And by Saddam leaving involuntarily he means someone's finger accidentally slips and drops a couple nuclear warheads on Iraq... kinda reminds me of the Simpsons episode where they all undergo electroshock therapy together...Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday outlined three scenarios that could avert a war against Iraq: Saddam Hussein leaves voluntarily and is followed by new leadership that abides by international law; Saddam leaves involuntarily; or Saddam adheres to U.N. resolutions.
War and the Simpsons
War and the Simpsons
Taken from CNN.com:
"I snatched defeat from the jaws of victory." --Paul
---
(Emails > PMs)
---
(Emails > PMs)
IF you haven't seen this yet, and have a high speed connection, it's pretty funny. (If you are anti-war, this may raise your blood pressure.)
http://brain-terminal.com/articles/vide ... otest.html
http://brain-terminal.com/articles/vide ... otest.html
-
Lame Wade
Political crap.
Hey, This a sight about climbing. Don't go stirring a bunch of political crap here unless its political crap about climbing. And only do that on the flame board. We talk about serious climb issues here. Climbing is serious business and we don't need no stinking Rumsfeld here.
Is Rumsfeld a jewish name?
Is Rumsfeld a jewish name?
I thought it was funny, but disappointing. If you read the bio, you'll see that this guy's political/media sense was formed by low-right talk radio. The interview piece is, in the end, weak because it chickens out about stating it's position clearly. It shields its position from examination by never really stating it at all, let alone clearly. (e.g. he never does state why he thinks there should be any time limit on inspectons. no, it isn't just obvious) Bawk bawk bawk (chicken noises)kato wrote:IF you haven't seen this yet, and have a high speed connection, it's pretty funny. (If you are anti-war, this may raise your blood pressure.)
http://brain-terminal.com/articles/vide ... otest.html
I disagree that it was 'only humorous.' I think that the 'author' was really trying to undermine the points made by the protesters. A lot of low-right media is preaching to the choir. (Who but a conservative could stand listening to Rush?) In this case, the message to people who support the administration's actions is 'don't listen to the protestors, they're obviously all idiots.' It was funny, but his site existis to make political points - it's interesting, look around.kato wrote:Tom;
I think this piece was more for humor than to make any political statement, that's why he doesn't specifically state a position. Using ad hominem arguments doesn't make your position look all that good, although I know it's de rigueur for this board (excuse my French!).
M.
I'll come back to his question about 'how long should the inspectors be allowed to work?' His question carries in it the implied assumption that there must be a time limit. If I remeber correctly, one of the protestors asks him why there should be a limit, but in the piece he doesn't doesn't respond to this. When preaching to the choir, it is assumed that there should be a limit (and further, that it has already been exceeded). This aproach is simply an element of the style. For what it's worth, Micheal Moore does the same sort of thing, but for the forces of good.
I don't think that this is an ad hominem attack - I'm not saying that the speaker is bad, and thus anything he says must be bad. Rather this is a very specific critique of the 'author's' method of persuasion. (But I AM calling his technique 'chicken' because it very specifically avoids exposing itself to direct analysis)