About invading Iran....

[PTH]

dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html

Anyone who's pro-invading Iran should read this (though I wonder to what extent the filters here will take our some of the nasty words, so I rephrased a couple of passages, mods, feel free to re-phrase any part that's not acceptable)

---------

I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad
to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia
University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like
that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom
of speech.

I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he
said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct
translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.
What an ass-muncher!

Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Frag him! A myth is
something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and
act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it
does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.

Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't
happen. Frag him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the
historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of
saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of
confusing me. God-damned fragger.

Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language
except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian
words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an a--hole.

Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of
bullsh!t. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons.

The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the
Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd
agree the best course of action for the United States is to be
constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil
as the Iranians. Those fraggers.

Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this
country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our
leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they
damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's
called leadership.

If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and
opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him.
Fragging idiot. I hate him.

[Cranky]

The article is written by someone who either had one too many to drink, a 16 year old or somone who thinks they are cool and smart by liberal use of scatology.

[The Habsome One]

pth said:

dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/09/a-feeling-im-be.html
Anyone who's pro-invading Iran should read this (though I wonder to what extent the filters here will take our some of the nasty words, so I rephrased a couple of passages, mods, feel free to re-phrase any part that's not acceptable)

Were you trying to be sarcastic like the author of that post? Reading that blogger's ridiculous attempt at being clever was a total waste of time.

[PTH]

It's by the author of "Dilbert", and I think the guy has some interesting points. Readingthe mainstream media, you'd think that the Iranian president is a bloodthirsty maniac, but with a step back and a tiny bit of perspective, which I think the admittedly scatological blog post does give us, can be a good thing.

But hey, that's just me.

[Cranky]

....usually you go to these sites to pay your respects AND also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents.......

That is the EXACT, PRECISE quote of this Ahmadinejad piece of sh*t as I just saw it on 60 minutes not more then 10 minutes ago. I also have it on PVR. This is NOT from some translation separated by 17 degrees of translation, nor an ounce of "misunderstanding or misquoting". The ONLY reason he wanted to go there was to grand stand and spit his bullsh!t on the ground 3000 innocent people lost their lives.

I'm finding it hard not to believe that Ahmadinejad is skillfully using and feeding the appeasers.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

I think the only good thing about this letter/opinion is that we live in a society where we can actually speak our minds if we don't agree with something.

As for the opinion itself, the author brings out some good points but looses me with his lack of control. This is exactly the kind of response extremists are looking for when they try to promote their version of Islam.

As far as Invading Iran, I don't think the US public will support any action like this whatsoever. Besides the US national debt now stands a something like $6 trillion now. A war with Iran is not economically viable for them and Bush would probably be removed (though that's only an opinion).

I heard on Glenn Beck the other night that while the USA has spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $340 billion on the war thus far, Russia has become the world's second-leading oil producer. In short, while the US has been spending money they don't have, Russia has been saving theirs ... to the tune of $500 billion (and counting).

And guess what? One of Russia's best customers has been China. In exchange for securing their Easter border, Russia has agreed to increase their oil exports to China ... 5 times more that it.

And it gets better. China is one of the countries responsible for not allowing the American dollar to plumet. They've agreed to stabilize the US dollar by buying "X" quantities of it in exchange for flooding the US market with their goods.

Coming full circle on this, I don't think the US will have the public or international support for a war in Iran. IMHO, I think their closest allies would run for cover if Bush ever went into Iran. His country's national debt would be ... well, let's just say that if the USA economincally goes under, so would a lot of other countries, including Canada.

Now, it Israel launches a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities then all bets will be off. Iran has already said they would retaliate in kind and if that happens then it's hard to know exactly what will happen. The scenario becomes mind boggling.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

I thought it was amusing.

habsaddict said:

....usually you go to these sites to pay your respects AND also to perhaps air your views about the root causes of such incidents.......

That is the EXACT, PRECISE quote of this Ahmadinejad piece of sh*t as I just saw it on 60 minutes not more then 10 minutes ago. I also have it on PVR. This is NOT from some translation separated by 17 degrees of translation, nor an ounce of "misunderstanding or misquoting". The ONLY reason he wanted to go there was to grand stand and spit his bullsh!t on the ground 3000 innocent people lost their lives.

I'm finding it hard not to believe that Ahmadinejad is skillfully using and feeding the appeasers.

Freedom of speech.

disgruntled70shab said:

Coming full circle on this, I don't think the US will have the public or international support for a war in Iran. IMHO, I think their closest allies would run for cover if Bush ever went into Iran. His country's national debt would be ... well, let's just say that if the USA economincally goes under, so would a lot of other countries, including Canada.

Hasn't stopped them in Iraq.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

the US national debt now stands a something like $6 trillion now.

$9 trillion according to www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ In fact, it was over $6 trillion when Iraq was invaded.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Coming full circle on this, I don't think the US will have the public or international support for a war in Iran. IMHO, I think their closest allies would run for cover if Bush ever went into Iran. His country's national debt would be ... well, let's just say that if the USA economincally goes under, so would a lot of other countries, including Canada.

Hasn't stopped them in Iraq.

True, but like I was saying, if Bush gives the order, the USA will probably be their own; no Brits, Auzzies or anyone else.

The world's policeman? Or, the world's sole champion of democracy owner of oil?

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

machabby said:

Hasn't stopped them in Iraq.

True, but like I was saying, if Bush gives the order, the USA will probably be their own; no Brits, Auzzies or anyone else.

The world's policeman? Or, the world's sole champion of democracy owner of oil?

Cheers.

For the moment, there are still Canadians in Afghanistan, which frees up American forces for Iraq and Iran. But I don't think having to do it alone would be a big factor in the decision, since I think it would be completely INSANE whether they have the Brits with them or not. To me, it's not so much a question of how much sense it makes as it is a question of how crazy they are.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

True, but like I was saying, if Bush gives the order, the USA will probably be their own; no Brits, Auzzies or anyone else.

The world's policeman? Or, the world's sole champion of democracy owner of oil?

Cheers.

To me, it's not so much a question of how much sense it makes as it is a question of how crazy they are.

Definitely not a reflection of the American people as a whole. Definitely the reflection of one man vetoing everything Congress recommends that is in contradiction to his agendas.

Fortunately, many countries understand this already. And unfortunately many do not.

Cheers.

[MC Habber]

disgruntled70shab said:

machabby said:

To me, it's not so much a question of how much sense it makes as it is a question of how crazy they are.

Definitely not a reflection of the American people as a whole. Definitely the reflection of one man vetoing everything Congress recommends that is in contradiction to his agendas.

That's true, but it's also true that 60 million people voted for him, twice, and another 100 million eligible voters didn't vote at all. Before someone says it, I'm not trying to say that Canadians are better than Americans. I just wonder to what extent you should hold a population responsible for the actions of its elected government. If people are prepared to bomb Iranian civilians for the actions of a government they did not elect....

[Cranky]

"Freedom of speech" is fine for the article, even if it's looks like something a 16 year old would write.

On the other hand.....

If Ahmadinejad is free to "speak his mind" while standing on the ground where 3000 victims where murdered then why not....

...a KKK rally where Martin Luther King was murdered....

...a pro-gun rally outside Columbine High School...

...better yet, a pro-gun rally inside Dawson with a full size poster of Kimveer Gill holding an AK-47......

Or perhaps the first two are acceptable because, well, you know, they are Americans.

[Cranky]

disgruntled70shab said:

machabby said:

Hasn't stopped them in Iraq.

True, but like I was saying, if Bush gives the order, the USA will probably be their own; no Brits, Auzzies or anyone else.

The world's policeman? Or, the world's sole champion of democracy owner of oil?

Cheers.

For a country that spend a trillion dollars to "own the oil" they certainly haven't see a single liter of it in any American car. I will buy many Anti-American arguments and even agree with some but I can not buy "they started the war to steal the oil". Or in this case to "own the oil".

[ropoflu]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

True, but like I was saying, if Bush gives the order, the USA will probably be their own; no Brits, Auzzies or anyone else.

The world's policeman? Or, the world's sole champion of democracy owner of oil?

Cheers.

For a country that spend a trillion dollars to "own the oil" they certainly haven't see a single liter of it in any American car. I will buy many Anti-American arguments and even agree with some but I can not buy "they started the war to steal the oil". Or in this case to "own the oil".

While increasing or instable oil prices can take an economy down I get the feeling that US domestic supply is probably just a bit more than afterthought, and just another market. Oil companies are global and the market is global. If anything, the USA need steady supply of oil to keep their huge armada afloat and insure continuous domination of the seas.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

disgruntled70shab said:

Definitely not a reflection of the American people as a whole. Definitely the reflection of one man vetoing everything Congress recommends that is in contradiction to his agendas.

That's true, but it's also true that 60 million people voted for him, twice, and another 100 million eligible voters didn't vote at all. Before someone says it, I'm not trying to say that Canadians are better than Americans. I just wonder to what extent you should hold a population responsible for the actions of its elected government. If people are prepared to bomb Iranian civilians for the actions of a government they did not elect....

NOt sure I understand the arguement ....

In todays politics ... more often than not the governing officials are people that the majority of the citizens do not vote for. Almost every election has 20-30% non-voters.

And if you look at Canada ... more people voted against Steven Harper and he is still PM.

George Bush is president for another 2-3 months. I think it is time for people to get over that he was a two-term president ... hanging chads, vote rigging ... the democrats wouldn't have given the office back either. Politicians are all alike ... Corrupt with a capital C.

[Disgruntled70sHab]

habsaddict said:

disgruntled70shab said:

True, but like I was saying, if Bush gives the order, the USA will probably be their own; no Brits, Auzzies or anyone else.

The world's policeman? Or, the world's sole champion of democracy owner of oil?

Cheers.

For a country that spend a trillion dollars to "own the oil" they certainly haven't see a single liter of it in any American car. I will buy many Anti-American arguments and even agree with some but I can not buy "they started the war to steal the oil". Or in this case to "own the oil".

I fully understand and somewhat agree (to a lesser degree) with your opinion, HA. But, I also can't buy into Bush being the world's policeman either. As much as he wants everyone to believe it, he's not promoting Western democracy and values. In fact, he misrepresented it in a big way when he went into Iraq. He outright lied about his intel reports and the terrorist connections he said Iraq had also never existed.

In fact, those countries that harbour terrorist groups have yet to be fingered by Bush. Syria and Saudi Arabia have harboured just about every terrorist group in the region at one time or another. IMHO, Syria doesn't have anything Bush can use, while Saudi-owned American-based companies account for 1/7 of the US GDP.

As to why Bush went into Iraq in the first place, well, the original reasons are out the window. However, he did say early in the campaign that Iraqi oil would be used to offset the cost of his war. I don't know if that's actually occurring or not.

But, here's a clip I think you've probably seen before. It's from Fahrenheit 9-11. Youssef Sleiman of Iraq Initiatives talks about "when the oil starts flowing"

Now I have reservations about the film but Michael Moore hit the nail on the head in quite a few places.

Cheers.

[habmeister]

coincidence that USA only invades countries with oil? coincidence that a texas oil guy with texas oil buddies invades iraq and iran? where is the bin laden search if the priority is finding the bad guys?

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

For a country that spend a trillion dollars to "own the oil" they certainly haven't see a single liter of it in any American car. I will buy many Anti-American arguments and even agree with some but I can not buy "they started the war to steal the oil". Or in this case to "own the oil".

Is the fact that they haven't seen any oil due to them not wanting it in the first place, or because they are too incompentent to actually "benefit" from the invasion?

Alan Greenspan says that the invasion of Iraq "is largely about oil" and that he urged the Bush administration - in his official capacity as Federal Reserve Chairman - to remove Saddam Hussein "to secure world oil supplies."

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security[/size]

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy...

The rest, from the Washington Post

[Disgruntled70sHab]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

For a country that spend a trillion dollars to "own the oil" they certainly haven't see a single liter of it in any American car. I will buy many Anti-American arguments and even agree with some but I can not buy "they started the war to steal the oil". Or in this case to "own the oil".

Is the fact that they haven't seen any oil due to them not wanting it in the first place, or because they are too incompentent to actually "benefit" from the invasion?

Alan Greenspan says that the invasion of Iraq "is largely about war" and that he urged the Bush administration - in his official capacity as Federal Reserve Chairman - to remove Saddam Hussein "to secure world oil supplies."

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

[/size]

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy...

The rest, from the Washington Post[/quote]
BC, you posted something a while back about "Poland protecting their interests." That equated to security of a norther Iraqi oilfield or something?

Remember that by chance?

Cheers.

[BadCompany]

disgruntled70shab said:

BC, you posted something a while back about "Poland protecting their interests." That equated to security of a norther Iraqi oilfield or something?

Remember that by chance?

Cheers.

Yep.

"We have never hidden our desire for Polish oil companies to finally have access to sources of commodities," Mr Cimoszewicz told the Polish PAP news agency.

Access to the oilfields "is our ultimate objective," he added.

- Polish Foreign Minister, Wlodzimierz Cimoszewicz, July 3rd, 2003

The BBC[/color]

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

............to secure world oil supplies.........

Greenspan: Ouster Of Hussein Crucial For Oil Security

[/size]

[/quote]

Regional hegemony for Americans and their allies? Yes.

Making sure the world oil supply flows? Yes.

Americans invading Iraq to stea/take their oil? NO!

While it may be sexy and cool to paint those Ugly-Americans as thieves and and bullies, the reality is that the US is in the region because EVERYONE (other then Iran and Syria) preffers to have their hamfisted hegemony rather then a power vacuum or Iranian hegemony. One may argue the legitimacy of some of those governments but that is not the question here.

You support my argument about Bush's intentions with this statement from Greenspan...."while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive,".

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

George Bush is president for another 2-3 months. I think it is time for people to get over that he was a two-term president ... hanging chads, vote rigging ... the democrats wouldn't have given the office back either. Politicians are all alike ... Corrupt with a capital C.

Aha, so now you buy the vote rigging argument. Though there was funny business in both elections that may have affected the results, my point is that a lot of people did vote for Bush. You can say they didn't have much better options, or that those options didn't have a chance of winning anyway, but ultimately, whose fault is that? The people of a democratic country collectively have the power to excercise some degree of control over that country's policies, and if they fail to organize themselves sufficiently or take enough interest to do so, it is their failure. And I'm not only talking of the last 2 elections; the US has for decades pursued foreign policies which I shall term "immoral," largely without significant attempts by the people to alter course.

It seems to me that while the motives of the leader are often quite different from those of the people, at some point, the people have to take some responsibility for what their country does.

-

On another note, while I don't agree with statements made by Ahmadinejad, it's interesting that he was willing to face a hostile audience and take their questions. That's more than can be said for Bush.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

Regional hegemony for Americans and their allies? Yes.

Making sure the world oil supply flows? Yes.

Americans invading Iraq to stea/take their oil? NO!

While it may be sexy and cool to paint those Ugly-Americans as thieves and and bullies, the reality is that the US is in the region because EVERYONE (other then Iran and Syria) preffers to have their hamfisted hegemony rather then a power vacuum or Iranian hegemony. One may argue the legitimacy of some of those governments but that is not the question here.

You support my argument about Bush's intentions with this statement from Greenspan...."while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive,".

So which carries more weight?

”…securing global oil supplies was not the administration’s motive.”

or…

”…the Iraq War is largely about oil?”

And what to make of the Bush administration offical who said “Well, unfortunately, we can't talk about oil?”

Or the Polish Foreign Minister, who was apparently under no such gag order, and who quite openly stated the only reason his country was in the war was to get oil?

When the man who pretty much runs your economy says that it is “essential” to remove Saddam Hussein for financial/oil reasons, and that he sees “no alternative to war…”

Well, that’s a lot of smoking guns.

Having said that, I think it’s much too simplistic to state that the US invaded Iraq purely for the oil, just as it’s much too simplistic to state that World War I started because Princip shot the Archduke Ferdinand. In reality of course, there are a whole lot of reasons for any war, reasons which tend not to fit into 10 second sound bytes. And yes, oil was one of those reasons for this war, perhaps even the major reason. But not the only one.

If the world was a board game, then the invasion of Iraq would have made sense; the US has more pieces than any other nation, they can stick those pieces in Iraq, threaten Iran, pacify Syria, secure the resource cards in Iraq, install democracy in a Muslim nation and watch the waves of freedom spill over the Middle East. Same logic behind the Vietnam war, actually. The domino effect of democracy, and all that. Substitute “communism” with “democracy”:

The domino theory was a mid-20th century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated that if one land in a region came under the influence of communism democracy, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The domino theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world.

Referring to communism in Indochina, Dwight Eisenhower vocalized the theory:

"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."

Of course, the domino theory of foreign policy, and it’s bastard child the Vietnam war, turned into a huge disaster. But I guess those who don’t know their history… The truth is, the world is not a board game, and simplistic plans based on moving pieces around a map are doomed to failure. They don’t take into account people, tribal hatred, sectarian alliances, covert meddling from outside nations, world apathy, US voters and their short attention span, US politicians playing politics, European politicians playing politics, international terrorists, fundamentalist religions both at home and abroad, Islamic poverty, the unrelated—yet-somehow-related Palestinian issue, national debts, currency rates, incompentence on the ground, or any other intangible that cannot be solved by rolling some dice.

[Cranky]

There was no one who would admit to being a Nazi supporter after Germany was defeated and there was no Mussolini supporter when the Allies took Italy. All those people who use to line the streets to cheer for Hitler and Mussolni got amnesia.

No government from within the people can maintain power if the vast majority of the people take to the streets. It takes a certain amount of complicity and/or silent support for any dictator/government to survive.

Today, the common man in Iran believes in and takes pride in a "right" to have nuclear weapons and support the Hezbollah/Hamas at whatever cost so I don't buy the "innocent" Iranian people argument if the leadership leads them into war. Bush is still supported by 90 million Americans right now and after 9/11 attack, that figure was up to 240 million and he was elected for a second term. Whatever lives and cost are inclured in Iraq, the American people must bear the responsibility. Putin is "loved" even if he has turned the country into a soft dictatorship and whatever atrocities went on in Chechnya.

Of course my argument could be used to "justify" 9/11 and the "Americans deserved it" mentality. Wrong. Intentional and direct murder of innocents is terrorism. Period. If the US had declared war on Saudi Arabia, invade and set about to systematically and intentionally destroy Saudi Arabia then 9/11 could be justified with the same logic that Dresden was justified. Mass murder of innocents in response of mass murder of innocents is not terror if the threshold of mass murder has intentionally breached by one or both sides.

Do undeclared wars, regional conflicts or "fight for freedom" give the same "freedom" to mass murder?

Are Palestinains justified in their actions against Israeli's?

Can any attack on US civilians by Iraqi's be justified if the US has NOT systematically and intentionally taken to mass murder?

Are the Hezbollah justified to take mass reprisals against Israeli civilians if Israel sytematically massed murdered?

If Pakistan government falls and it's taken over by an Islamist regime and there is a nuclear bomb exploded in New York City directly linked to that regime, does the US have a right to annihilate the source of that weapons?

Life is not full of simple answers.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

Of course, the domino theory of foreign policy, and it’s bastard child the Vietnam war, turned into a huge disaster. But I guess those who don’t know their history… The truth is, the world is not a board game, and simplistic plans based on moving pieces around a map are doomed to failure. They don’t take into account people, tribal hatred, sectarian alliances, covert meddling from outside nations, world apathy, US voters and their short attention span, US politicians playing politics, European politicians playing politics, international terrorists, fundamentalist religions both at home and abroad, Islamic poverty, the unrelated—yet-somehow-related Palestinian issue, national debts, currency rates, incompentence on the ground, or any other intangible that cannot be solved by rolling some dice.

I urge you now, for your own health, do NOT persue this line of questioning because there will much crankiness in your future.

If you have reached a point where you have a huge map of the world on your wall and coldly calculating "what if" scenarios that have a "greater good" then you need......you need....you need to chase squirrels up trees, run naked through the woods, chase tail, ANYTHING to get your mind away from it.

Last night, I was listening to Ahmandinajad in Columbia till 4 in the morning. Why? Because I am not chasing squirrels.

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

I urge you now, for your own health, do NOT persue this line of questioning because there will much crankiness in your future.

If you have reached a point where you have a huge map of the world on your wall and coldly calculating "what if" scenarios that have a "greater good" then you need......you need....you need to chase squirrels up trees, run naked through the woods, chase tail, ANYTHING to get your mind away from it.

Last night, I was listening to Ahmandinajad in Columbia till 4 in the morning. Why? Because I am not chasing squirrels.

Don't we all want to rule the world?

[Doc Holliday]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

I urge you now, for your own health, do NOT persue this line of questioning because there will much crankiness in your future.

If you have reached a point where you have a huge map of the world on your wall and coldly calculating "what if" scenarios that have a "greater good" then you need......you need....you need to chase squirrels up trees, run naked through the woods, chase tail, ANYTHING to get your mind away from it.

Last night, I was listening to Ahmandinajad in Columbia till 4 in the morning. Why? Because I am not chasing squirrels.

Don't we all want to rule the world?

...I'm struggling to rule my own household so I'll pass on world ruling until my kids are finally out of that oh! so wonderful time! called their teens

World peace? Oil Supplies? Global economy?

ah! Peanuts...

Try keeping any kind of food in your house when a 16yr old is around or try get your 14yr old daughter to eat more than a cracker a day...
Try keeping your boy out of every girls pants or boyz out of your daughter's pants with the great moral values shown on the internet...
Try to fight off the great influence of such wonderful role models as Marylin Manson...

World leaders should be parents that succesfully went through raising teens...

[franko]

BAD NEWS ALERT!

docholliday said:

...I'm struggling to rule my own household so I'll pass on world ruling until my kids are finally out of that oh! so wonderful time! called their teens

Try keeping any kind of food in your house when a 16yr old is around or try get your 14yr old daughter to eat more than a cracker a day...
Try keeping your boy out of every girls pants or boyz out of your daughter's pants with the great moral values shown on the internet...

I hate to burst your bubble/rain on your parade/smash your dreams . . . but reality check!

After the teen years come the "I can't afford to move out" years, where the boys still make sure that you need a second mortgage so you can buy groceries (hey, kid: if there's nothing to eat in the house why are you eating again -- or is that still?). Of course, he can buy all the latest gadgets and keeps them in his room where he disappears to every time he enters the house unless he wants something from you while claiming poverty and saying that it is unfair that he should be forced to help with any household expenses. And you still worry when the girls are out past when you would like to go to bed (which comes earlier as they grow older -- another unfair part of life) because while you'd like to trust her judgement and strength you remember when you were younger and if the guys she dates are anything like you were . . . . no sleep for you until she gets home!

And that free time you thought you'd have? The empty house? The making up for those nights when the Mrs. was just too worn out for anything but sleep? FORGET IT! You never know when those kids are going to come in and interrupt

World leaders should be parents that succesfully went through raising teens...

And kept their sanity!

[Cranky]

franko said:

BAD NEWS ALERT!

docholliday said:

...I'm struggling to rule my own household so I'll pass on world ruling until my kids are finally out of that oh! so wonderful time! called their teens

Try keeping any kind of food in your house when a 16yr old is around or try get your 14yr old daughter to eat more than a cracker a day...
Try keeping your boy out of every girls pants or boyz out of your daughter's pants with the great moral values shown on the internet...

I hate to burst your bubble/rain on your parade/smash your dreams . . . but reality check!

After the teen years come the "I can't afford to move out" years, where the boys still make sure that you need a second mortgage so you can buy groceries (hey, kid: if there's nothing to eat in the house why are you eating again -- or is that still?). Of course, he can buy all the latest gadgets and keeps them in his room where he disappears to every time he enters the house unless he wants something from you while claiming poverty and saying that it is unfair that he should be forced to help with any household expenses. And you still worry when the girls are out past when you would like to go to bed (which comes earlier as they grow older -- another unfair part of life) because while you'd like to trust her judgement and strength you remember when you were younger and if the guys she dates are anything like you were . . . . no sleep for you until she gets home!

And that free time you thought you'd have? The empty house? The making up for those nights when the Mrs. was just too worn out for anything but sleep? FORGET IT! You never know when those kids are going to come in and interrupt

World leaders should be parents that succesfully went through raising teens...

And kept their sanity!

I am going to say this with all due respect. Have you considered that you shoulder some responsibility for their ability to "cling" to their ways?

For a small fee, you can send them to me and I will phsychological torture, deprogram convince them out of their needy ways.

Yes, I know Franko, it's not that easy.