This story is archived
Iraq is Vietnam-and You'd Better Believe It »
Posted by: populist 2 years, 10 months agoNothing destroys troop morale faster than being in a war you know is pointless. As the situation continues to deteriorate in Iraq, anti-American feelings will increase. Cursed for staying, we will now be cursed for leaving. Iraq will become an ever more dangerous place for any American to be.
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
Submitted By:
populist
The essays we offer are unapologetically presented for you to read & analyze. Many are offered as a similar view to ours & others simply to invite ...
Who Also Submitted:
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 458
-
populist
Dec. 19, 2006, 11:26 p.m.The key here is that the war is pointless - unconstitutional - and entirely ruinous. The time to get out is now.
-
djn3nunez3
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:38 a.m.The invasion was a strategic blunder that will likely haunt us for decades.
Since accepting aid from the US in fighting our proxie war with Iran, to the first gulf war, then sancations, and now the US invasion and occupation, Iraq, once the most modern and secular of all the Arab nations, has decended into civil disorder and chaos. This disorder is giving the terrorist more resources to attack us with than ever before, and threatens to spread throughout the entire region.
-
JustCallMeV
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:59 p.m.That just summed up the entire article. Once again a good article and comments Populist.
-
mivan4
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:40 p.m.Just like Vietnam, we quit then latter found out that
a few more feet of tunneling we would have uncovered
North Vietnams' underground headquarters and won the
war!!!!!!!!!!. But instead we bowed to the propaganda
machine that North Vietnam used aganist us and quit.
North Vietnam knew the only way they could win the war
was to hold out long enough to let the propaganda work and
their strategy did work. There are published works that document the Norths Strategy and that had we held on for just a few more days we would have WON THE UNWINNABLE WAR.
-
-
Razor
Dec. 20, 2006, 7:51 p.m.War? what War? The war was over before it even started. What we have now is a conquered country trying to re-establish its self as a democracy, with rebels vying for power illegitimately. We need to bolster the fledgling government so they can keep the radicals(sheits) from overthrowing the legitimate government and killing millions of Kurdish men women and children, (guess which faction of Islam Iran is...You guessed it the troublemakers). Then we can leave and go home. What part of that don't you get? Also, if you'd have been there, and talked to the soldiers and Iraqi people there is nothing shameful or pointless about what has been accomplished. Your just self centered and don't want to fork out a couple lousy thousand dollars on anyone but you self.
-
-
-
Illuminate
Dec. 19, 2006, 11:33 p.m.The key is that its the same o same o- does the author say its unconstitutional??
The point I disagree with as retired Military is the only thing worse than a pointless war is an apathetic or hateful US Public that blames (allegations) the soldier, too (and I've heard it starting already - dont uphold the constitution, killers, torturers, etc) and the Impeach, jail or worse the current Admin (on allegations) without due process (seeing that alot on the boards recently, too)
-
populist
Dec. 19, 2006, 11:36 p.m.that's an interesting opinion...thanks for sharing your personal feelings on what's worse. I feel the author's opinion is just as valid and quite well-put.
peace...
-
Illuminate
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:24 a.m.Oh no (yes) (I've been slammed on a lot today- not by U here- for not being clear) I agree his is a very (just as) valid point - hope I didnt infer it wasnt...
and unconstitutional or not- it would still be a pointless war.
Fighting a cold and cold medicine....
-
Beau7890
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:01 a.m.I know there was a problem with Vietnam War protesters deriding soldiers in the '60s, but everyone I know personally who speaks out against the war in Iraq, supports the soldiers.
Many of them have complaints about the cost-cutting way this war's being fought. (Yes, for those of you whose jaws dropped to the floor, though it's been very expensive, much of that money has been wasted and not gotten through to the soldiers who need it.)
But all of them just want to get the soldiers home, out of harm's way--they have no problem with the soldiers. Just the chickenhawks in DC who're running--and profiting from--an unncessary and ill-advised war.
-
djn3nunez3
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:44 a.m.I disagree. A pointless war is far more damaging than a few (and I mean very few, I've never meet one) hatefull people that would blame the soilders. Far worse are those who would take a single instance of such behavior and ascribe it to all who disagree with the war.
BTW impeachment is due process for a President accussed of High Crimes.
-
nakedtruth
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:03 a.m.{{and the Impeach, jail or worse the current Admin (on allegations) without due process (seeing that alot on the boards recently, too)}}
Ok, have you actually read the constituion? Impeachment, by it's very definition IS DUE PROCESS! Impeachment is the same as "indictment". It's simply a preliminary trial. I agree that we shouldn't be hateful toward returning vets. They've been screwed over by this administration worse than anyone else. And I'm against ANYONE who crashes ANY funeral be it "left wingers" or "right wingers". (Like the church that crashes military funerals so they can blame the failure in Iraq on homosexuality.)
That said I think it's JUST as wrong to try to tie support for the vets to support for the current administration. Let them stand, or fall, on their own two feet. If purposefully lied about reasons to go to war in Iraq (and the evidence suggests they did) then let the DUE PROCESS OF IMPEACHMENT sort this out.
-
MajJohn
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:12 p.m.Amen to that "illuminate". Nothing can demoralize a soldier more than lack of support at home. This lack of support was expressed by the media during Vietnam. The media then as now is not directed by the news, it creates it's own news to suit their political agenda. The media shaped public opinion and did not reflect opinion or what was happening on the ground. Now the media also includes posts on the WWW which gives our opponents an instantaneous false sense of victory. The terrorists are partly correct by believing just, "wait it out, US resolve will falter". Saying that the war is pointless, unconstitutional and so on is not only stupid, it offers comfort to the enemy. Free speach while necessary in any Democracy is that Democracies weakness. It is up to our citizens to exercise our freedoms responsibly.
While in RVN the papers received from home didn't reflect what was happening on the ground. The same thing is happening now. Two wars same old crap!
-
betruthful
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:04 p.m.I think the ignorant radicals that blame the troops are a very small number.
-
cappy877
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:11 p.m.Although I disagree strongly in regards to the war, I support the soldier 100%. Maybe it is because I too am ex-military...and my old unit is there. But I think my feelings would be the same either way. It's a damn shame that people slam the military. On another note, it's also a damn shame that the leaders (military and civilian) are prosecuting line level soldiers for the abuses in the Iraq prisons, but not the unit and battalion heads. You can't tell me that they didn't know what was going on. Just not possible.
-
jeffery1
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:15 p.m.No one against what Bush has done that I know or have read the opinion of blames the "soldier" (I assume you include all branches under that term). We blame Bush and his administration. The military has obviously found that certain personnel have committed crimes and prosecuted them. All that is left is to punish the administration officials reponsible for the invasion and the subsequent failure in Iraq.
Bush lied us into this needless invasion and supported his lies with manipulated intelligence. This is fact. Due process is for the courts, if the Democrats make the effort to build a case, impeach, then indict. I've given Bush due process and he's guilty.
-
cynicalfairy
Dec. 20, 2006, 5:11 p.m.I agree.
Nothing destroys troop morale faster than being told that their war is pointless and inhuman.
It's already happened. The Dems had their chance to not go to war, and they voted for it anyway. They can say they were lied to, but I'm not buying that either. They made their choice. Everybody makes their choice. Now we have to live with the consequences.
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 21, 2006, 5:54 p.m.The public is hardly apathetic or hateful. The latter is the Bush admin.
And if some douche bag that kills civilians happens to be wearing a US uniform, what is that but hate, and requiring condemnation by the public.
You need to look up due process: that's what impeachment is.
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:09 a.m.Does a war have to be 'unconstitutional' to be wrong or to be stopped?
The Iraq war was based on lies - the Bush administration lied to Congress and to the American people about the reasons to invade. Iraq was NO threat to America or to anyone else. Bush has violated our Constution and that IS unconstituational and is grounds for impeachment.
Where is Osama? Is the Bush administration looking for him? HE is responsible for 9/11 and for 21st century terrorism! But Bush "doesn't think much about him any more".
It is a myth that anyone against the war blames the soldiers! That is vitriolic spin spewed out by the likes of FOX News and the white house. EVERYONE I know that is against the war is FOR the troops! They ALL know that all fault for this war is with Bush and his cronies and NOT with the military. When the military and the CIA have TRIED to tell Bush the REAL story of the situation in Iraq, they are demoted or fired!
-
Illuminate
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:26 a.m.What about the people, families that my friends and I shield from the nutjobs that are crashing Vets funerals here in Southern California.
So they're not real- Bikers for Vets is not real??
-
-
MajJohn
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:19 p.m.Keep saying Bush lied and eventually a majority will believe it. This is the same thing the Germans did in WW II. You don't like to hear the truth, so turn off Fox news and listen to something else. FOX news has the ratings it has because you're still in the minority.
-
-
-
spikecwc
Dec. 20, 2006, 5:48 p.m.Actually, only a few wars have been "constitutional" in the strictest sense. WW1, WW2, War of 1812 and the War with Mexico. I can't think of any others where war was declared by Congress.
-
-
bubba2
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:11 a.m.How many more innocent people will die, how many more days and weeks and months will Iraqi schools be closed and electricity be off and water be unclean, how much more DEBT will we rack up with China, Taiwan, and Japan for this so-called war, and how fed up do the American people have to get to put a STOP to the madness of our 'occupation' of Iraq??
-
populist
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:24 a.m.well said, bubba. In complete agreement with you on this!
peace...
-
Illuminate
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:31 a.m.What Iraqi schools besides one or two provinces are closed? No clean water? Where? Electricity??
Arent the military that arent for current policy saying its not widespread- its only one or two provinces where the insurgents and US and/or Iraqi (military or whatever it is) has no control??
I have buddies over there in Iraq and Afganistan and in their letters they talk about how they wish the Media would cover the bridges, schools, infrastructure the Military is rebuilding.
So Iraq is just a cesspool of blownup buildings, no electricity or water and chaos everywhere??
-
Illuminate
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:01 a.m.Sorry not to be confrontational but have I missed something somewhere, how does this war rack up debt to China, Taiwan and Japan??
-
-
not2needy
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:38 a.m.My husband is a Nam vet, he said the day they deployed the first troops that this would end up being another Vietnam. He was right, i knew it then.
Such a shame, lives lost for nothing more than Bush's ego, among other things.
-
aquarius448
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:41 a.m.History repeats itself.I will always listen to vets and their stories and insight because they have been places that I cannot dare to imagine myself in. They are my heroes and guardians and I can never forget their contributions to the safety of my family and friends. (King George commands and they obey)...you can substitute King George for whatever is more appropriate.
Now as far as politiians are concerned...Please ...give me a break. I have been a card carrying,dedicated member of a political party for 20 years. I have been at the highest level of local federal politics for many years. After all that time ...I came to the bone rattling conclusion that it was all an illusion.
..Politics is a filthy game played by the elite and priviledged. Their tools are the poor and underpriviledged. Their shield is righteousness...and when all else fails BS baffles brains.
-
-
Beau7890
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:06 a.m.Wow. Did it take 20 years for you to realize that, or did it take 20 years for you to get motivated to change the way you made your living? Not being sarcastic, here, just curious. (I'm in advertising, myself, and have had similar thoughts.)
-
-
ind06
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:55 a.m.I've felt the Iraq/Vietnam corollary to be a fact for about two years now. I've said so to my friends, even gotten in a few heated arguments. I've shouted it at various talking heads on several 24 Hour news networks.
So why is having it described to me, clearly, logically, point by point such a depressing thing?
I think it's the relentlesness of the whole thing, the intractable march toward doom that Iraq has become.
The absolute and certain knowledge that this won't end well for anyone.
-
Amazing1
Dec. 20, 2006, 8:44 a.m.While we do not have the massive protests that were held during the Viet Nam debacle, I submit that there are many more protests than the media bothers to cover.
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:59 p.m.absolutely true.
and still we hear about the liberal media... (sigh) Do people have eyes?
-
-
-
summer6975
Dec. 20, 2006, 9:11 a.m.Having been to Iraq, but too young to know anything about vietnam, ive got to say that i found this story very interesting. we are in a needless war, out people are dying, their people are dying. No human life is worth...whatever reason we are there. because at this point i dont think anyone knows.
-
B737Tech
Dec. 20, 2006, 10:17 a.m.Illuminate
Sorry not to be confrontational but have I missed something somewhere, how does this war rack up debt to China, Taiwan and Japan??
Bush has been selling our country off to help pay for his idiocy of invading Iraq & for the 4 (so far) tax cuts for the rich.
-
Beau7890
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:23 a.m.I'm guessing that the war racks up debt to foreign countries because the massive budget deficits and ever-increasing national debt have made our country's credit worse, causing an unfavorable trade deficit. Imported goods are more expensive for us now, and our exports bring less money in to our country. You'll notice the dollar is not nearly as strong as it was a few years ago.
But I believe for the past decade or so, the movement by conservatives to dramatically cut federal spending on social programs while simultaneously reducing the government's revenue from taxes is really a plan to destroy our finances to the point where there is NO money left for social programs that they've tried and failed to cut through legislation.
-
Illuminate
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:42 p.m.I'm asking a question? Economics is not my forte, hense the question and eveytime I ask one instead of a response -- I get "Well you idiot, where have you been living... and no answer to my question"
-
-
ETproductions
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:53 a.m.There is one important parallel to Vietnam that his author doesn't mention. From the early days of the Johnson buildup in 1964 until the final debacle in 1975, one after another administration, both Democratic and Republican, told us that we absolutely HAD to win in Vietnam. The consequences of defeat, we were told, would be the end of the Western democracies. Communism would topple one country after the next till they finally stood on the shores of the Potomac.
The Pentagon echoed this message. One after another general was trotted out on TV to describe the military horrors that would unfold if we gave in to the "cut and run" camp.
Only now, with 20/20 hindsight, do we know that all that was wrong. Perhaps some said it believing it. Perhaps others said it knowing at the time that it was hogwash, but usefully hogwash that could inspire terror in the public and be used for political gain.
Yes, there are very real parallels with Vietnam.
-
rrrtx
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:23 p.m.Hogwash? Except the part where Communism did topple other governments in the region. Not the least of which was Cambodia. Leading to the slaughter of millions.
I think what happened is exactly what we feared would happen.
And withdrawal from Iraq now would only embolden Iran in it's ambitions to dominate the region politically.
-
-
RevolutionPlease
Dec. 20, 2006, 11:56 a.m.I agree with all the comments that this war is undeniably similar to the Viet Nam war except for one unmentioned extreme aspect: the draft.
I think that if there was a draft instated for the war in Iraq, we would see protesters flooding the streets of Washington. Unfortunately in America the majority of people don't react or take action unless directly affected (would Dems be in power if gas prices were at $1.00?).
So my question is this - I've heard it whispered here and there that this "fight for us or go to jail" tactic could possibly be put into effect, but is there any concrete evidence that it's being realistically considered?
-
ETproductions
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:32 p.m.I'd expect that NIMBY-ism is far too powerful a force in America today for there to be any serious consideration of reinstating conscription. You would never get the people to vote for a draft unless we face another threat as clear and present as that posed by Nazism and Japanese militarism in WWII. Far more likely would be a vote to completely outsource our defense, going to a bunch of mercenaries.
Before we come to that sad Fall-of-the Roman-Empire moment, I urge that we make not a draft but universal, compulsory national service a matter of wide public debate. Now, as we are recognizing the need for a larger military, is a perfect time to have this debate.
The arguments pro. It would encourage engagement and participation in government by ALL citizens, something that is vital to democracy. It would allow us to address not just military needs but crumbling infrastructure, energy, education and perhaps even health care. Military service would be just one option, not compulsory.
-
-
harriermech
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:02 p.m.I love to see how many Monday morning quarterbacks we have on here. This admin did not lie about the reasons for going to Iraq. Iraq was given a deadline by the UN and Saddam did not comply. Congress was given the same intel and believed just like the rest of the World that Saddam was a threat and worth the risk. Even though we have not found any WMDs does not negate the fact that he was a threat and should have been dealt with accordingly.
I don't think this war is any were near a Vietnam just the opposite. Saddam is in jail and about to be hung for his crimes. The Iraqis have a new government yes it has flaws but so did ours when we first started out. It's a good thing these people that are complaing on here was not around back then. We might still be part of England. War suck and it suck that our men and women are dying over there but that is part of war.
One more thing all of you say you support the troops and not the war is full of crap. Can't have it both ways.
-
RevolutionPlease
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:08 p.m.That's right you can't have it both ways you fools! Everyone knows that if you're against Bush, you're a terrorist and hate America and it's military! Sure he's needlessly killed thousands of our troops, but he did it out of love (for money).
It's so obvious can't you see?
Bush = American troops
I'm sure that if his secret service team would let him, he'd be out there puttin holes in Iraqis...
-
CatholicRedneck
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:19 p.m."...Saddam was a threat and worth the risk." A threat to who? Israel? Iran? Why should the US be responsible for their defense? Was Saddam a threat to us? How?!
"The Iraqis have a new government..." Yeah, an Iranian allied Shiite theocracy, riddled with militiamen and death squads. Prime Minister Maliki can't go to the bathroom without Moqtada al-Sadr's permission. "...yes it has flaws..." Sure does!! And 3000 of our soldiers died in a trillion dollar war to create this "government".
"...all of you say you support the troops and not the war is full of crap." Sieg heil, dude! Forget the fact that we can disagree with the policy of the government and still support the poor devils in the military tasked with carrying out the policy; oh no, according to you we must support WHATEVER the government decides to do. Sieg heil...hey, it looks like you've got a wrinkle in your brown shirt; you'll need to iron it before the party rally tonight.
-
betruthful
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:53 p.m.It is absolutely not true that congress had the same intel!! The intel Bush didn't like was discarded and not shown to anyone-lots of intel officiers have brought that fact forward. Hussein could not even defend his country when we went there. If he had WMD or was so much of a threat why did he not use these big bad weapons and fight hard? I did't think anyone still fell for that B.S. We have been in Iraq longer than we fought in Europe and we fall farther behind everey day. But Bush thinks "mission accomplished" because his cronies have made $Billions and Billions. You support the troops best by not wanting them in harms way simply for corporate greed. You can't say you support the troops and leave them to be killed for the Cowboys neocon agenda. you can't have it both ways for sure.
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:17 p.m.>This admin did not lie about the reasons for going to Iraq. Iraq was given a deadline by the UN and Saddam did not comply.
The previous post came from another planet. How else can you explain the silliness it contains? Because on this planet, we know that Saddam Hussein was given an ultimatum by the UN -- to allow in the inspectors -- and he absolutely did comply. Hans Blix. Is that a name that rings a bell?
As for the idea that you cant support the troops unless you support what they do, it almost seems like you've come back to earth for a second, because in a sense that true: If you don't agree with a soldier murdering a civilian out of frustration and pique, you certainly aren't supporting him or his actions. On the other hand, unless you withheld your tax money, you are his main support.
-
-
Bobcat6
Dec. 20, 2006, 12:04 p.m.Iraq may be another Vietnam. Back then we had brave fighting soldiers and gutless politicians. Today we have brave fighting soldiers, gutless democratic politicians w/their gutless and elitist type supporters.
-
-
-
betruthful
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:40 p.m.Did you listen to Bushes latest so called plan- more troops for Iraq ( now that Rummy is gone- you remember Rummy the best sec. of defense ever-Cheney said-).
-
-
clancyjavaux
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:39 p.m.Our government keeps playing up how so many Iraqui people voted in their election, couldn't we just let them vote on whether they want the US troups there or not? I am fairly certain they would vote NO, which would let the US save face about pulling out, as it would be the Iraqui decision. It is their country, something some seem to have forgotten.
-
abntv
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:46 p.m.Just what is it that makes you think the Iraqi people would vote the U.S. military out of Iraq? Have you talked to many of them? Do you know many of them? Or are you basing your statement on the onesided news reports you see?
-
-
-
abntv
Dec. 20, 2006, 1:48 p.m.There is no comparison here with Viet Nam..not politically or militarily. Viet Nam failed because of political interference. The Viet Nam war was run as a political war not a military war. Iraq is not the same. In addition in Viet Nam the entire country was a battlefield and almost entirely involving the North Vietnamese. In Iraq there are only small pockets of figthing that get 99% of the news coverage. It is the religious factions in Iraq that are causing the problems now. The author of this article has put himself off to be some kind of expert on warfare when he openly admits to being an advisor and not even a military advisor. I did not consider this article to have any informational value. It was an opinion on two wars by someone that is obviously not qualified.
-
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:36 p.m.And just exactly how the hell do you expect the journalsts to cover it, when the US military has been murdering them from the minute this war started???
-
betruthful
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:55 p.m.The Viet Cong were South Vietnamese and the fighting was in pockets with bombings and shootings in Saigon sporatically until Tet. It was an insurgent war with N.V. fighters coming over to help. Vietnamese back then called S.V. the southern part of OUR country and N.V. the northern part of OUR country. The country was split by the U.S. and its allies after Ho kicked the French out. The Vietnamese wanted nation wide elections that were nixed because everyone knew Ho would win in a landslide. Small pockets of fighting? I guess you are O.K. with collateral damage as long as its not your son, daughter,etc.
-
-
betruthful
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:03 p.m.Atta boy ike! lets get alot more killed so the ones already killed are not for nothing and then more so they are not for nothing-more and more and more. How old are you because you obviously know nothing about V.N. BTW the neos said we would be greeted as liberators, the Iraqi oil would pay the cost and it would only take a few months.Thats just a few examples. As long as Bush and Haliburton share their money with you I can understand why you continue to support them-they do share, don't they?
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:40 p.m.The joke is you. When, exactly, was the war "won"?
The person "******" on the troops is you: expecting them to play a political game that's only about PR and money. Shame on you.
-
Taganan
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:21 p.m.The Iraqi Kurds like us there and there are no insurgents in their part of the country that they can't handle themselves. All the fighting is in a small part of Iraq, which includes the capital, where all the media people are based. Then the media has a template for what is or is not news. If it doesn't fit the template, it's not news. Anything good doesn't fit the template.
Where were the calls for impeachment or trials of politicians in the Vietnam era? What came of them? It was much more obvious that the politicians were preventing victory and dragging it on so they could profit from the war. Nothing happened, they were Democrats, darlings of the Left, sapping the strength of the nation and endowing us with a permanent anti-war complex that was to ensure Communist domination. Reagan stopped that.
-
-
betruthful
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:11 p.m.Tag.- You are more ignorant about V.N than most! Nixon, last time I checked he was a Republican, prolonged the war for years mean while over 30,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese died. You should post what you know not what you want. The Kurds want a separate country and BTW the Turks said they would invade any Kurdish country if that happened.
-
jehovahjones
Dec. 20, 2006, 4:43 p.m.Reagan didn't stop ******. in fact, most of the red ink we have now is thanks to him, certainly his party. If it weren't for that lightweight ******ant, we'd actually have adults in charge.
-
-
edromar2
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:23 p.m.Thats why we oughta get the hell out.
There Must Be 50 Ways To Leave Iraqis
to be sung to Paul Simon's 50 ways to leave....
"It grieves me so to see them in such pain.
I wish there was something we could do
To make them smile again,
And help them in their struggle to be free.
The problem is all inside your heads," I said in glee.
"The answer is easy if you take it logically.
There must be fifty ways to leave Iraqis!
It's really not my habit to intrude.
Furthermore, I hope meaning won't be lost or misconstrued.
But I'll assert myself at the risk of being rude:
There must be fifty ways to leave Iraqis."
Just say: "You're out of your gourd, George.
Make a new plan, man. Just slip from the front, runt.
You don't need to be coy, boy. Just leave Iraqis.
Hop on the plane, Jane. You don't need to discuss much.
Just ship out to sea, Candi, And let them live free.
For there must be fifty ways to leave Iraqis"
-
edromar2
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:24 p.m."Revise your old plan, man. You don't need a new ploy, boy.
Get on the stick, Dick; just let them live free!
You don't need to discuss much. Bug out on a train, Jane,
And let them live free. It grieves us so to see them in such pain.
And there is something we can do to make them smile again.
Make a new plan, man. You don't need a new toy, boy
Just slip out the gorge, George. Just let them live free!
You act like a prick, Dick. You don't need to discuss much
Fly off in a plane, Jane, And let them live free.
-
edromar2
Dec. 20, 2006, 2:26 p.m."I'll repeat myself at the risk of being crude:
"Revise your old plan, man. You don't need a new ploy, boy.
Get on the stick, Dick; just let them live free!
You don't need to discuss much. Bug out on a train, Jane,
And let them live free. It grieves us so to see them in such pain.
And there is something we can do to make them smile again.
Make a new plan, man. You don't need a new toy, boy
Just slip out the gorge, George. Just let them live free!
You act like a prick, Dick. You don't need to discuss much
Fly off in a plane, Jane, And let them live free.
Sorry, I missed a line.
-
-
wttychrm1
Dec. 20, 2006, 3:01 p.m.This was an EXCELLENT article and conveyed my thoughts perfectly. Thank you.
The first 218 comments are shown. Show all 458 comments »
Submit a Story
Advertisement
