs in the elections 18 months from now and no longer be the government.

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited May 2007
    A draft is politically impossible.
    Therefore a draft will never happen.
    We have a crapload of troops in Europe doing nothing, the government will use those, and possibly stretch the national guard some more.
    Also, Iran isn't stupid enough to do anything to give us the ammo to declare war on them and not have it be a international political disaster.
    The Iranian people are sick of Ahmedinijad's rhetoric, and they want the old guard back.
    The old guard may have similar goals to Ahmedinijad, but they know how to do it quietly enough so that they don't cause a ruckus.
    No war with Iran=no draft.

  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited May 2007
    KNYTE's PM wrote:
    Having a debate is tough when there isn't anyone arguing against you, kinda makes it not a debate a more a "you there by yourself" situation. So putting me down until I get fed up and leave doesn't mean you "win", it just means you were being an ass totally without reason. You had some good arguements, some I even would've been happy to discuss with you further, you just need to learn to voice them without filling them malice and half-baked insults.

    That is all.

    Did everyone get one of these, or does KNYTE just fancy me?

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    KNYTE's PM wrote:
    Having a debate is tough when there isn't anyone arguing against you, kinda makes it not a debate a more a "you there by yourself" situation. So putting me down until I get fed up and leave doesn't mean you "win", it just means you were being an ass totally without reason. You had some good arguements, some I even would've been happy to discuss with you further, you just need to learn to voice them without filling them malice and half-baked insults.

    That is all.

    Did everyone get one of these, or does KNYTE just fancy me?

    Now I'm jealous.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited May 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    KNYTE's PM wrote:
    Having a debate is tough when there isn't anyone arguing against you, kinda makes it not a debate a more a "you there by yourself" situation. So putting me down until I get fed up and leave doesn't mean you "win", it just means you were being an ass totally without reason. You had some good arguements, some I even would've been happy to discuss with you further, you just need to learn to voice them without filling them malice and half-baked insults.

    That is all.

    Did everyone get one of these, or does KNYTE just fancy me?

    Now I'm jealous.

    Maybe he has a sibling.

    The bolded part is my favourite - it just smacks of someone who's spent most of their time arguing with 14yr olds. If I was really feeling cruel I'd have corrected it for spelling and grammar and then returned it with a mark out of ten. :lol:

  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Hmm, I thought I was meaner about than you and I didnt get one. But yes, the overall American knowledge of the middle east scares me. How many even realize there is a difference between the Kurds and Sunni's? Or that they arent both Arab.

    Virtue flourishes in the most unexpected places.
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Hmm, I thought I was meaner about than you and I didnt get one. But yes, the overall American knowledge of the middle east scares me. How many even realize there is a difference between the Kurds and Sunni's? Or that they arent both Arab.

    Meh. I think the ignorance of American voters is generally overestimated.

  • hawkboxhawkbox Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I kind of doubt that unfortunately.

    Virtue flourishes in the most unexpected places.
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    hawkbox wrote: »
    Hmm, I thought I was meaner about than you and I didnt get one. But yes, the overall American knowledge of the middle east scares me. How many even realize there is a difference between the Kurds and Sunni's? Or that they arent both Arab.

    Meh. I think the ignorance of American voters is generally overestimated.

    Wow... I think the ignorance of American's is vastly underestimated.

    I mean, hell, the people prosecuting this war can't tell the difference between Shite and Sunni's, you're telling me Joe No-Pack who just went to vote so they could finally legalize pot has that knowledge somewhere down there?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2007
    Yeah, I know. It's fun to feel like you're better than other people.

  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Yeah, I know. It's fun to feel like you're better than other people.

    seriously, what does that have to do with anything? We have a voter turnout that hovers around 20% every year, public opinion polls that STILL show the majority of people believe that Saddam was somehow involved with September 11th... hell, there is still a significant portion of the population that believes we found WMDs in Iraq.

    It has nothing to do with feeling superior, but how can you argue that a large portion of the population is almost completely oblivious to anything happening beyond their front door?

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • NickTheNewbieNickTheNewbie Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
Sign In or Register to comment.