State of the Union

[Dave]

they probably make their pastry filling out of bean... ick! they do that in japan... ick!

or feces

[Andy]

they probably make their pastry filling out of bean... ick! they do that in japan... ick!

Actually asians of all stripes love sweet bean pastries and even ice cream. We're silly. What can I say?

[CaptainHenreh]

they probably make their pastry filling out of bean... ick! they do that in japan... ick!

or feces

That's because they're so poor that they can't even afford the Food Lion generic poptarts!

Unless they're in afghanistan. Then they can make Poppy Tarts.

[Ryan T]

I give you guys a pastry thread and you still can't help but shit up this thread with pastry talk? i love it and i hate it, all at the same time.

[Kaan]

I blame rob.

[CaptainHenreh]

I give you guys a pastry thread and you still can't help but shit up this thread with pastry talk? i love it and i hate it, all at the same time.

I'm sorry, is it off topic?

I don't remember asking for a pastry thread, but thanks all the same!

[Dave]

I give you guys a pastry thread and you still can't help but shit up this thread with pastry talk? i love it and i hate it, all at the same time.

somebody needs a delicious warm pastry to go with his haterade ;-).

[Mike]

they probably make their pastry filling out of bean... ick! they do that in japan... ick!

Actually asians of all stripes love sweet bean pastries and even ice cream. We're silly. What can I say?

i know i went to a korean wedding a few months back and they served that nastiness. yuck!

gerald and i ate some unknowingly from a vending machine that cooked your food in front of you... we ordered the breaded fish assuming it was.... BREADED FISH. instead, it was full of sweet bean shit.

[Apoc]

mung bean is where it's at.

[JackoliciousLegs]

Well, I'll take this opportunity to thank the president for apologizing and admitting taking some semblance of responsibility for what's been going on. I thought he looked sad. I think it's really a last ditch effort and the fact that he's contradicting his military advisers to try to "win" the war on terror abroad is ridiculous.

[Maengelito]

i dont know when the comparison to vietnam started but its nothing like vietnam except for the fact that it involves the US armed forces against foreign forces. thats about it.

mmm "the people" don't want to be there any longer, the leaders continue to send more troops, we went over there to thwart "evil," our death count continues to rise without any real results.

if you're going to say it is nothing like vietnam the you have to give reasoning.

no one likes going to war because its not pretty so people will always be opposed to it. leaders send more troops all the time to armed conflicts to reenforce existing troops. we did go over to thwart evil which to me seems like a reasonable justification (in general, not necessarily with the current situation which has many nuances to it) and a death count can only continue to rise. it will never fall unless there's some crazy voodoo shit that i dont know about (like pop tarts perhaps?) so in using that basic logic, yeah i could see it being compared to vietnam but then every single armed conflict could also fit that mold.

i understand what people are trying to do by comparing it to vietnam, but i feel like thats more for sensationalism than anything else

[Maengelito]

its just people on the extreme ends of their beliefs that cross the line and make it difficult for everyone. most rational people understand the balance between their beliefs and the beliefs of others, but you have hard lined smart people that can take advantage of other hard lined or impressionable not so smart people.

Very well said, it is really as simple as that. Typically in political discussions, I've noticed that some people can't deal with the fact that such a situation can be so fundamentally simple, but it really is as you put it. Religion and politics are each dirty businesses, put them together, and shit goes crazy.

well, i wouldnt necessarily call it "simple" because its very complex. but i think the "simple" notion that it is complex is what you're acknowledging

[G.Irish]

no one likes going to war because its not pretty so people will always be opposed to it. leaders send more troops all the time to armed conflicts to reenforce existing troops. we did go over to thwart evil which to me seems like a reasonable justification (in general, not necessarily with the current situation which has many nuances to it) and a death count can only continue to rise. it will never fall unless there's some crazy voodoo shit that i dont know about (like pop tarts perhaps?) so in using that basic logic, yeah i could see it being compared to vietnam but then every single armed conflict could also fit that mold.

i understand what people are trying to do by comparing it to vietnam, but i feel like thats more for sensationalism than anything else

I think its sensationalism in a way because even though no one wants to see American troops die, the casualties in Iraq are nowhere near what they were in Vietnam. There'd have to be more than 15 times as many deaths for it to approach the Vietnam death toll.

But the similarity is that we are fighting in what amounts to a civil war with no clear and attainable objective. Also, like Vietnam, we've had some of the civilian leadership make poor decisions against the better judgement and experience of the military leadership.

On another note, I'm afraid that America is becoming too casualty averse. If we're gonna get bent out of shape over 3000 deaths how are we going to respond when we get in a serious conflict where we have 10 times as many deaths? The truth is that American soldiers will get killed when we go to war. I think a lot of people were gung ho about this war in the beginning because they thought it was gonna be easy like the first Gulf War. Now that there are significant casualties some people have a problem with it. I say if we're not willing to die for a cause then we have no business killing others over it. Either its worth American lives or it is not.

[Apoc]

On another note, I'm afraid that America is becoming too casualty averse. If we're gonna get bent out of shape over 3000 deaths how are we going to respond when we get in a serious conflict where we have 10 times as many deaths?

I believe it the death per acheivement or death per objective if you will that inflames people.

People don't question deaths when they feel they're worth the cause. (i.e. stopping Nazi Germany)

[JackoliciousLegs]

This might seem a little off topic, but what about our $8.6 trillion deficit? What about our failing schools? What about our shitty (non-existant) health care system (I broke my hand w/ insurance and bills amount to over $1k)? What about Darfur? What about N Korea? What about Iran? What about Somalia? What about our environmental impact? What about our negative impact abroad and our failing first-attack policy?

To me, it's really sad that it took a failed war for the American voters to realize that they'd made a bad decision. At least we learned, right?

edit:

[G.Irish]

On another note, I'm afraid that America is becoming too casualty averse. If we're gonna get bent out of shape over 3000 deaths how are we going to respond when we get in a serious conflict where we have 10 times as many deaths?

I believe it the death per acheivement or death per objective if you will that inflames people.

People don't question deaths when they feel they're worth the cause. (i.e. stopping Nazi Germany)

I hope that's what it is.

[G.Irish]

This might seem a little off topic, but what about our $8.6 trillion deficit? What about our failing schools? What about our shitty (non-existant) health care system (I broke my hand w/ insurance and bills amount to over $1k)? What about Darfur? What about N Korea? What about Iran? What about Somalia? What about our environmental impact? What about our negative impact abroad and our failing first-attack policy?

That's the big one I don't understand. For all the hootin', hollerin', and saber rattling we did over Iraq and the WMD's that didn't exist, North Korea actually developed and tested nuclear weapons in the meantime. If the mere possibility that Saddam had WMD's necessitated us invading Iraq, how is it that the reality of N.Korean nuclear weapons commanded nary a bomb dropped?

One could say it is about terrorism, but Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. One could say it was about removing a cruel and dangerous dictator but there are plenty of those in the world and several that have killed a lot more people than Saddam. You could even say it was about building a friendly democracy in the Middle East, which is a noble goal, but hardly a reason for us to take on such a costly and dangerous endeavor. Nope, for some reason or another Bush was hell bent on getting into a war with Iraq, even if it meant ignoring real threats or taking the focus off Bin Laden.

[.RJ]

North Korea doesnt have oil.

There, I said it

[JackoliciousLegs]

Hahahaha! It wouldn't be funny if it weren't true. I may be a liberal, but at least I'm a realistic one.

[Andy]

North Korea doesnt have oil.

There, I said it

I think they do. They're in negotiations will China over exploration rights.