|
Can't be fucked to read all of that - read the first four paragraphs (poorly written, badly edited).
Question: Iraq was a fucking wreck. 'Our' (which is not 'our' in any meaningful sense) 'intervention' (which was, in fact a massacre) was still preferable to the continued atrocity of the last 30 years [hence we've not been into, say, Saudi].
My question is whether there is any mild rational [as in ratio-nal] or quantitative [as in 4m vs 6m] or qualitative [which you're incapable of, so fuck off] measure by which you might, theoretically, say that it's probably better that Saddam isn't there but it's better that 'we' [so called] aren't?
Answer must be without reference to my faith. Thanks [not thanks - actually, fuck you, you useless, self-involved prick]?
__________________
Message boards are the last vestige of the spent masturbator, still intent on wasting time in some neg-heroic fashion. Be damned all who sail here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Savage Clone
Last time I was in Chicago I spent an hour in a Nazi submarine with a banjo player.
|
|