Still better to be USA than Europe

The Seer · Post by **The Seer** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:19 pm

If invasion is inevitable, better to be invaded by Mexicans than Muslims.

1. Mexicans come from a country, where, if really wanted to, we could take over in about 10 minutes.

2. They bring us salsa, burritos, tacos, enchiladas, and Salma Hayak.

3. They don't have "kill civilians" as their mantra.

4. They don't want to force their religion on anyone.

5. You can get at Mexican pussy without a weedwhacker.

6. It is easier to comprehend spanish...they actually use letters of the alphabet...

7. They are willing to work.

8. They brought us tequila.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:32 pm

Now you need to do one for Canada too.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:36 pm

The Seer wrote:we could take over in about 10 minutes.

Would it be another one of those "slam-dunks"? Taxpayers want to know.

Uncle Fester · Post by **Uncle Fester** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:00 pm

Would it be another one of those "slam-dunks"? Taxpayers want to know.

Taco and Awe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I got nuthin.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:22 pm

Bizzarofelice wrote:
The Seer wrote:we could take over in about 10 minutes.
Would it be another one of those "slam-dunks"? Taxpayers want to know.

Bace, all jokes aside our take over of Iraq was a slam dunk. What's come afterwards as we do our usual tip toeing around, well, no...

If all we wanted to do was to commit the usual tactics of war and conquest then by any measure possible our dual conquests of Iraq were both slam dunks. Unfortunately, nope, we don't fight that way and we don't follow through...

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:42 pm

If defeating the armed forces and removing the central government is what you mean by "conquest" then you are employing a very narrow definiton of the word. Look up the word and try again.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:58 pm

We have their leader in jail and our ground forces sitting in tanks in downtown Baghdad.

We've conquered them militarily, in any conventional sense. It was a total and very easy decimation, with an absurdly low casualty count for our forces.

In any other era this would constitute a very definite "conquest". It's our modern politics applied to this situation that mark the difference here.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:03 pm

Generally, to conquer (where "conquest" comes from) means to gain or acquire by force. While we have definitely defeated whatever organized military they had, and removed the head of state, I don't see that we have gained or acquired much of anything. I'm not saying that we couldn't, but we haven't. If you think I'm wrong, then please feel free to list what we have gained or acquired.

Cicero · Post by **Cicero** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:14 pm

Van wrote:We have their leader in jail and our ground forces sitting in tanks in downtown Baghdad.

We've conquered them militarily, in any conventional sense. It was a total and very easy decimation, with an absurdly low casualty count for our forces.

In any other era this would constitute a very definite "conquest". It's our modern politics applied to this situation that mark the difference here.

DING! DING! DING!

WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR HIM JOHNNY!!

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:17 pm

Cicero wrote:
Van wrote:We have their leader in jail and our ground forces sitting in tanks in downtown Baghdad.

We've conquered them militarily, in any conventional sense. It was a total and very easy decimation, with an absurdly low casualty count for our forces.

In any other era this would constitute a very definite "conquest". It's our modern politics applied to this situation that mark the difference here.

DING! DING! DING!

WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR HIM JOHNNY!!

I see. So we've gained and acquired Saddam Hussein. Yep, that constitutes a major conquest. RACK us. We should be able to start cashing in any time now.

ChargerMike · Post by **ChargerMike** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:22 pm

Mikey wrote:
Cicero wrote:
Van wrote:We have their leader in jail and our ground forces sitting in tanks in downtown Baghdad.

We've conquered them militarily, in any conventional sense. It was a total and very easy decimation, with an absurdly low casualty count for our forces.

In any other era this would constitute a very definite "conquest". It's our modern politics applied to this situation that mark the difference here.

DING! DING! DING!

WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR HIM JOHNNY!!
I see. So we've gained and acquired Saddam Hussein. Yep, that constitutes a major conquest. RACK us. We should be able to start cashing in any time now.

...Mikey, why do you hate Am...never mind! :wink:

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:35 pm

The Seer wrote:Salma Hayak.

She's half Lebanese.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:48 pm

Van wrote:Now you need to do one for Canada too.

I will.

1. Canadiens come from a country, where, if really wanted to, we could take over in about 10 minutes but why would we want to?

2. They brought us back bacon, shitty beer, Celine Dion, and Loverboy.

3. They don't have "kill civilians" as their mantra, they have "Take off".

4. They don't want to force their religion on anyone. Wait - do they even have a religion?

5. You can get at Canadian pussy without a weedwhacker, but you'll need an over coat and gloves.

6. It is easier to comprehend Canadien...Except those pansy French fuckers.

7. They are willing to work, but apparently not hard enough, as their money ain't worth much.

8. They didn't bring us any liquor, the bastards.

9. Just for Celine Dion and Loverboy alone we should send a few patriot missiles their way.

10. Not worth wasting the missiles. :)

WolverineSteve · Post by **WolverineSteve** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:52 pm

^^they did give us Crown Royal. The whiskey not the shit poster.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:55 pm

A blended whiskey?

Turn them missles back around then and ignore #10.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:55 pm

Mikey wrote:Generally, to conquer (where "conquest" comes from) means to gain or acquire by force. While we have definitely defeated whatever organized military they had, and removed the head of state, I don't see that we have gained or acquired much of anything. I'm not saying that we couldn't, but we haven't. If you think I'm wrong, then please feel free to list what we have gained or acquired.

We've taken possession of their land (if we wish, which we don't), lock, stock and barrel; as much of it as we wish. They are powerless to do anything about it.

We've removed their ability to deter the march of our army on their soil.

That's a classic definition of "conquest".

Nishlord · Post by **Nishlord** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:58 pm

The Seer wrote:If invasion is inevitable, better to be invaded by Mexicans than Muslims.

1. Mexicans come from a country, where, if really wanted to, we could take over in about 10 minutes.

2. They bring us salsa, burritos, tacos, enchiladas, and Salma Hayak.

3. They don't have "kill civilians" as their mantra.

4. They don't want to force their religion on anyone.

5. You can get at Mexican pussy without a weedwhacker.

6. It is easier to comprehend spanish...they actually use letters of the alphabet...

7. They are willing to work.

8. They brought us tequila.

Oh dear.

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:08 pm

Euro, you know what's expected of you now, don't you?

It's time for your list of why it's good to be invaded by America!

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:11 pm

Van, we haven't conquered jack shit. All we've done is murder thousands of innocent people, bog our army down in an unwinnable Quagmire, devalue our international reputation, bankrupt our economy, and SPREAD terrorism by a factor of about two-hundred. So what if we've got Saddam in the dock. As tyrannical as he was, he was the ONLY thing keeping Iraq together--the oil flowing smoothly. Besides Iran--which really likes the idea of a Shiite government in Iraq--the ONLY nation that's benefited from this heinous disaster is Israel--who just loves the demonizing and attacking and destabilizing of any Arab nation, especially the secular, educated rich ones. Wake the fuck up, you puppet.

Bizzarofelice · Post by **Bizzarofelice** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:15 pm

Van wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
The Seer wrote:we could take over in about 10 minutes.
Would it be another one of those "slam-dunks"? Taxpayers want to know.
Bace, all jokes aside our take over of Iraq was a slam dunk...

that clanged off the back of the rim.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:17 pm

more like an air ball.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:18 pm

Mister Bushice wrote:
Van wrote:Now you need to do one for Canada too.
I will.

1. Canadiens come from a country, where, if really wanted to, we could take over in about 10 minutes but why would we want to?

2. They brought us back bacon, shitty beer, Celine Dion, and Loverboy.

3. They don't have "kill civilians" as their mantra, they have "Take off".

4. They don't want to force their religion on anyone. Wait - do they even have a religion?

5. You can get at Canadian pussy without a weedwhacker, but you'll need an over coat and gloves.

6. It is easier to comprehend Canadien...Except those pansy French fuckers.

7. They are willing to work, but apparently not hard enough, as their money ain't worth much.

8. They didn't bring us any liquor, the bastards.

9. Just for Celine Dion and Loverboy alone we should send a few patriot missiles their way.

10. Not worth wasting the missiles. :)

quebec maple syrup is worth mentioning

Van · Post by **Van** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:28 pm

We occupy Iraqi soil. Our ground forces are occupation forces. In terms of the classic definition of "conquest" Iraq was a relative slam dunk.

The "quagmire" is strictly the ongoing political situation. The conquest already occured.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:33 pm

mothster wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:
Van wrote:Now you need to do one for Canada too.
I will.

1. Canadiens come from a country, where, if really wanted to, we could take over in about 10 minutes but why would we want to?

2. They brought us back bacon, shitty beer, Celine Dion, and Loverboy.

3. They don't have "kill civilians" as their mantra, they have "Take off".

4. They don't want to force their religion on anyone. Wait - do they even have a religion?

5. You can get at Canadian pussy without a weedwhacker, but you'll need an over coat and gloves.

6. It is easier to comprehend Canadien...Except those pansy French fuckers.

7. They are willing to work, but apparently not hard enough, as their money ain't worth much.

8. They didn't bring us any liquor, the bastards.

9. Just for Celine Dion and Loverboy alone we should send a few patriot missiles their way.

10. Not worth wasting the missiles. :)
quebec maple syrup is worth mentioning

So is Rush. Suprising you missed that one, moth.

mothster · Post by **mothster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:53 pm

i'm trying to shed some .net baggage

tomas8 · Post by **tomas8** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:56 am

why the boycott?

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:32 am

Van wrote:We occupy Iraqi soil. Our ground forces are occupation forces. In terms of the classic definition of "conquest" Iraq was a relative slam dunk.

The "quagmire" is strictly the ongoing political situation. The conquest already occured.

How many of our soldiers have died since "mission accomplished?" Are you referring to their deaths as just "political situations?"

Van · Post by **Van** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:04 pm

T1B

Still better to be USA than Europe

Still better to be USA than Europe

Re: Still better to be USA than Europe

Re: Still better to be USA than Europe

Re: Still better to be USA than Europe

Re: Still better to be USA than Europe

Re: Still better to be USA than Europe