Politics: Dear Phillipines…

Thank you for your courageous assistance in the fight against terrorism. If in future you are troubled by terrorists, please don’t hesitate to pick up the phone and shove it up your ass.

View All


  1. Um….

    Although caving in is not generally a good way to deal with terrorists, I’ll admit, it might be something to note that it is still rather questionable whether the whole invasion of iraq has actually furthered our war on terrorism or set it back…

    1. Re: Um….

      Which is an entirely academic excercise, and has nothing to do with the point.

      But for the sake of the argument, I will postulate that the terrorists were taking the battle to us long before we decided to actually do something about it. Now that we are fully engaged in Iraq, and those kooks are streaming into Iraq to take pot shots at us, it is a wonderful thing, because we can hunt them down and shoot them like rabid dogs in Iraq. Can’t do that here.

      1. hahaha…

        “Now that we are fully engaged in Iraq, and those kooks are streaming into Iraq to take pot shots at us, it is a wonderful thing, because we can hunt them down and shoot them like rabid dogs in Iraq.”


      2. Re: Um….

        Entirely academic exercise, Darth????

        I wouldn’t call the deaths of nearly a thousand american soldiers and significantly more iraqi civilians an academic exercise, especially when these deaths are due to our invading the country on incorrect evidence that:
        a) Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction–which he didn’t (well we did find that one artilerry shell… but that seems a bit weak…)

        b) He had a relationship with Al Quaeda–of which the only evidence is that he once tried to contact them and then nothing came of it..

        And… just so you don’t think I’m just waving my hands…
        I would postulate that you are forgetting one important point…
        While it is true that terrorist did attack us before.. and that some of these terrorists are now streaming into Iraq–“where we can hunt them down and shoot them like rabid dogs..” I would also like to bet that our very presence in Iraq is actually CREATING a new generation of terrorists at 10 times the rate that we are hunting them down… (of course.. we have also, for the most part stopped worrying about Afghanistan, where Al quada and the Taliban are regrouping and running around at will…. but that is all forgotten, right???)

        Thus.. it is not particularly out of the question to wonder if our presence in Iraq has actually helped the War on Terror…

        If you are going to fight Terror.. then FIGHT IT.. and don’t use it as an excuse to go haphazardly overthrow a truly terrible and oppresive–YET RELATIVELY SECULAR=NOT RADICAL FUNDAMENTALIST–regime…

        I will now step down…

        1. Re: Um….

          The point was that caving into terrorist demands only fuels terrorist actions in the future. It emboldens them, it solves nothing.

          Hacking ourselves up over whether we had legit reason to invade Iraq is entirely besides the point.

          But here is what has happened because of our involvement in Iraq:
          We have a mid-east foothold for further ecconomic, intelligencia, and militaristic influence in the region. Suddenly Saudi Arabia is once again cooperating with us. Syria is quaking in it’s boots because they are under direct pressure for their recent activity, Iran has divulged it’s dabbling in nukes, and Lybia’s Quadafi has come clean for WMD activity.

          Any strike back at Radical Islamic terrorists is going to (at least temporarily) inspire more numbers of them to war. There is no way to fight back and not incite a fever pitch amongst them. What we *can* do is knock down the most prominent anti-US figurehead in the region, restore his country to peace and prosperity under a democratic and secular government, and prove that we have superior ideas by proving it in their backyards.

          Are we perfect? no. But I don’t believe we are as evil as some would like to think.

          I really believe that history will show that the invasion of Iraq is one of the least bloody, most influential actions in history.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m still voting Libertarian.

          1. Re: Um….

            I have serious questions about your assumptions here, Darth…

            For me, the point I was making is that the whole position that the Phillipines had stopped helping us in the war on Terror is bogus.

            Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror no matter what George Bush may try to say about it. The evidence for this was entirely false from the beginning, and most people who would have bothered to carefully look at the evidence that WE FUCKING POSSESSED WITHIN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT would have seen that we were not, in any way, justified in invading iraq based on the “links to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction” that were the original reasons for going there..

            In Hindsight, the reasoning has now become “look, we are going to make democratic” blah blah blah.. but do you think we really would have been able to justify going to war for that reason?

            If so.. then, hell, let’s invade Saudi Arabia now.. they are way undemocratic, authoritarian, support terrorists all over the place… All they need is some democracy..
            Let’s go join up in the Army, Crank.. it’s just that easy..

            As for Syria quaking?? and Iran divulging results and Libya?? Those may have been partially instigated by our current presence there… but 1) Syria hasn’t been a problem in a long time–remember.. they were on our side the first time we invaded Iraq.. 2) It was the UN that found out about Iranian nuclear secrets–not the US.. 3) Libya is still trying to get sanctions that we put on them after the lockerbie bombing taken off–something that we said we would do after they fessed up and turned “perpetrators” over–but something we then reneged on afterwards.. (and still haven’t done..)

            as for our presence there.. Do you really think that we are going to be able to keep a long term military presence in Iraq over the next 10 years?

            If so, why aren’t we still in Lebanon? Reagen was all hip to that but one cafeteria bombing killing 240 people and we were gone.. not to be heard from again…

            Furthermore.. any continued physical presence there is going to invite attacks and to generate new terrorists at a rate far above our ability to kill them… and it will lead to a state of heightened terrorism…

            Anyway.. if this is our idea of showing that we have superior ideas.. then we are doing a horrible, horrible job of it.. To do that successfully, we would really need to have about 400,000 troops there.. at least that is what most analysts and former military commanders have stated… and it doesn’t seem likely that Bush is willing to make that painful sacrifice…

            Or.. (let’s be conspiracist for just a moment..) Maybe he is.. and maybe that is why there are all these rumors of a draft coming after the election..
            Personally.. I think that would be daft and would earn the republicans a quick exit from control out of both the house and senate.. thus I don’t think it is likely.. but otherwise.. I don’t think we are going to be successful at all in Iraq…

            We weren’t successful in Vietnam either, and before you go and point out that they aren’t the same.. I know this.. but what is similar is that the leaders in charge of both places–namely Diem in S. Vietnam and the new guy in Iraq are anything but democratic leaders.. (Read up on the guy in Iraq–he is a former high level official in Sadaam’s Baathist regime whose only claim to fame in our eyes is that he fell out of favor with Sadaam… )

            I guess we can agree to disagree here.. but I have grave grave doubts about Iraq… Not because the intentions (if we will disreguard all former statements and evidence to the contrary) weren’t good.. Sadaam does and did suck… but rather that good intentions without sufficient execution and enough actions to back them out almost always turn out horribly..

  2. Damn you and your insistence upon reading *and* posting links to the New York Times.

    Fuck em, as a matter of principle, I still won’t sign in to read their drivel.

    1. username: nypost password: nypost

    2. But…

      You sign in here to read our drivel….
      What’s the big difference???

      is it cuz its from the big bad scary liberal NYTimes??? 😉

      Come on, Big Boy.. make up some silly login name like..oh.. I don’t know.. Faruzathetroll, put in a bunch of inaccurate info–make up a fake hotmail account that you will never use again.. and then go read stuff…
      it’s not such a big deal.. it’ll be fun!

      1. Re: But…

        I can read news from damn near any news organization in the world without having to register, why do they think they are special?

        This is really nothing more than a conditioned response on my part, when perusing news articles from around the globe, I click on a NYtimes headline, and suddenly my freedom to read the news is intruded upon by thier insistence that I GIVE THEM SOMETHING FIRST.

        Fuck them I say. If they were the only people with news, or the only people in the world capable of delivering unbiased news, I might. But I can go elsewhere, and I do.

Comments are closed.