On Aug 21, 5:04 pm, "Edward Dolan" wrote:
"DennisTheBald" wrote in message

...



Once again, a motorist - a member of a large class of people that have
a demonstrated propensity to run over and kill 44,000 people each
year (most of whom are other motorists) is claiming that the people
that they are running over and killing are somehow producing the
element of danger by being in a place where a motorist might wish to
motor.

There is coffee brewing, wake up and smell it you ****ing morons: cars
are dangerous; cars are dangerous to pedestrians, cars are dangerous
to bicyclists, cars are dangerous to motorists most of all.

The situation is that either these 44,000 deaths in the US each year
are merely accidents and no one is at fault (it could have happened to
anyone), in which case everyone that operates a motor vehicle is
equally culpable for these deaths whether they were involved in such
an incident or not (because it could have happened to anyone that was
driving one of these murderous contraptions). Or these incidents are
situations in which a motor vehicle operator was negligent and should
be held accountable for their actions (hang 'em!). Neither of these
situations involve the idea of blaming the non-motoring public for
being run over by these reckless, mindless idiots.

Maybe if gas goes to $100 a gallon, that will permanently solve the problem
of motorists killing everything in sight.

The thing that gets me is how liberals complain about our war losses when
they don't amount to a hill of beans compared to how many are being killed
on our highways - or even to how many are being murdered by hoodlums in the
streets of our big cities. Go figure!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

The argument that we should neglect military losses in IRAQ because
more people are killed in traffic accidents in US is incredibly
insulting - to our military and to common sense.

Why ask military to get killed in a war that failed to achieve it
stated military objective GAINING CONTROL OVER WMDs ?

Well OK we all know now that pre-war WMD hysteria was utter BS -
that real goal was to occupy IRAQ, perhaps control the oil, perhaps
build permanent military bases there. Whatever it was - people that
were responsible for IRAQ did everything possible to screw it up.
They disbanded the Iraqi army - rendering couple hundred thousands
weapon savvy Iraqis jobless - that is what started insurgency and
what made it impossible to control. Then they banned all the Baath
part members from holding any offices. That created political vacuum
that was promptly filled by islamist from Shiite and Sunni group -
so current government in Iraq is anti-American and pro-Islamist.
And you are asking military to die for mistakes that idiots like
Bush's protege Paul Bremmer and others in Washingon made.

Iraq could have been stable 10 times over with no insurgency and no
al-Qaeda volunteers crossing from Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to
wreck havoc there. If we worked with resources and groups that were
there on the ground - Iraqi army and Baath Party.

But that was not good enough for "war on terror" propagandists in
Washington. They wanted some argument to justify invasion and the
fat multibillion dollar contracts that their friends in defense
industry were getting out if it. So insurgency was a God-sent and
the utterly INSANE idea equating invasion to "war on terror" could
have been justified by images of terror in Iraq.
Fact remains - insurgency was led by disgruntled former members of
of Iraqi military. alQaeda in Iraq is just taking opportunity of
chaos and anarchy to train volunteers from neighbouring countries
and Iraq in urban warfare and terrorism.

But all that has NO EFFECT whatsoever on fighting threat to the
West which are terrorist cells that alQaeda managed to build using
billions given them semi-legally by Saudis (which we conveniently
ignore why our people die in Iraq). To combat alQaeda in the West
we have to invest in intelligence gathering and police type of work
and that does not smell like big bucks to all those traitors in
Bush's administration to pushed for invading Iraq. They rather
waste another trillion on useless fighting of some barefoot kids
setting up IEDs in Iraq rather than spend few billions on what '
would really make us safer - securing our borders and intelligence
gathering. Not to mention - putting serious political (and perhaps
even military) pressure on Saudis to stop ALL forms of funding for
alQaeda and affiliated radical islamist organizations. Without
support from Saudis and the network of Wahhabism-preaching mosques
all over the globe alQaeda would be dne in a year. But nothing is
done - all those traitors sit deep in Saudi pockets.

Asking anybody to die for BS that Iraq really is is simply
insulting. And so are any arguments that start from "typical
liberal blah blah". You are not talking to a group of retards,
Edwards Dolan. You want respect? Well give people some respect
and then ask for it. Instead you insult everybody here and then
whine that people do not like you. Well, I guess that does not
really matter - trolls like you thrive on abuse.