MAXI, PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS QUOTE.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"But I think there are two serious possabilities to avert doom here. One is that Bush doesn't get a second term. If the economoy stays in the crapper, If we grab the oil, if the war is not quick and easy for us, if Afganistan is still a shambles... Plus, the anti-war movement is already underway and could grow dramatically if America suffers on the battlefield." - Maxi

So you think that the only way to divert doom is for you fellow American's to die and for the economy to go in the "crapper".

You know, I get to listen to Rush about 1 hour a week....far less than Kevin and a few others here....but I heard him say a couple of days when refering to the opposition to Bush....... "what's good for America is bad for these people, and what's bad for America is good for them".

That's really where you are going with this. You want things to be bad. You want people to lose their jobs. You want people to American's to die on the battlefield and not come home to their families just so your side can re-aquire power.

In your mind it's justified......?

OR, were you trying to say something else?

[mburbank]

No, you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

I was going to keep this secret a loy longer, but whgat the hell as long as it's all spiralling out of control I might as well let the 'cat' out pf the 'bag'.

I'm the anti-christ. I'm all about the death and suffering.

Either that or I meant W was so hell bent on a policy of moving America's money up the pipe to the wealthiest 1% and waging war on Iraq with or without support, with or without need that the only chance we have of avoiding doom is if he overwhelmingly looses the next election.

I kind of flip flop between those two posabilities.

Thanks for creating a whole new thread for this, though. I wouldn't want the news I'm the beast to get buried in the middle of a conversation where it might have had a context.

[Carnivore]

If it goes down that way, it will be resultant of Bush's policies. Max, like everyone with half a brain or more, wants to see Bush and his stupidity go away. He doesn't want people to die or lose jobs to achieve the defeat of President Dumbass in the election. Instead, he simply recognizes that is likely to happen and will be the price we pay, the mistake from which we need to learn.

[Ronnie Raygun]

You don't speak for Maxi.

Max, do you or do you not want the economy to tank?

Do you or do you not want the military to suffer heavy casualties?

[mburbank]

You don't believe I'm the anti-Christ? According to Jerry falwell, I'm the right age, sex and religion. Oh well. Let's trake a wait and see on this one.

'Naldo. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that we are in serous danger of precipitating World War Three with Bush at the Helm. I think he is totally committed to a course of action that will take us there. Am I certain? No. Are there factors that mightavert this even if He stays President. Sure. But I think the surest way to keep the world order from disintigrating is for Bush to be out of office, and the doctrine of preepmtive force abandoned.

Terrorist can and may do some VERY awful things to us, and I believe we need to do what we can to protect ourselves and forge a better world. But the very worst terrorists can do is nothing but an insect bite compared to what a world war would bring about, and in fact, I believe a world war is what Ossma and company want most of all. They can ONLY achieve this if we play into their hands, and I believe tht is exactly what W. is doing.

I hope I've made my position little more clear. But I kind of think no one, even you, was having a lot of difficulty understanding it.

[mburbank]

Sorry, Nalds. I was busy typing a cogent response while you were slapping the keyboard. To be even more clear.

The economy has already tanked. If we follow W.s tax policies it will continue to tank. As in the last Bushygoround, it might cost W. his job. THAT would be a silver lining, and could lead directly to recovery. Do I want the economy to continue to suck worse than it has in my whole life and see the school system my daughter goes to continue to loose money while being forced to spend what it has studying for tests I practically guarantee our president couldn't pass? No. But odds on with W. at the helm and if it leads to him lossing a second term at least it won't have been for nothing.

Do I want Massive American cassualties? Wht are you, some sort of monkey? Do you honestly think I somehow mnage not to have friends in the military? Beyond that, I honestly care for ALL the folk who will suffer in this war, not just the ones in American Uniforms. Anyone who thinks we can wage war from the air and take no cassualties, is a savage and an idiot. It saddens me deeply that America tends not to see war for what it is until some of it's own citizens die, but historically it's pretty clear that's the case. Like some families of survivors of 9/11 who have found common ground with Iraqi parents who lost children in the last war, perhaps this is what it takes.

But all if this is just chin music, becuase while you don't agree as is your perogative, you undrstood what I was saying all along. Or am I giving you too much credit?

[Protoclown]

Ronnie, you never fail to amaze me by consistently displaying what can only be exceedingly willful ignorance or a complete and utter lack of basic reading comprehension.

[mburbank]

Jeeze, Proto. I thought you were one of the few folks here who'd grooved to my secret identity. Didn't you see me slouching towards Bethlehem?

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Ronnie, you never fail to amaze me by consistently displaying what can only be exceedingly willful ignorance or a complete and utter lack of basic reading comprehension."

Hey, you're the one who thinks you're a Christian. That's not a label I put on you. You said it yourself. And if you still don't know what it is to be a Christain, you shouldn't be talking to me about comprehension....especially when I'm right, like I am here.

Max clearly stated in so many words that heavy casualties and a tanking economy are a couple of ways to "avert doom".

......and now he's contradicted himself.

First of all it's a fact the the economy is growing which is the oppostie of tanking which means Max is wrong there.

Second, how many casualties is "heavy casualties"? 1000? 10,000? How do you define that Max? I want to know how many you are willing to sacrafice for your side to re-gain political power?

In a matter of months I will be force feeding your own grubby words back into your mouth.

Then we'll see conspiracy theories pouring in. I can hear it now.....

"The Americans planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq"

"Americans forged documents proving that France and Germany have been supporting Iraq illegally"

"It's the Americans who gassed civilians and set the oil wells on fire"

Let's just watch how this unfolds.

[Bennett]

First of all, who mentioned "heavy casualties"? I don't see that phrase in the original quote.

Second of all, a war with Iraq isn't just about America. You keep saying "good for America... bad for America." We're talking about an event that will have effects worldwide. People will die regardless. And the world will think even less (than they do already) of Americans. But that won't matter, because we can just blow them up too, right?

How many lives is Max willing to sacrifice for the Dems to re-gain power?

How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to acquire more power than we already have?

[mburbank]

"In a matter of months I will be force feeding your own grubby words back into your mouth. "
-Naldo

Ooooooh, Christiany!

And Nalds, how many lives am I willing to scarafice. I had no idea I was so powerful! And not to get the Dems back in power, but to avert WWIII. If you go back and read what I wrote, I believe I even suggested it might be better if a Republican took office from Bush. Nixon to China and all. I don't care what 'team' is at the helm, I care about W's agenda. I have no strategy by which I will personaly trade American lives for Democratic Victory. That's a bizarre interpretation of what I said. I believe that American casualties could well cause a reconcideration of policy as they did in Vietnam. I believe a reconcideration of policy may be the only thing that stands between us and a global war which would make the casualties were looking at in Iraq look like a traffic accident. I don't want a single soldier to die. I sincerely wish we';d call them all home right now. If anyone seems willing to scarafice American lives on the battlefield, it's W, who will actually give the order to send them into combat. I think you need to go check who the commander in chief is. It is my sincere prayer that we do not go to war at all and that no one of any nationality dies. I think you know that. re you lieing?

[AChimp]

To define "heavy casualties," I seem to recall having read somewhere that most generals define "heavy casualties" as 1/4 - 1/3 of fielded forces killed or wounded in any single conflict (i.e. a single battle, or even the entire war overall).

Going by that, the U.S. would have to have 25 000 casualties before they could be considered "heavy."

I personally think hardly anyone on the West's side will die in the impending war with Iraq. I actually have a bet with Baalzamon on this one.

He gives me $2 if less than 24 U.S. soldiers are killed, and $1 if it's between 24 and 100. I give him $1 if there's more than 100, and $2 if there's more than 1000. This bet does not include friendly fire or human incompetence.

[Carnivore]

You're probably right. We've become far too efficient at killing.

That and we'd probably have no problem demolishing a building and killing a few dozens civilians to take out five riflemen inside.

[AChimp]

Because, of course, those riflemen could fire at your tanks and chip the Varga girl on the side.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

If I were a visiting creature from Mars, which I may be, I might think by reading Banks and Carni that they think they should be sitting in the oval office rather than GW.

[Protoclown]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

Hey, you're the one who thinks you're a Christian. That's not a label I put on you. You said it yourself. And if you still don't know what it is to be a Christain, you shouldn't be talking to me about comprehension....especially when I'm right, like I am here.

Actually, that's just the thing, Ronnie. I don't, really. I don't like labels, but most people would consider me a Christian because I believe Christ died for our sins, so I just usually go with that for the sake of simplicity. I would HATE for someone to assume that I ally myself with the Christian church and their largely bassackward policies.

You however would consider me a blasphemous heathen no doubt, because I am actually tolerant of other people's beliefs (yes, even atheists, OMG!) and am not arrogant or foolish enough to believe that I am one of an elite and relative few who posess the "true" answers and are on the ONE "right" path to heaven. Oh, and I also don't hate gay people or think that women should obey their husband...you know, silly shit like that.

So if that alone means I can't be in the happy little Christians club, then YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I'm not a "Christian", nor would I EVER want to be.

[sadie]

ronnie, your latest foray into flirting with "maxi" has been noted and filed away for future reference.

[mburbank]

There's no feelings like repressed feelings.

[GAsux]

All this literary foreplay is getting me really hot.

Max,
I can only assume that you play these games with Ronnie for entertainment purposes. You strike me as a far too astute person to not see the facade he uses to push people's buttons. His nonsensical rationale leads me to believe that he is primarily concerned with agitating the bees with little regard to formulating coherent thoughts.

I sometimes think that you post at length in response to him in the hopes that at some point he will be intelligent enough to at least concede that someone may have a point, and that perhaps his philosophy is not the gem he seems to think. I admire your noble efforts, although I'm quite sure they will be fruitless.

[sadie]

max is such the martyr. :P

[FS]

There's a good chance of heavy casualties if Saddam decides to lock up Bagdad and wait for the US to drag his bones out of there.

[mburbank]

GA, there are many reasons why I post at Nado. The one that most relates to what you're sayhing is;

I totally agree he is a deliberate button pusher and that's the main thing he gets out of I-mock. Taking pleasure in the shock and anger he creates. I live in hope that he may realize the degree to which this conflicts with his so called "Christian Values". It would signal some growth, and be good for his soul.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Ooooooh, Christiany!"

Oooooooh, Paganism!

"I have no strategy by which I will personaly trade American lives for Democratic Victory."

Personally? Is that your way out? All that means is that you won't be directly killing anyone but you said that one of the ways to "divert doom" is for America to "suffer on the battlefield". This quote shows that you hate the Bush administration to the extent that you are willing to sell out your fellow Americans by hopeing for heavy American casualties.

"That's a bizarre interpretation of what I said."

No. It's the common sense interpretation of what you said. You said it was one of the only ways to "avert doom" which means you are wanting it to happen. Deep down you want American soldiers to die so that your cause might be strengthened. I think that's sick.

"I believe that American casualties could well cause a reconcideration of policy as they did in Vietnam. I believe a reconcideration of policy may be the only thing that stands between us and a global war which would make the casualties were looking at in Iraq look like a traffic accident."

So that's how you justify it. Heavy American losses in Iraq would serve a greater good because they would help put a "responsible" liberal back into the White House.

"I sincerely wish we';d call them all home right now."

Yes. Because you think if Bush's forign policy is successful he will surely win Re-election. If it's not it would result in the U.N. being even more irrelevent and the evils (your allies) in this world become stronger....which you could then blame republicans for years to come.

....Not going to happen.

"If anyone seems willing to scarafice American lives on the battlefield, it's W, who will actually give the order to send them into combat."

We are at war. Winning the war will save American lives.

"It is my sincere prayer that we do not go to war at all and that no one of any nationality dies."

Who are you praying to?

Proto,

"Actually, that's just the thing, Ronnie. I don't, really."

Thankyou for FINALLY telling the truth and making a fool out of Burbank for supporting you.

"I don't like labels, but most people would consider me a Christian because I believe Christ died for our sins, so I just usually go with that for the sake of simplicity."

You don't have to be a Christain to believe that. I'm sure Satan believe Christ died to save us from ourselves....does that mean Satan is a Christian?

"I would HATE for someone to assume that I ally myself with the Christian church and their largely bassackward policies."

Me too.

"You however would consider me a blasphemous heathen no doubt, because I am actually tolerant of other people's beliefs (yes, even atheists, OMG!)"

As am I. And no, I don't think you are anymore of a "heathen" than I am. It's not about works alone.

"and am not arrogant or foolish enough to believe that I am one of an elite and relative few who posess the "true" answers and are on the ONE "right" path to heaven."

This is proof that you are not a Christian.

"Oh, and I also don't hate gay people or think that women should obey their husband...you know, silly shit like that."

Do you honestly think that I hate gays? PLease!! Of course I don't. If someone chooses to live a gay lifestyle that has nothing to do with me. I do think my wife should obey me.....but not any more than I obey her. We are equal partners in life.

"So if that alone means I can't be in the happy little Christians club, then YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I'm not a "Christian", nor would I EVER want to be."

Then how can you possibly be mad at me for saying that you're not? I mean, if you're not, you're not. I don't claim to be things that I'm not. And if I was mistaken, I wouldn't get all pissed about it. Just because you make up your own belief and decide to live by it...doesn't mean that Christ will accept it. You must live by GOD's standards and rules.....not vice versa.

[Protoclown]

Two things, Ronnie:

1. Do you smoke crack?

2. YOU'D BETTER CHECK YOUR HOUSE FOR MILDEW RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!!!

[Carnivore]

Personally, I take Ronnie's disapproval as an affirmation of my beliefs. I'm happy to know that I don't fit his narrow, imbecilic view of what a Christian is.