"BOMBING for PEACE
is liKE
FUCKING for VIRGINITY"
how bold the statement and how true the stance. it is as much about reality as it is about the centuries old question that still plagues modern men - "which came first? the chicken or the egg?" scientists would argue about the big bang theory, abiotic production of organic molecules and generally anything that can make them sleep better at night. religion would dictate that God created life and put poulty on earth to give Adam some real food (hell to vegans). the realistic man, which is me will tell you that chicken tastes good grilled. better fried. but lest this blog turns into dishes or oxy-moronic statements, lets go back to the topic.
the post mortem of the iraq war dishes out loads of humanity in its most basic form. neanderthals needing to survive, to protect their race and to want more then they need. greed.
1. bush sees that his people need more fuel for their MPVs with jacuzzis in the back seat.
2. he realises that turkies cant generate fuel.
3. osama pisses him off and he has his reason for revenge.
4. bush sr. likes iraq for some reason unperceivable to men.
5. he cooks up a lame excuse.
6. rapes and plunders iraq and funds Saddam in jail with taxpayers money.
7. everybody's pissed but nobody makes a noise.
the act of war is not condoned, nor is it sanctioned by the united nations. but who cares when the world trade centre crumbles? somebody has to take the blame. i know, lets get the terrorists. and bomb that country whose name i still cant pronounce on national tv.
while society frowns upon such an act proposed especially by an exceedingly lame lie (weapons of mass distraction), whos to complain when the nation is reaping its rewards of fossil fuels? somehow i feel that the iraq attack was inevitable. somebody was bound to do it for the resources. it was just a matter of time. and bush is getting too stoked for this act. but hey can anybody who chokes on a pretzel while watching tv really get too much blame? = )
and the question all of you have in mind. while the hell am i still flogging a dead horse? when it obviously has no impact on my life. now how much impact did it REALLY have?
is liKE
FUCKING for VIRGINITY"
how bold the statement and how true the stance. it is as much about reality as it is about the centuries old question that still plagues modern men - "which came first? the chicken or the egg?" scientists would argue about the big bang theory, abiotic production of organic molecules and generally anything that can make them sleep better at night. religion would dictate that God created life and put poulty on earth to give Adam some real food (hell to vegans). the realistic man, which is me will tell you that chicken tastes good grilled. better fried. but lest this blog turns into dishes or oxy-moronic statements, lets go back to the topic.
the post mortem of the iraq war dishes out loads of humanity in its most basic form. neanderthals needing to survive, to protect their race and to want more then they need. greed.
HOW THE WAR STARTED:
1. bush sees that his people need more fuel for their MPVs with jacuzzis in the back seat.
2. he realises that turkies cant generate fuel.
3. osama pisses him off and he has his reason for revenge.
4. bush sr. likes iraq for some reason unperceivable to men.
5. he cooks up a lame excuse.
6. rapes and plunders iraq and funds Saddam in jail with taxpayers money.
7. everybody's pissed but nobody makes a noise.
the act of war is not condoned, nor is it sanctioned by the united nations. but who cares when the world trade centre crumbles? somebody has to take the blame. i know, lets get the terrorists. and bomb that country whose name i still cant pronounce on national tv.
while society frowns upon such an act proposed especially by an exceedingly lame lie (weapons of mass distraction), whos to complain when the nation is reaping its rewards of fossil fuels? somehow i feel that the iraq attack was inevitable. somebody was bound to do it for the resources. it was just a matter of time. and bush is getting too stoked for this act. but hey can anybody who chokes on a pretzel while watching tv really get too much blame? = )
and the question all of you have in mind. while the hell am i still flogging a dead horse? when it obviously has no impact on my life. now how much impact did it REALLY have?
- less space on the newspaper for soccer news
- boring debate topic during sessions
- war bloggers get famous for reports on people killing people and me getting envious
- donate more to save iraq organisations
i mean hey, the avian flu had more obvious impacts. imagine!! no eggs!! no yegg pratahs.
and so it serves to remind us that america can attack for no reason so download less movies and mp3s. no honestly, while we live in this lovely bubble free from natural disasters and guns and war presidents, lets spare a thought for those less fortunate. this, i mean with my heart. = ) and in my bid to sound more politically incorrect, i'll like to end it off with a quotable quote..
and so it serves to remind us that america can attack for no reason so download less movies and mp3s. no honestly, while we live in this lovely bubble free from natural disasters and guns and war presidents, lets spare a thought for those less fortunate. this, i mean with my heart. = ) and in my bid to sound more politically incorrect, i'll like to end it off with a quotable quote..
"The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war."
-- Desiderius Erasmus
-- Desiderius Erasmus