[George M. Middius[_4_]]

After Bush invaded Iraq, you said it was the right thing to do because
they had WMD they might use on us. Then when there weren't any WMDs, you
said invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Hussein & Sons were
evil psycho mass-murderers. It was pointed out to you that the U.S. has
never officially adopted a policy of invading countries to get rid of evil
psycho dictators, but you said the invasion of Iraq was still the right
thing to do.

So here we are again, face to face with evil psycho mass murderers, this
time in Myanmar (formerly Burma). Tens of thousands are suffering and
dying because the evil psycho junta refuse to save them. Time to invade!
Topple the evil dictators! Bring democracy and enlightenment to the
people! Right?

(Note to Scottie: BARKBARKYAPYAP! GROWL! WOOF-RUFF-WOOF!)

[Clyde Slick]

On 11 Mai, 12:40, George M. Middius wrote:
After Bush invaded Iraq, you said it was the right thing to do because
they had WMD they might use on us. Then when there weren't any WMDs, you
said invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Hussein & Sons were
evil psycho mass-murderers. It was pointed out to you that the U.S. has
never officially adopted a policy of invading countries to get rid of evil
psycho dictators, but you said the invasion of Iraq was still the right
thing to do.

So here we are again, face to face with evil psycho mass murderers, this
time in Myanmar (formerly Burma). Tens of thousands are suffering and
dying because the evil psycho junta refuse to save them. Time to invade!
Topple the evil dictators! Bring democracy and enlightenment to the
people! Right?

(Note to Scottie: BARKBARKYAPYAP! GROWL! WOOF-RUFF-WOOF!)

Here we go again.
Iraq: Saddam invaded Kuwait. We invaded Iraq. We were winning.
Iraq agreed to terms. Iraq violated terms. We went back in.
Myanmar: Did not invade their neighbor.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 11:49*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 11 Mai, 12:40, George M. Middius wrote:

After Bush invaded Iraq, you said it was the right thing to do because
they had WMD they might use on us. Then when there weren't any WMDs, you
said invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Hussein & Sons were
evil psycho mass-murderers. It was pointed out to you that the U.S. has
never officially adopted a policy of invading countries to get rid of evil
psycho dictators, but you said the invasion of Iraq was still the right
thing to do.

So here we are again, face to face with evil psycho mass murderers, this
time in Myanmar (formerly Burma). Tens of thousands are suffering and
dying because the evil psycho junta refuse to save them. Time to invade!
Topple the evil dictators! Bring democracy and enlightenment to the
people! Right?

(Note to Scottie: BARKBARKYAPYAP! GROWL! WOOF-RUFF-WOOF!)

Here we go again.
Iraq: Saddam invaded Kuwait. We invaded Iraq.

No, we didn't.

*We were winning.
Iraq agreed to terms. Iraq violated terms. We went back in.

Oh, the "They violated the no-fly zone!" defense.

That was something like #15 on the original list.

Myanmar: Did not invade their neighbor.

Toppling an oppressive regime and bringing democracy was something
like reason #5 on the original list. WMD was #1.

That list has shifted so damned many times though it's hard to keep an
accurate account of where things are now. WMD has dropped off the
list, as has violating the no-fly zone and harboring terrorists. Oil,
probably the real #1, never made it on the list. I think now it's
pretty much down to #15.

So we should invade Myanmar.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

That list has shifted so damned many times though it's hard to keep an
accurate account of where things are now. WMD has dropped off the
list, as has violating the no-fly zone and harboring terrorists. Oil,
probably the real #1, never made it on the list. I think now it's
pretty much down to #15.

So we should invade Myanmar.

Yes, they definitely need some Western-style democracy. Not only do we
have to save the cyclone victims from disease and starvation, we also have
to save them from Russian-style democracy. In Russia, being President of
the country is more desirable than being CEO of a hugely profitable giant
corporation. Can you imagine such skewed values?

[UnsteadyKen]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! said:

So we should invade Myanmar.

Who we?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 11, 2:05*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 11, 10:16*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On May 11, 11:49*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 11 Mai, 12:40, George M. Middius wrote:

After Bush invaded Iraq, you said it was the right thing to do because
they had WMD they might use on us. Then when there weren't any WMDs, you
said invading Iraq was the right thing to do because Hussein & Sons were
evil psycho mass-murderers. It was pointed out to you that the U.S. has
never officially adopted a policy of invading countries to get rid of evil
psycho dictators, but you said the invasion of Iraq was still the right
thing to do.

So here we are again, face to face with evil psycho mass murderers, this
time in Myanmar (formerly Burma). Tens of thousands are suffering and
dying because the evil psycho junta refuse to save them. Time to invade!
Topple the evil dictators! Bring democracy and enlightenment to the
people! Right?

(Note to Scottie: BARKBARKYAPYAP! GROWL! WOOF-RUFF-WOOF!)

Here we go again.
Iraq: Saddam invaded Kuwait. We invaded Iraq.

No, we didn't.

*We were winning.
Iraq agreed to terms. Iraq violated terms. We went back in.

Oh, the "They violated the no-fly zone!" defense.

That was something like #15 on the original list.

Myanmar: Did not invade their neighbor.

Toppling an oppressive regime and bringing democracy was something
like reason #5 on the original list. WMD was #1.

That list has shifted so damned many times though it's hard to keep an
accurate account of where things are now. WMD has dropped off the
list, as has violating the no-fly zone and harboring terrorists. Oil,
probably the real #1, never made it on the list. I think now it's
pretty much down to #15.

So we should invade Myanmar.

No we shouldn't. But the UN should.
You want them to run the world,

I do? Cite, please. Or admit that you're hearing voices...again. LOL!

time to step up to the task.

We don't need no stinking UN.

Ask bushie.

[BretLudwig]

There is at least one better reason to invade Myanmar and bring it
"democracy", than in Iraq: apparently, in Mynamar, there is some sizable
segment of the population that would actually want democracy.

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 12, 7:56*am, "BretLudwig" wrote:
*There is at least one better reason to invade Myanmar and bring it
"democracy", *than in Iraq: apparently, in Mynamar, there is some sizable
segment of the population that would actually want democracy.

Let's be truly democratic about it then.

We can hold secret votes in countries that have forms of government we
don't like. If they vote for democracy, we invade.

And so say all of us.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On May 12, 5:13*pm, ScottW wrote:
On May 12, 3:00*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On May 12, 7:56*am, "BretLudwig" wrote:

*There is at least one better reason to invade Myanmar and bring it
"democracy", *than in Iraq: apparently, in Mynamar, there is some sizable
segment of the population that would actually want democracy.

Let's be truly democratic about it then.

We can hold secret votes in countries that have forms of government we
don't like. If they vote for democracy, we invade.

And so say all of us.

*I knew it...you're a Cylon.

Why, because Bratzi is a "jolly good fellow"?