A little song for Americans.

[GilesGuthrie]

Sing this song to the tune of: "If You're Happy And You Know It Clap Your Hands"


If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.

It’s-all about-the-Oil-ly

 

[Talentless]

Thanks, Cap'n Conspiracy.

 

[Talentless]

Good song.

 

[risingson77]

Uh oh, you've found out the US' secret code of operation. You must be eliminated. :smilewink

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

funny

 

[Vasco]

heh.

 

[fermy88]

Nice

 

[Shannon]

 

[Robin2]

nice one giles.

 

[boombexus]

Man, what a great song, all I want to do now is bomb Iraq. That's really all we think of over here in the US. We just can't seem to think of anything else. As a matter of fact, I'm gonna run down to the local recruiting office and sign up for the military. That way I can bomb stuff all the time. YAY!!!
I also think we should just bomb everyone back to the stone age. I dont really car who we bomb as long as were bombing someone or something. I think that we should bomb France next. And then we can move on to the rest of the world.

:insert roll eye smilies all over this post:

Why is this in the "current events" forum as opposed to the "comedy corner?"

 

[Shannon]

Because America is gonna bomb Iraq aren't they.

 

[boombexus]

Originally posted by Eddy
Because America is gonna bomb Iraq aren't they.

According to Giles we are!

 

[Sage]

Heh heh, this is worthy of being in the Current Events and Comedy Center forums!

I can imagine all the Europeans 'cross the pond circling together, joining hands, and singing this song at once.

 

[Shannon]

Originally posted by boombexus


According to Giles we are!

Meh.

 

[Cobraboy]

Good one.

 

[Vasco]

hehe, that's a good one too.

 

[Talentless]

Boom, I will edumicate you.

Europe, and other parts of this world, being the bastions of headache inducing liberalism that they are, most righteously condemn the US based on the conspiracy theories they choose to believe about it; along with its admittedly questionable past actions, which they cite regardless of whether or not it is helpful toward finding a solution to current problems. Apparently, yelling, "you aided terrorists in the '80s!" is a suitable response to nearly everything. Since no Yankee has anywhere near the powers of comprehension of someone from, say, London, Nice, or Hong Kong, it cannot be doubted what Americans think and believe. So, in conclusion, the oil interests of other nations, and the right of the Iraqis to live with the hope that smart sanctions (I hear a socialist whining, does anyone else?) and containment will bring about Saddam's downfall some time within the next few decades (never mind the fact that if Saddam is considered the best alternative to possible Islamic extremism and civil wars raging throughout Iraq and whereever else, that when he is replaced his successors need only emulate him to stay relatively safe) will not be infringed!

Oh, and it is entiirely possible we are on an empirialism kick.

Hell if I know.

 

[milefile]

Oh I see. Great Brittain (and Spain, France, Denmark, etc.) gets to screw up the whole world, beat colonies into submission, steal resources, and conquer and subjugate countries... but when they're beaten at their own game they step back, cry sour grapes, and criticize. Sheesh. All America is doing is continuing the perfection of Western Civilzation through means implemented first by the now excessively liberal European nations. And Bush and Blair sit around rubbing eachother's balls all day anyway.

Bush does not represent the majority in America. Not by a long shot. He didn't get the majority vote, but "democracy" is funny that way. I don't know one person who does not, at the very least , have serious reservations about war with Iraq. Most are against it.

I hate Bush. He and his regime are slowly turning America into a dictatorship. So to be lumped together with King George II because I'm American sorta pisses me off.

America will go so far right-wing. But eventually Americans will see how much that sucks, go liberal, and the pendulum will swing back again. Extreeme liberalism sucks just as much though. Those who hold their government to a higher standard (the standard of necessity) will never be served or represented.

And I think I'll start another thread about who I think we really ought to be watching closely.

 

[Talentless]

I don't really think bringing up imperialism is fair. But, that's my opinion.

 

[milefile]

Bringing up imperialism is absolutely necessary. Northern Ireland, India and the Faulklands are quite recent. Look at Africa. There are perfect examples of Europe's messes all over that continent.

 

[Talentless]

Yes, but they, at least Britain, has been trying to move away from that since at least the 80s. I think.

Besides, by mentioning their past, they can reply to you with a question: Does that make your actions today right?

What bothers me about Europe when it comes to Iraq is not how or if it will support a war, but this:

"and containment will bring about Saddam's downfall some time within the next few decades (never mind the fact that if Saddam is considered the best alternative to possible Islamic extremism and civil wars raging throughout Iraq and whereever else, when he is replaced his successors need only emulate him to stay relatively safe) will not be infringed!"

Sarcasm not withstanding, where am I wrong?

 

[milefile]

I agree with you there, Talentless. It is time to be decisive.

And as far as Imperialism... you could always point to the American Indians. America's greatest and least mentioned injustice.

 

[risingson77]

Heh...Britain gave up on imperialism because they were getting kicked out of any country they had their fingers in! Perhaps we'd do well to stay out of others' affairs...but then people will start crying about how we don't care, can't you do something, you're the most powerful nation on Earth, etc.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile

Bush does not represent the majority in America. Not by a long shot. He didn't get the majority vote, but "democracy" is funny that way.

I know this thread is old, but I want to make one point clear: American democracy is funny that way. No other sensible democratic country has an electoral college.

 

[DGB454]

I have to agree with you on that M5Power. Although I'm happy Bush the "W" I don't like the way it went down.
It should be based on majority vote.

 

[risingson77]

Word....the electoral college is probably one of the worst ideas the Founding Fathers had. It's an anachronism from the days when only white land owners could vote now.

 

[Talentless]

I do not quite know how the college works, so I cannot support it with any great zeal (I hope that's a good word to use) but I do know that when it comes to what is and may be for centuries the most important office in the world, I do not like majority voting.

A. As prejudicial as this sounds, many people are quite ignorant, some are flat dumb, voting for reasons that defy thoughtful analysis. This is a problem now, but can be balanced with state electors whom one hopes are well-educated about the issues of their state.

B. If we presume the probable results of the vote for President of the United States, based on what the current voter patterns may be prior to switching to majority rule, to be 27 million out of 45 million democrats voting, and 33 million out of 43 million Republicans voting, we cannot exclude the possibility of this Republican dominance staying after the system is changed; years after. It is unknowable for certain how much the voting patterns will change as the result of any changes to the political system. Under majority rule, if a party dominates given states, if those states have large populations, this risks the possibiity that, if voting patterns remain constant, that some states will dominate over other states. By dominate I mean that if three Democratic states have a population 2 times that of 11 Republican states, this obviously creates an imbalance, and people do, as it is logical, vote partially or primarily on who will best advance their state's interests. Indeed, a risk of allowing majority rule is that candidates may focus almost solely on those states whose population may be for or against his party, and whom he must persuade.

I do not agree with majority rule.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by risingson77
Word....the electoral college is probably one of the worst ideas the Founding Fathers had. It's an anachronism from the days when only white land owners could vote.

True -- and it needs to be eliminated. It's one of the most outdated things in our system (the Grand Jury is close).

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Talentless
I do not quite know how the college works, so I cannot support it with any great zeal(I hope that's a good word)but I do know that when it comes to what is and may be for centuries the most important office in the world, I do not like majority voting.

A. As prejudicial as this sounds, many people are quite ignorant, some are flat dumb, voting for reasons that defy thoughtful analysis. This is a problem now, but can be balanced with state electors whom one hopes are well-educated about the issues of their state.

B. If we presume the probable results of the vote for President of the United States, based on what the current voter patterns may be prior to switching to majority rule, to be 27 million out of 45 million democrats voting, and 33 million out of 43 million Republicans voting, we cannot exclude the possibility of this Republican dominance staying after the system is changed; years after. It is unknowable for certain how much the voting patterns will change as the result of any changes to the political system. Under majority rule, if a party dominates given states, if those states have large populations, this risks the possibiity that, if voting patterns remain constant, that some states will dominate over other states. By dominate I mean that if three Democratic states have a population 2 times that of 11 Republican states, this obviously creates an imbalance, and people do, as it is logical, vote partially or primarily on who will best advance their state's interests. Indeed, a risk of allowing majority rule is that candidates may focus almost solely on those states whose population may be for or against his party, and whom he must persuade.

I do not agree with mjority rule.

Here's the problem: Four times in United States history (including the last election), presidents have won the popular vote, meaning the people have chosen those men as the president of the United States, but simply because the presidents have won the "swing" states, they've won the election. Shouldn't democracy be based on what the people believe, rather than what state populations dictate people believe? Traditionally, I've lived in Democratic cities in primarily Republican swing states, and it's angered me that we often had Democratic representatives and mayors, but because our state had more Republicans, we were labeled as a state that "went" Republican. I'd like each vote to count, thank you, rather than each vote be totaled and the party receiving the most votes to win the state.

 

[1X83Z]

Actually, Illinois is a perfect example of why the electoral college should be abolished. If not for Chicago, an extremely left-wing city, we wouldn't HAVE the number of representatives that we do (19). Because we have 19 reps, we get 19 votes in the electoral college. The problem, of course, is even though a good portion of the state always votes Democrat, when the full state goes to the Republicans, all 19 members have to vote that way. It's a weak system.