neurotic Iraqi wife
July 14, 2007
Pure Eternal Peace...
I got this link from my bro, who wrote on one line in his email "she is really good". Yes bro, I have to agree with you, she is, BUT and theres a big but, she gave no solution to the situation. NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH. She is very outspoken and her words are extremely ellaborate, and eloquent but did she tell me anything new? She put all the blame on the US, some are founded others I dont agree with at all. She placed her accusations towards the US rightly so if she means the unplanned post war tactics, but not only that, she stood by the so called "resistance". What kind of ideology is that??? She is as bad as Maliki who in his speech today, said "we are capable of defending our country without the help of the US if they wish to leave anytime."
What crappy words. If the above statement is so true, why is it that dead bodies found on streets became the norm in Iraqis lives???If the above statement is so true, why is it that the militias are still kidnapping the innocents???If the above statement is true, why is it that the Al qaeda and so called honourable resistence are filling up dead bodies with explosives and leaving them at markets to kill scores and scores of innocent Iraqis??? IF THE DARN ABOVE STATEMENT IS TRUE, WHY IS IT THAT EVERY SINGLE IRAQI I WORK WITH WANTS TO LEAVE HIS BELOVED COUNTRY FOR A BETTER SECURE LIFE!!!!!!!!!
I am sick and tired, sick and tired of people having their own agendas yet speak in the tongue of the "Iraqi People". I am sick and tired of people getting paid to satisfy a certain niche of people in the name of the "Iraqi People". Yes bro, she is "really good", but to me, she is no one and nothing. Some of her words do have a sense of truth in it, infact I can say 20% of what she said, I can relate to, but the rest is as crappy as the Iraqi governments views. So what is the solution??? THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE FORCES??? Fine, let it be. Infact, I may be wrong after all, maybe if the forces leave, Iraqis will unite. Yeah, why not. Maybe Al Qaeda will leave us the heck alone and go kill some other poor nation. Yup, and the militias will dismantle, and everyone who left will come back to restart rebuilding their country YET AGAIN.
I am sorry, I do not agree. The war caused this shit, and so whoever caused it, must clean this shit. I dont give a damn how, but the job must be done. I had a conversation the other day with an American friend of mine about this issue. He said "Why should we suffer for a nation who doesnt care about its people, why should our own soldiers die", Im sorry if Im not quoting word by word, forgive me, for my memory sometimes does serve me wrong, but my answer to him was "Why is it always, that the Iraqi blood is cheaper than yours", "Why is it that millions of Iraqis are dying, and no one is doing anythng about it, and when the coalition forces numbers rise to a new benchmark of 2000, 3000 or more, the whole world cries???" WHY???
In her closing statement she spoke about peace. Where is this peace??? WHere can we find such peace if we have people like the Iranian Al Hakeem, Fanatic Muqtada, Barbaric Al qaeda, martyrs of the so and so group, jama'a of so and so gang, Iranian extremists, saudi thugs, syrian murderers, turkish opportunists, corrupt and rotten coalition forces???Infact not only is she as ignorant as the Iraqi government, she is as ignorant as Bush. Bush who plans, plans, plans, fails, fails, and fails. Bush who lies lies lies, promises, promises promises, just like the so called Iraqi PM who is frightened to take a step forward without Muqtada's support.
I wasnt even gonna write about politics for sometime, infact I was gonna write all about my NY trip, Yes I was in NYC, but no, I couldnt resist displaying my opinion here. I really couldnt. Maybe tomorrow, once I calm down, I will post all about my NYC experience and the pictures taken. But for now, I want a piece of that peace. I want that Pure, Eternal Peace...
18 Comments:
AAh, you were in NYC.. I would've loved to meet you, invite you to lunch and have a picture taken with you!
Glad to see you have bloged again - your entries are growing farther apart. I want to hear your thoughts on the presence and effectiveness of (foreign) Al Quaeda in Iraq which President Bush keeps telling us about as compared to the belief of Malaki that the opposition are home grown Iraqis. Do Iraqis believe Al Quaeda is the #1 problem in their country? If not, who and what? Your emotions seem to lie with the Iraqi people, however I feel this conflict has been such a failure from the U>S> point of view, that we will disengage from your country and leave iraq to itself.
"The Socialism 2007 Conference" eh?
She's talking about 6 people in the Green Zone who speak Arabic, why didn't she mention the fact that there is only 1 socialist amongst the nearly 1000 elected officials of the US Federal Government? :O
And who was that militant Lesbian who did the introduction, anyway? Why didn't anyone tell her that hair style went out of Fashion in 1977?
Sorry, Neurotica, if you thought that was a worthwhile speech, but socialism is the most despised political ideology in the United States. I doubt any sizable number of people are ever going to see that.
That whole thing reminded me just a little too much of my childhood... I was a kid in the 1970s. I can't believe those freaks want to bring the horrors of the 1970s back and force todays youth to suffer through it, all over again. What a disgusting group of human beings. They didn't fuck things up bad enough after Vietnam? They want to drag the US down into the shit all over again? Why? So that they can relive the "glory" of their youth? Fuck that.
Any young Americans out there.... get as far away from those freaks as you possibly can. I'm warning you. You don't want to go through what I did when I was young.
Oh, the comment section on YouTube for that video is moderated! What a shocker! Socialists who don't want to hear what the other 99.9% of people have to say about them and their crazy antics.
Well, I appreciate you allowing me to voice my opinion of the video here, Neurotica :)
So still whoring for the Americans -Does your hubby get a percentage too?
I'm sorry for asking, but I'm starting to get a sense....
Are you a shill? Are you paid Op? You DO work for the mercenaries or the US government, right? You paycheck depends on them, right? You spend most of your time in the Green Zone, right? You supported the slaughter of 665,000+ Iraqis, right? You work for the same people that torture Iraqis, right?
Are you a shill?
programmer craig said, socialism is the most despised political ideology in the United States.
Everyone please be aware that in the US "socialism" means Communism. In the rest of the world, it just means left-wing.
Indigo
It's like screaming in a vacuum. Despite all the engergy you put forth to let out the loudest noise, nothing comes out, or at least no one hears it. Or worse, screaming in a dream and nothing comes out. You don't know it's a dream, so you cannot simply wake up and see that the reality you were experiencing at that moment was not real. That's the only way I can remotely understand what is going on in Iraq, or for that matter anything politically tarnished. What a nightmare.
Melanie
"Why should we suffer for a nation...why should are own soldiers die"
People just don't understand that soldiers fighting in wars aren't doing it for the good of the people. To believe that American serviceman are going to risk their lives for people they've never met is patently absurd! They're doing it for selfish personal reasons, the motivations of which are completely irrational. Furthermore, Wars are ALWAYS self destructive to those participating in it. It is both suicidal and homicidal. Please read below:
War as a Sacrificial Ritual
"Preventive war is like committing suicide for fear of death."
— Otto von Bismarck
REALIST THEORIES OF WAR
Historians and political scientists agree that war is a realistic, rational, utilitarian activity. This is termed "the Realist paradigm that states are rational actors, carefully calculating costs of alternative courses of action and seeking to maximize their expected utility." Rationality is simply assumed by Realists: "War is a rational process" and "leaders are rational expected-utility maximizers [who] never choose an action that is expected to produce less value — or utility — than some alternative policy. Even when they admit that "aggression seldom succeeds; aggressor states usually are contained or destroyed," this is only because "misperceptions are common." "Misperceptions are viewed as having no cause. They are unmotivated. Irrational, self-destructive motives are unthinkable. That would be "doing psychology" — a forbidden activity.
Realists therefore tend to accept the statements of War Leaders when they claim to start wars for rational economic reasons. When Hitler, for instance, says he has to attack the Soviet Union and other Eastern European nations because Germany needs more territory to grow food ("Lebensraum"), Realists nod and accept his claim. They ignore the more bizarre emotional reasons nations really voice while slaughtering millions of their neighbors, such as they have to kill them because they might turn into lice who will poison their blood (Jews, Poles), or because they have longer noses than they do (Tutsis), or because they smoke different cigarettes (Bosnia), or because they hang a different colored rag from their homes (flag), or because someone in their religion insulted them thirteen centuries ago (Muslim sects). The emotional meaning of these statements is never investigated by Realists, nor do they affect their theory that wars are always about obtaining economic resources. After all, says one, "if we are to regard war as pathological, then all conflict must be similarly regarded," and Realists don't recognize the pathological portions of the right hemisphere.
Furthermore, Realists routinely overlook all the suicidal imagery that leaders voice as they actually make their decision to go to war. In the over a hundred wars I have researched in the past four decades, not one began by political or military leaders actually ever sitting down and adding up the economic costs and benefits of the war they are about to begin. More typically they voice suicidal, sacrificial motivations, like when Tojo called together his ministers before attacking Pearl Harbor and asked what would happen if Japan attacked the U.S. Each one forecast decisive defeat, so Tojo concluded: "There are times when we must jump off the Kiomizu Temple" [where Japanese regularly committed suicide]. Hitler, who attempted suicide himself several times, said he would "not be in a position to hesitate because of the ten million young men I shall be sending to their death" as he took Germany to war against nations many times his size and potential power, even ordering that German cities should be entirely destroyed to no purpose as the war ended. The German people shared his suicidal motivations — in fact, the war ended with tens of thousands of Germans committing gratuitous suicide in 1945 in what Beisel calls the "largest mass suicide in history." Beisel calls WWII "The Suicidal Embrace." In fact, all wars are suicidal embraces. No mention of suicidal or sacrificial war motivations, however, can be found in Realist theories.
THE SELF-DESTRUCTIVE MOTIVATIONS FOR STARTING WARS
Nation-states go to war about every 25 years, as though each new generation must be thrown into the mouth of the bloodthirsty Killer Motherland to cleanse the accumulated sins of the people. The more economic progress achieved by the nation, the more likely it is to start a war to destroy it. For instance Iraq was one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, but since 1980 it has either been at war with other nations or at war with itself (the embargo, sectarian killings etc.)which has killed millions of iraqis and utterly destroyed it's economy and infrastructure. Wars not only have occurred far more frequently after prosperous periods, but were over ten times bigger during prosperity. Goldstein's studies have shown that wars are far more severe and more frequent when they occur during upward economic phases. In fact, no great-power European wars have been started during a depression for two centuries. LeShan summarizes his extensive research saying "We know conclusively that war destroys far more wealth than it produces." Wars are in fact prosperity-reducing, sacrificial rituals. Group behavior guaranteed to provoke revenge is not "aggressive" — it is self-destructive.
Much of the problem of studying the true costs of going to war even in the unlikely event that the initiator wins is that "expected-utility" Realists routinely overlook all kinds of hidden but very real long-term costs of war. These include ignoring the costs of the hyperinflation and debt produced by war, the costs of gratuitous provocations of enemy allies, the costs of supposedly unmotivated "mistakes" that give other nations military advantages, the costs of maintaining troops in conquered nations (even producing net losses for empires), the loss of lifetime productivity of warriors and civilians killed and crippled during the war, the cost of interest on the money borrowed for the war, the costs of refugees, the increase in national product and trade often lost for decades, and so on. Add to these the costs of the usual crazy economic schemes that accompany wars, like the enormous costs of "purification" of Cambodia by the abolition of money and the forced deportation of the urban population by the Khmer Rouge. When some of these hidden costs are recognized — as when the U.S. invasion of Iraq is now estimated to eventually cost $2 trillion when some of the indirect costs are considered, four times the official cost estimate — it becomes obvious that there is no way the invasion could have been for "economic reasons." Even though some individuals make obscene amounts of money from wars, states do not. Nor do states often start wars for the reasons they are alleged to do, because they are falling behind in military strength. In fact, "in each of the major wars from 1600 to 1945 war was initiated by a state with marked military superiority." Actually, states that begin wars often do not win them: "No nation that began a major war in the 19th century emerged a winner." So starting wars is a self-destructive activity when the real costs of war are included. That the U.S. currently spends over a half trillion dollars a year on its military — more than the rest of the world combined — is not a measure of its strength. It has the hidden purpose of making enemies worldwide, and of costing so much it makes the U.S. a debter to the rest of the world.
The central failing of all Realist analysis of international relations is that they use a bizarre, totally backward theory of interpersonal relations. The arch-Realist Machiavelli stated it clearly in 1513: "If one has to choose between being loved and feared, it is better to be feared." As a theory of interpersonal relations, it claims that everyone would be better off arming themselves with guns and knives so as they walk around the street or visit people or live in their families they will be feared. It only overlooks one thing: the slightest disagreement between individuals in a totally fearful world will provoke violence. This state of endless violence Machiavelli calls "better than a state of mutual love." Realists agree with him on how to be successful in international relations: "The Realist paradox is that one must prepare for war to maintain peace; one must threaten war to avoid it and escalate a crisis to end it." Realism is a theory proclaiming the wisdom of continuously escalating paranoid provocations. It is a theory that is self-destructive to its core, so it is not surprising that the tens of thousands of politicians who follow it blindly find themselves putting their nations constantly on the edge of self-destruction, rarely negotiating or talking to any other state, constantly preparing to initiate "preventive" wars so they can be constantly feared, constantly making alliances that have been shown to lead to war and make wars deadlier and longer rather than preventing it. Realism is a theory that declines respect and avoids cooperation, a theory guaranteeing international self-destructive policies. As Vasquez courageously puts it, "Realist practices make war more likely rather than less likely because they increase threat and insecurity rather than ameliorating them." It is a theory maintained by people who have been abused as children and who are condemned to repeating this abuse on others and on themselves as adults.
WARS AS CLEANSING SACRIFICIAL RITUALS
As de Maistre pointed out: "Human sacrifice is a universal human institution. All human cultures believed in a universal guilt and the need for ceremonies of sacrifice to repair the broken relation between humanity and divinity…a voluntary sacrifice of the innocent who sacrifices himself to the divinity as a propitiatory victim." As we have seen in Chapter One, the "innocent" who is sacrificed is the innocent child, who is sacrificed as a Bad Self to the Killer Mother, the "divinity." The innocent sacrificed victim is the scapegoat in every tribe, every religion, every early state, who serves to cleanse the group of sin, to purge the fears embedded during child abuse, to repeat the traumas inflicted by the family in early years. Whether the sacrifice is staged by witches or female shamans or male priests who dressed in maternal robes, Killer Mother representatives have restored group wholeness ever since the Paleolithic as groups switch into their dissociated violent alters and trance themselves into a religious frenzy while cutting themselves, murdering sacrificial victims, and going to war. The sacrificial war ritual is a wholly internal need. "Enemies" can always be found when needed for the ritual. When the Aztecs felt their bloodthirsty Killer Goddess needed victims, they said they "longed for death" and sacrificed themselves by becoming warriors and fighting anyone, even at times dividing themselves into two groups to kill each other or even simply committing suicide, in order to "renew" their Killer Mother Goddess and their society. The ritual repeated the horrible traumas they had endured as children, since Aztec children were routinely cut, bled, burned, battered and tortured for their Killer Goddess and told they would soon die, like the children they watched actually sacrificed and eaten by their parents. The innocence of their war victims was essential, since as children they were in fact innocent, even as their mothers regularly pierced their genitals and faces in order to "cleanse the world." All enemies are chosen because they are innocent and helpless, like children, which is why most people who are killed in wars are civilians. Hutus slaughtered a half million Tutsis who for centuries had been innocent, friendly next-door neighbors. Easter Islanders had no neighbors, so they joyfully slaughtered each other until they had reduced the population of their island to 111 persons. Innocent children have been at the center of most early sacrifices in history, from the infants sacrificed to cleanse ancient Israel and Egypt to the little girls sacrificed at Woodhenge.
The childhood innocence of sacrificial victims explains why "world wars begin with a major state intimidating or attacking a minor state…all of the wars that have expanded have involved minor states in their initial stages." They were symbols of weak children. That these warrior states then provoked a second major power to oppose them is just a measure of their suicidal need to self-destruct. Leaders promise "sacrifice," not gain, when starting wars; as John Adams said as the American Revolution began, war with England was the only way "to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy…" People say they have to commit suicide to "find peace," just as nations say they fight wars to "find peace" — peace from internal despair. As Korner declared during the Napoleonic Wars, "Happiness lies only in sacrificial death."
Shneidman's study of "The Suicidal Mind" shows all say that suicide solves the problem of stopping the unendurable pain inside them that comes from loss of love, either because someone close rejected them or because their inner parental alter rejected them as useless. They leave suicide messages like" I just cannot live without you. I might as well be dead. When you left me I died inside. I have this empty feeling inside me that is killing me. I just can't take it anymore." Suicide promises "a great peace" that "reminds them of how small" they are — a child again — and how helpless, but "gives them the upper hand" in ending everything, making them "in control if I die." Wars give the same feeling of being "in control" and triumphing over feelings of rejection and helplessness. Some military leaders admit the suicidal goal of war: as General Sir John Hackett put it: "The whole essence of being a soldier is not to slay but to be slain."
Studies of powerful politicians show that the sexual fantasy they most request of call girls is masochistic, being dominated and hurt, not sadistic. War leaders begin their nation's sacrificial ritual when their dissociated alters begin to call for mass suicidal and homicidal actions. Most of the people killed are actually their own citizens: Rummel shows that battle deaths in the twentieth century were 34 million, while over 170 million were civilians killed in the century by their own government. Robins and Post term the dissociated internal alter the "hidden executioner." They show that "the pain of being under attack by an internal persecutor cannot be overstated. One solution is suicide…the hating introject calls out for the execution of the evil self…A solution for this intolerable burden is to disown the internal persecutor. This is what the paranoid does. He projects the internal persecutor onto an outside presence against which he must defend himself. It is rare that a paranoid openly commits suicide. More commonly he attacks his perceived enemy." And that "perceived enemy" has all the characteristics of the Bad Self that was abused and neglected by the parents.
Are nations that start wars paranoid? Yes, every one of them entertains openly paranoid group-fantasies of being attacked by "enemies" who are in fact not about to attack. But the question of psychiatric designations of groups or leaders of groups is a tricky one. Psychiatrists have constructed a highly selective mental disorder list, DSM IV, that simply eliminates anything but select individual disorders, which is why every book I have read on leaders at war — even Hitler, even bin Laden — declare they are "normal." Even when obviously pathological groups commit suicide in unison — like the 900 Jonestown mass suiciders who killed themselves and their children at the direction of Jim Jones — psychiatrists proclaim them "not insane…they showed no signs of psychopathology." Yet, given that those who are driven to interpersonal violence are listed in DSM IV as "sociopaths," might one conclude from the evidence in this book on the internal origins of war that those who need to commit mass violence should be considered "bellipaths"? Or "war addicts"? That people who slaughter harmless neighbors and sacrifice their own people by the millions are pathologically disturbed will some day become evident, even if they are not now listed in DSM IV.
It is useful to think of going to war as having similar motivations as other self-destructive activities, such as the self cutting rituals that people do to relieve inner despairs. Self-cutters too are in pain from having lost the approval of an inner parental alter, and deliberately injure themselves by making shallow razor cuts to their forearms or thighs so they feel that they themselves are in control of their inner pain and loneliness. This produces a calming flow of opiates in the brain, which overpowers the inner sorrows. As wars start, one can see the "high" produced by this flow of opiates, making leaders fantasy that their nations are far more powerful than they are and that the war will be quickly won. Winston Churchill often noted the unwarranted optimism of leaders going to war for ephemeral reasons, with disastrous consequences to tens of millions of their citizens, saying: "Almost one might think the world wished to suffer." Opiates work for a time. That is why suicide, homicide and anxiety disorder rates generally decrease during wars: the population is "high" in their war trance. Warriors throughout history regularly fantasy that they are about to suffer "not just a necessary but a noble and beautiful death" and they will achieve a "death that was a magnificent triumph over death," a martyrdom precisely like that of the Japanese kamikaze pilots or the Islamic terrorists who imagined their deaths would finally give them the love of their deity (their rejecting caretakers). It is as sacrificial martyrs that both warriors and terrorists willingly die for their holy Motherland Deities. They are responding to their inner maternal alter voice that continues to tell them "You are so selfish! You never think of ME! I wish I never had you!"
The self-destructive motivations for war are the reasons why most wars are initiated by "superpowers fearing decline." Realists are puzzled by why the strongest states so regularly fear decline that they start "preventive wars" that they did not need to start, why they feared they were about to decline, and why they so regularly ended up losing. As Copeland puts it, "in every one of the thirteen major wars…covered in this book, conflict was initiated by a state fearing decline…All major wars…therefore must be preventive wars." Copeland and other Realists never do explain why this should be, since they cannot "do psychology" and discover that even when states are superpowers that is a reality only for the left hemispere of their brain, but when before wars they switch into the right hemisphere's dissociated emotional alters they see themselves not as powerful at all, but as helpless children anticipating attack by the power of their Killer Mothers projected onto the enemy.
Everyone please be aware that in the US "socialism" means Communism. In the rest of the world, it just means left-wing.
Everyone, please be aware that what Indigo just said is incorrect. Socialism means the same thing here that it does in the rest of the world, and the people in that video were American socialists. We don't have any communists in the US government. We had one, back in the 1970s, but he died of old age.
Indigo, you are right in a way though... American leftists are socialists. And they aren't very popular here. The US democratic party would be considered a right wing party, in Europe. They aren't leftists, according to your understanding of the word. They aren't socialists. You can't find me any socialist in the US government except for Bernie Sanders.
Jason,
To believe that American serviceman are going to risk their lives for people they've never met is patently absurd! They're doing it for selfish personal reasons, the motivations of which are completely irrational.
That's the dumbest thing I ever heard in my whole life. You think that human beings risk death out of *selfishness*!? Seems to me that the more selfish a person is, the more averse to physical risk taking he/she would be. Selfishness leads to cowardice, not courage. I find it a bit disturbing to think a rational human being can actually convince himself that what you just claimed is true.
Ok ... so the Normandy invasion
was a bunch of selfish americans ???
I bid you go see graveyards
in Normandy ... young men from
The midwestern US, California,
The carolinas, New Jersey .
I mean how wacked are you ??
Once again Neurotica speeks the truth and the Saddamites attack her.
Bush 's planning for post-war Iraq
hinged on one major fundamental idea.
That Saddam was so brutal and so despised amongst Iraqi ... that they would accept the US prescence
and Unify without mounting an insurgency ...
So Bush et -al did not see the rise of someone like al-Sadr from the impoverished Shia ... well who did ??
Supposedly these people were treated the worst by Saddam ...and what less then one week after Saddam staute gets pulled down they began attacking Americans !!!
And the damn fools even killed
al-Khoie ... lest people forget ...
If Bush did not plan for post
Saddam Iraq ... well neither
did al-Khoie ... this honorable
man came back to Iraq to rebuild
the poorest areas ... and his own
sect kills him ... that itself
shows how difficult and divided
Iraqi are ... I mean Shia clergy
killing other Shia clergy ... essentially immediately after the hated Saddam was remover from power ... how was that predictable ???
The reason Americans people do not want to
see more Americans die is because
of people like al-Sadr
The US forces have been in Iraq for 4 years ... Iraqis do not want
more Americans ... we can not solve
the horrific irrational divide
which exists between the former regime elements and the Shia extremists ... its a problem the US
military can not solve ...
Its like asking a police offer
to fix deep violent rift between a husband and wife .... the opposing sides can be kept apart and
even imprisoned temporarily but the solution lies in the opposing
sides reconciling .....
USA will in all probability begin
withdrawing forces early next year.
Hopefully it will be a steady orderly withdrawal under vastly
improved conditions ... but without
clear cooperation between more and more Iraqi and US forces ...
we are going to leave ...
And Iraqi can fight each other
as if thats some great wonderful thing ... and then return to their
homes without toilets !!! and have their mothers and sisters
walk through sewage in order to shop and possibly get killed !!!
and of course with Americans gone
the electricity will improve drastically ... and with Americans gone modern medicine and hospital equipment and modern surgical techniques and surgical rooms will
appear very quickly !!!
hail the glorius "patriotic resistence" ... the resitence
to clean water in every home ...
the resistence to peacefull bustling markets and restaurants ...
the resistence to the most modern
advances in medicine for Iraqi
children and elderly ...etc ...
Yes Hail this resitence
and its alliance with al-queda
Just do not wear shorts or carry
a tennis racket ... for you will be killed !!!
Don't think War heroes can be selfish?
Helen benedict recently interviewed more than 20 female veterans of the Iraq war for a new book. Every one of them said the danger of rape by other US soldiers is so widely recognized in Iraq that their officers routinely told them not to go out alone at night.
A 2003 survey of female veterans from Vietnam to the first Gulf war found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. Another study conducted in 92-93 found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.
One female soldier took to carrying a knife at all times. "The knife wasn't for the Iraqis, it was for the guys on my own side."
Jason, what is your point with all this crap? This latest comment is completely unrelated to that 10 page diatribe you went on in your last comment, no?
You don't like the US military. We get it.
As to your "studies" - I could find 20 women who'd been in the US military who would claim US soldiers eat babies. It's not hard to do a study that "proves" whatever agenda you have an interest in promoting. It's worthless. I served 6 years in the US Marines, in the infantry, and we did have to post guards over the female living quarters. There aren't any women in the infantry, but they routinely tasked us (infantrymen) with that duty, posted outside the building and inside, both. You know what we were protecting them from? Irate husbands and boyfriends. We were protecting them from domestic violence. Because they had god-awful bad taste in men. So we had to stand duty 24/7 out in front of their quarters, which wasn't a whole lot of fun, if you ask me. You know why they pulled us out of infantry units for that duty? Because we didn't know or work with any of those women, and we didn't know or work with any of their boyfriends/husbands. Relationships are complicated in the military. When people break up or separate, there's nowhere to go. You have to continue living and working with your ex, for years sometimes. It's not like civilian life where you can get a new job or move to another neighborhood, or move in with your family for a while, etc.
See? I can change direction too :P
Shloown? What do you Suggest NIW?
All I can see is disapointment
:(
Zappy the Sad
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Programmer craig is guy.
Dont you mean "gay" stupido?
yep that's him...
I guess that I'm not the only one that knows he is "gay"...
Post a Comment
<< Home