*ba-BAWK!* *cluck* (Iraq thread)

  • shirubagan 19 Jun 2003 13:26:42 954 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Sorry to be a cynic but fuck all is going to happen to GWB... he won't get put on trial for war crimes ( la Milosevic), neither will he lose his position as Largest Shit Faced Cockmaster in The World... sorry I mean President of the USA. It's all posturing and media hype to make it look as if the US is a fair and just place but look at the facts:

    - The damage has been done
    - The war is *ahem* over
    - The US control all Iraqi oil interests

    US Fascism 1 - Justice 0
  • Khab 19 Jun 2003 13:32:04 6,583 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    This nation acted to a threat from the dictator of Iraq. Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them
    -- George W. Bush

    Interesting how he doesn't specifically say just WHO it is who's trying to rewrite history...
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 13:32:27 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Yeah, I stubbled across this while browsing the site I got that "man dies after staring competition" link.

    shirubagan sums it up. After fucking up two countries he's concentrating on raising campaign funds now.
  • Marcus 19 Jun 2003 13:53:44 1,646 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Well, dubya can only win election one more time - then someone else has to have a go (Maybe Jeb?).
    Seeing as about 1/3 of the US public believes that they have already found WMDs (dubya said so), I doubt that this bit of the campaign will get far.
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 13:57:40 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Marcus wrote:
    Well, dubya can only win election one more time - then someone else has to have a go (Maybe Jeb?).
    Seeing as about 1/3 of the US public believes that they have already found WMDs (dubya said so), I doubt that this bit of the campaign will get far.

    But you forget that US foreign policy will be irrelevant to the majority of US voters. They care not what their country does abroad - after all they believe in US Messianism. The election will be fought on taxes and how much Billy-Bob or Kurt has to pay for their petrol (obviously going down) and 2lb beef burger, large chips and fluorescent orange drink.
  • CerealKey 19 Jun 2003 14:04:29 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Did anyone see Journeys with George. The camcorder documentary by a producer on the Press Core following Bush around during the primarys and the election.

    Personality wise Bush comes across very well and his rapport with the journalists is brilliant.

    Anyway if these guys won't be charged then you bet your last Euro/Pound that Bush won't be.
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 14:09:25 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    CerealKey wrote:
    Did anyone see Journeys with George. The camcorder documentary by a producer on the Press Core following Bush around during the primarys and the election.

    Yep. I liked the journalist who likened the sandwiche he was eating to the Republican policies. No meat, thin slices of bread and the cheese, swiss, full of holes.

    Personality wise Bush comes across very well and his rapport with the journalists is brilliant.

    Some, but not all. The main journalists following him around for the documentary clearly didn't like him and there were a few others, but they were amicable.
  • CerealKey 19 Jun 2003 14:14:26 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    Yep. I liked the journalist who likened the sandwiche he was eating to the Republican policies. No meat, thin slices of bread and the cheese, swiss, full of holes.

    There was meat it was baloney though. :)



    Some, but not all. The main journalists following him around for the documentary clearly didn't like him and there were a few others, but they were amicable.

    I think they often got caught up in the hype though as that guy from the Financial Times said they'd all been charmed by him and that's what made it so depressing.

    Although I don't blame them, spending a few months on a plane getting smashed out of your skull on cocktails, beer and whatever else was going around.
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 14:18:55 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    CerealKey wrote:
    There was meat it was baloney though. :)

    Arhh yes. :) Did they repeat the show? When I saw it was on quite late which kind of annoyed me since I had to have an early night that day.

    Man, check out that last sentence and tell me English isn't a fucked up language.
  • Chris-Gardiner 19 Jun 2003 15:34:27 962 posts
    Seen 8 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    When I saw it was on quite late which kind of annoyed me since I had to have an early night that day.

    Man, check out that last sentence and tell me English isn't a fucked up language.

    It's not fucked up, it's being fucked. :)

    "Annoyingly, it was on quite late and I needed an early night."

    Treat it gently.

    Caress it.

    Lick it.

    Fondle its verbiage.

    Ahem. 'Scuse me.

    /Goes for a lie down.


    EDIT: Fixed grammar. Embarassing, considering the post content.

    Edited by Chris Gardiner at 15:06:06 19-06-2003
  • mal 19 Jun 2003 15:44:17 29,326 posts
    Seen 3 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    No way. This is a web forum. The correct way is to just knock out a quick one with one hand still free to work the mouse and imagine you're doing it properly. Er, write a proper sentence, I mean.
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 15:51:57 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Chris Gardiner wrote:
    It's not fucked up, it's being fucked. :)

    But my post is still grammatically correct and makes sense. Infact, the fact that you can write it another way means its even more fucked than I originally thought.

    I was referring more to the "have had" usage more than anything else.

    Edited by FWB at 15:02:08 19-06-2003
  • Chris-Gardiner 19 Jun 2003 16:01:17 962 posts
    Seen 8 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    mal wrote:
    No way. This is a web forum. The correct way is to just knock out a quick one with one hand still free to work the mouse and imagine you're doing it properly. Er, write a proper sentence, I mean.

    Oops! You're right! Forgot where I was for a moment.

    ;)
  • Chris-Gardiner 19 Jun 2003 16:15:29 962 posts
    Seen 8 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago

    But my post is still grammatically correct and makes sense.

    Fraid not.

    "When I saw it was on quite late which kind of annoyed me"

    Doesn't make sense. You could put a comma and another "it" after the first one and it would be grammatically correct but factually untrue. For it to make sense you'd have to change 'which' to 'it'.

    Fear me grammatical evil-doers! I am Pedant Boy.


    Infact, the fact that you can write it another way means its even more fucked than I originally thought.
    It's not! It's not! It's subtle. And nuanced. And...and...and...it just is, right?


    I was referring more to the "have had" usage more than anything else.

    Pah! Keep your fancy suffixes and consistent rules regarding tense. I'll none of it!

    :)
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 16:19:34 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    I did notice the "it", but what is wrong with "which"? "That" and a new sentence, I can see.

    I'll none of it!

    Apparently you will. :)
  • Chris-Gardiner 19 Jun 2003 16:29:55 962 posts
    Seen 8 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    FWB wrote:
    I did notice the "it", but what is wrong with "which"? "That" and a new sentence, I can see.

    Ah - you're breaking it down as "When I saw" for one bit, then "it was on quite late". Then the first part needs an object - *what* you saw - for the whole to be grammatical.

    You know, I think I may have killed this thread. Woops.


    I'll none of it!
    Apparently you will. :)
    Yeah, I will.

    :)
  • FWB 19 Jun 2003 16:38:53 56,367 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Chris Gardiner wrote:
    Ah - you're breaking it down as "When I saw" for one bit, then "it was on quite late". Then the first part needs an object - *what* you saw - for the whole to be grammatical.

    Arhh, no, I see we are getting our wires are crossed. Let me clarify, this is what I meant:

    "When I saw it, it was on quite late which kind of annoyed me."

    The other option is (which I assume is what you were suggesting):

    "When I saw it was on quite late, it kind of annoyed me."
  • CerealKey 19 Jun 2003 16:43:10 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    Or you could write.

    L8 N1t3 TeeVee 5uxx0r5

    or

    I was annoyed because the programme was on late and I had to be up early the next day.
  • Chris-Gardiner 19 Jun 2003 16:49:30 962 posts
    Seen 8 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Arhh, no, I see we are getting our wires are crossed. Let me clarify, this is what I meant:

    "When I saw it, it was on quite late which kind of annoyed me."

    The other option is (which I assume is what you were suggesting):

    "When I saw it was on quite late, it kind of annoyed me."
    Sorry - I assumed it was the other way around. I presumed you hdn't seen it. But you'll note that I suggested fix number 1, too. So there.
    L8 N1t3 TeeVee 5uxx0r5
    gr@mm@R 1s l33t!!!111
    I was annoyed because the programme was on late and I had to be up early the next day.
    That is acceptable. You may pass.
  • Khab 19 Jun 2003 17:10:03 6,583 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    o_O
  • CerealKey 19 Jun 2003 17:27:26 2,860 posts
    Seen 12 years ago
    Registered 18 years ago
    \0/ In your face, Khabster!!!
  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    ^^^^^^^
    sound effect of chicken possibly coming home to roost

    er, anyway, moving on, is this the chink of light at the end of the bad news tunnel?
  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    Yeah I totally agree shirubagan & FWB, thing is I'm probably starting from a lower base of expectations. Far from imagining that the Cocksucker in Chief is ever going to be had up for war crimes, I'm fully expecting him to win the next two elections on the back of this thing *and* go on to invade Iran, Syria and France. So, for me, a Democrat Presidential hopeful standing up and actually campaigning on the issue that Bush has been lying his simian face off is a step in the right direction. I thought dissent had been officially ruled illegal by Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft. If the main Democrat hopeful thinks that pursuing this line will win him votes, then perhaps all hope is not lost.
  • otto Moderator 28 May 2007 11:16:19 49,322 posts
    Seen 4 years ago
    Registered 19 years ago
    I dunno, I think US Presidential elections are fought largely on the character of the candidates, and if the Democrats can ram home the image of Bush as the lying weasel he really is, then good luck to them. The war was all about making Bush look regal and imperial and getting everyone to forget about the way he stole the election, if it can be used by his opponents to make him look sleazy then maybe there's hope.
Sign in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.