Well, the president's dog died yesterday, so I decided to make a comic about it. That hick-ass hillbilly motherfucker and his fucking mutt.

The President's Dog Died, Boo-Frickin'-Hoo by possums 2-22-04

Well, folks, my dog died yesterday. I'm so grief-stricken... *sob*...... *sob*... Any money you want to send to "Buddy's Funeral Fund" would be mighty helpful. Thanks, god bless, 9/11, terrorist, Al Qaeda.

She was called Spot, not Buddy.

So you're saying the defense department doesn't keep contingency plans for invading and managing countries around the world, based on the most current intelligence and strategic thinking?

That's funny, because I know different.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

---
i want to piss on you

graykane, do you honestly think I give two shits about the presidents dog.

andydougan corrected you. i just added a cute little photo, because the dog's sexy.

---
i want to piss on you

So you're saying the defense department doesn't keep contingency plans for invading and managing countries around the world, based on the most current intelligence and strategic thinking?

That's funny, because I know different.

---

HA! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Under a different regime, maybe. But this one has derailed such things.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

The Bush administration shut down strategic contingency planning in the defense departmant..

Ok whatever you say.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Yeah right. They've done a bang-up job of keeping the peace in Iraq so far.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

quote:

---

The Bush administration shut down strategic contingency planning in the defense departmant..

Ok whatever you say.

---

Close enough for you. Rational people understand.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Compared to what could have happened, yes, they have.

I find it funny you have co-opted the term "rational", Spankling, while arguing that the administration deliberately and secretly dismantled one of the defense department's most important objectives, and then succesfully waged two foreign wars.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Compared to what could have happened, yes, they have.

---

So only 500+ dead U.S. soldiers since the "war" ended isn't that bad, eh MaKK? Maybe you'd feel a little differently if one of those 500 happened to be a friend or a family member of yours.

Or maybe you wouldn't.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

Are you really a dunce or do you just play one on the web? Stuffing words into mouths and then being boggled by them is a game for retards. I don't fully reply to your comments because they don't merit it.
--------------------------

On another note

quote:

---

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

---

Read more...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

So only 500+ dead U.S. soldiers since the "war" ended isn't that bad, eh MaKK? Maybe you'd feel a little differently if one of those 500 happened to be a friend or a family member of yours.

Or maybe you wouldn't.

---

Speaking of stuffing words into mouths, I thought we were talking about a civil war in Iraq.

But yeah, 500 dead isn't that bad. Especialy since after the military victory we could have just pulled out, instead of staying to do the job no one else could.

If 500 Americans dead is the big issue with you, are you saying it would have been best all around if we left Iraq after an end to major combat?

You're starting to sound like MikeyG saying "if your family died of AIDS, then you'd be sorry!!!"

Great argument. Also military men and women sign up voluntarily, they know the risks.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

quote:

---

Well, the president's dog died yesterday, so I decided to make a comic about it. That hick-ass hillbilly motherfucker and his fucking mutt.

The President's Dog Died, Boo-Frickin'-Hoo by possums 2-22-04

Well, folks, my dog died yesterday. I'm so grief-stricken... *sob*...... *sob*... Any money you want to send to "Buddy's Funeral Fund" would be mighty helpful. Thanks, god bless, 9/11, terrorist, Al Qaeda.

---

Does disagreeing with someone politically mean you have to be a dick to them?

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

Huh? A civil war doesn't affect anyone in Iraq besides the Iraqi citizens themselves?

quote:

---

But yeah, 500 dead isn't that bad. Especialy since after the military victory we could have just pulled out, instead of staying to do the job no one else could.

If 500 Americans dead is the big issue with you, are you saying it would have been best all around if we left Iraq after an end to major combat?

---

Duh, obviously not. There was that matter of rebuilding the mess we created. Of course, if we hadn't gone in in the first place...

Oh wait, you don't wanna hear that, now do you?

It's true. You would be sorry...I think. I dunno...I hate to say it, but you don't strike me as being a terribly compassionate human being, so maybe not.

You are absolutely right. However, they have no choice in whether they go over there not...unless they go AWOL and want a black mark on their military record.

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

If we weren't trying to manage or prevent one, it wouldn't affect our troops. Spankling said that we were taken by surprise by "a civil war" in Iraq because the "regime [Bush]" had stopped all strategic military planning in the defense department.

quote:

---

Duh, obviously not. There was that matter of rebuilding the mess we created. Of course, if we hadn't gone in in the first place...

Oh wait, you don't wanna hear that, now do you?

---

It's not "part of the mess" it's "part of the war". Spankling was brandishing about the phrase "since the end of major combat", as if the two things were seperate items, as if we could wage the war against Saddam's military, then leave. It's part of the military objectives, the ones Spankling said "HA!" to, in respect to them existing at all.

Well, if you had family members die in the war, you'd be sorry too!!!

So what? And again you come back to:

They can't go AWOL because it's not an option they give you when you sign up! "You know, we might go to war where your life could be endangered, but we have an AWOL option you can exercise at that point."

Thanks for adding nothing. More than Spankling has tried to add though.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

---

Actually MakK is almost right, here, if I understand the statement, which doesn't go quite far enough. A divided postwar Iraq is more like the contingency that is being planned for. The potential for any other situation is remote. I think this assessment is at the center of DoD planning, just not the PR.

---
What others say about boorite!

It could be argued. The general consensus seems to be that there really didn't seem like an inordinate amount of planning involved, and that's the reason I said 'DOUBLE HA'.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

Exactly. Post-war planning had plenty of time given W was hot on going to war from day one. But little to none was evident.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/13/news-cooper.php

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

They don't announce in advance military strategy, sorry that makes you sad. :(

I think they are managing the attacks as good as possible. Our military has to abide by rules terrorists don't.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

They are proving they had any afterwards either.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

quote:

---

You didn't respond in full to it. Unless saying "ha ha, yet right" is responding to the question.

---

That was not my response to that question.

I never said big oil wants the US run out of Iraq, or that they don't want the Washington to set up a working government (meaning a government that works for big oil). Quite the opposite. They want the US in there, setting up the government. That's precisely right.

I don't know what that means. I know that if the Eastern Countries produce the oil, then it is absurd to say they have "hegemony" over it. I mean, hegemony over one's own resouces? That's like saying you stole from yourself. Ridiculous.

Note that Washington had no problem with that as long as US oil companies had access to the oil on favorable terms (i.e., their terms). Big oil got rich, Saddam got rich. Where's the problem?

quote:

---

No you just asked why we weren't bringing Saddam to justice in your post to me. You didn't ask "is it because the U.S. is implicated in his crimes?"

---

That post referred you straight to andy's and my post where we elaborated this idea. Sorry if you couldn't follow a reference. But yes, you appear to have apprehended the question.

A trial of Saddam under international law will bring his accomplices to the dock. Some of those accomplices happen to be US officials. Let me put it in terms you can understand. Rumsfeld no want policeman. Rumsfeld no want trial. Rumsfeld no want arrest and policeman questions. Rumsfeld no want hang from rope with Saddam. So Rumsfeld no want Saddam trial in Hague.

quote:

---

quote:

---

4. You'll "believe in subversion when...?" You've already stated that you see perfectly well how the US is subverting international law, and said you don't give a damn.

---

I said I'll believe in the subversion of bringing Saddam to justice. I didn't say I'll believe in any subversion. Once again, if you could cut up and paste my argument in any way, then yes, maybe you would have a point. Idiot.

---

So you don't see the "subversion of bringing Saddam to justice," even though you see we're doing it in an unlawful way, and stated that you don't care about those laws? Seems to me you see the subversion OK.

quote:

---

My point is there wasn't enough international political will to go after Saddam.

---

When Washington was sending him weapons and money and diplomatic support? Yes, you're certainly right. There wasn't even any "political will" in Washington to get rid of Saddam at that time. He was our little iron-fisted teddy bear at the time.

Not only does Washington decline to invade and overthrow this unsavory bunch-- they seem perfectly happy with them. (Except when they get minds of their own and start exerting "hegemoney" over their own oil.)

quote:

---

Oh my god you're right. Someone "made a point about Saudi Arabia". That isn't the equivalent of people being up in arms. Get real.

---

You get real. People are up in arms about our cuddling up to the Saudis. It is a major complaint of what passes for the Left in this country. To say "no one is up in arms about it" is just monumentally ignorant.

Except for one thing: A democratic Saudi Arabia would probably want to manage its oil on terms favorable to the people of Saudi Arabia, as opposed to terms favorable to a few Saudi royals and a bunch of Western oil companies. That would be something Washington would hardly "love." Something like that happened in the early 50's in Iran, under a President Mossadeq. So the CIA and MI-6 overthrew him and installed the Shah, with the help of some Muslim clerics who proved somewhat troublesome in the years that followed. Anyway, Washington doesn't act like a country that loves democracy in the Middle East, or anywhere there are raw materials for it to exert "hegemony" over.

We can't fix the situation with force? OK, so let's back off all support for the despots. That's the least we can do as decent people. It'd be a lot better than propping up a dictator until it became necessary to go to war with him. Which is what we did in Iraq.

"The importance of Saudi Arabia to our economy...." well, yes, to go on consuming way more than our share per capita, and to maintain dominance over our competitors, it's necessary to command Saudi oil. I mean if the Saudi people got control over it, they'd probably want to use it for something besides our interests, such as their interests. Hell, they might even industrialize and compete with our manufacturing sector. Yes, Saudi Arabia is important to our economy, as is Saudi democracy (preventing it).

quote:

---

I'm sorry, adding "and many other places where we have supported it" in parenthesis after that fact doesn't change what we were really talking about.

---

I didn't add it later. It was there to begin with. The point being that supporting dictatorships is a large and long-lived pattern of US behavior. I've noticed it's a point you haven't conceded, although you are smart enough not to deny it.

Again: Your question doesn't make sense and so it is impossible to answer. Democracy can only "fail" if it is tried, and I don't think Democracy is in the US plan for Iraq. If you have planning documents or some other evidence to think otherwise, I'd like to see that. The plans I've seen are not for democracy. Which makes sense, because the people of Iraq would probably vote to use Iraq's oil for Iraq.

So to repeat myself, the question is: Who profits from tyranny in Iraq? Big oil, among others. Who's in there right now, up to the elbows in cash and oil? Halliburton. Who is the former CEO of Halliburton? Bush's Vice-President, Dick Cheney. Who continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation from Halliburton? The same Dick Cheney. Who made millions with Halliburton by doing business with the dictator Saddam right up through 1999? Dick Cheney. So who thinks the Bush administration is in Iraq to bring democracy? Only suckers who are too stupid to play connect the dots.

Your mention of Saudi Arabia only served to show that the pattern of making money off dictatorships is regional and historical. In fact, if the US supported democracy in Iraq, it would be a first.

I didn't say "if Iraq falls apart." I said if Washington installs a tyrannical puppet government. Washington's idea of "stability" has never meant democracy. They supported Saddam-- even after the Gulf War!-- for the sake of the "stability" that an iron-fisted dictator brings to his country. Same as we do all over the world. So you've changed the question.

quote:

---

Yes, big oil in Europe was taking advantage of Saddam's dictatorship while U.S. big oil was playing by the rules. That you think think your "point" somehow refutes mine is bizarre.

---

Playing by what rules?

Was Halliburton an example of a US oil company "playing by the rules" and yet "taking advantage of Saddam's dictatorship" by making millions off it?

Oh, Halliburton's not important! Their CEO just happened to step directly into the Vice-Presidency.

But seriously, do you know anything about this topic? Are you even interested in the facts? I'd think you'd have to go out of your way to avoid knowing this stuff and drawing certain conclusions.

9. We didn't.

---

We didn't [un]install Saddam?

---

We didn't "uninstall the last tyrant" in the region. In Iraq itself, it seems we're setting abpout imposing a kind of tyranny to supplant the de facto tyranny of the occupation. So, no, I don't think it's fair to say we've uninstalled the last tyrant. Our support for tyranny continues in Iraq as elsewhere.

quote:

---

It wasn't simply that they [France and Germany] were profitting, but that they were going around the intent of the sanctions on Iraq to not finiancially support the Saddam regime.

---

Which sanctions? Fair warning: I supsect you haven't a clue what you're talking about here, so be careful.

Also, again: What do you think of VP-to-be Cheney raking in a $34 million retirement after presiding over 5 years of sweetheart deals with Saddam from 1995-99? From your version of history, I don't think you were aware of it. But it seems kind of important, huh? Since you said no one but Bush's political enemies could profit from tyranny in Iraq? And Cheney is Bush's VP, which is sorta the opposite of "political enemy?"

This is what I mean when I say your "points" are so godshockingly dumb that it takes a while to show just how dumb they are. I don't always have the energy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

10. You can't suppose we ousted Saddam for his invasion of Kuwait, because that happened over 10 years ago, and Bush left him in there.

---

He delayed going in because he wanted full international support before doing so. He only had full international support to kick them out of Kuwait. He waited, played by the rules, lost the election, and Saddam won. I'm glad his son learned the lesson to do what needs to be done when you have the political capital to do it, and ignore the illusion that international policy by consensus is naturally the more correct course of action.

---

Another stunning perspective of MakKian history. You have just about everything exactly backwards. Well, I guess we can talk about that later.

quote:

---

quote:

---

11. And, as you've noted, big oil does profit from its relationship with tyrannies. You provided the example of Saudi Arabia. Thank you.

---

I was asking how big oil would profit by chaos reigning in Iraq.

---

Uh, no. You said "failure of democracy," or in my terms, "tyranny" in Iraq. In Washington parlance, "tyranny" is often synonymous with "stability." So I would never say that Washington's goal is to destabilize Iraq. It just so happens that its preferred method of stabilizing is tyranny.

Nice try. YOU brought up Saudi Arabia. I just pointed out that it's a perfect example of how and why big oil (i.e., the Bush administration) profits from tyranny in the Middle East. And yet you think it somehow proves we want democracy in Iraq. And I'm the confused one? I take it back-- it wasn't a nice try.

Ah, so it's stablilize now, is it? So I guess you see now that your first question, which is how big oil profits from an undemocratic Iraq, has been answered. Although pigs will fly before you concede that point.

I never said Washington and friends will profit if they cannot stabilize Iraq.

Again, I see no reason to think the US is pushing for democracy in Iraq. You may take our crooked Administration's grandiose and self-serving speeches as evidence, but I don't. Big oil, i.e., Cheney's Best Friend and Employer, Inc., is profiting right now from a form of government the Iraqis don't want. I mean you love democracy, right? So let's put it to a vote: Who among Iraqis wants Cheney's grubby hands all over their country? Show of hands?

quote:

---

Or have you hoped all your stalling and misdirection has covered up this point you made, that the U.S. doesn't want a democracy to work in Iraq?

---

Uh, no, I am busy calling attention to that point....

I mean you must have noticed that....

o_O

---
What others say about boorite!