oscarjr.jpg

January 19, 2003

Touring the Web

Crazy penguins are at it again.

The penguins start swimming in circles early in the day and rarely stop until they stagger out of the pool at dusk.

The six penguins from Ohio started it all, Tollini said, apparently convincing the others to join them for the watery daily circuit.


In a comment on this post, Bill Quick succinctly lists the reasons for our upcoming war with Iraq:
...I'll tell you this one last time, and then I will simply post a copy every time you claim there is "no connection" between Saddam and the War on Terror. Here it is in simple, easily digestible points:

1. Islamofascist terrorism cannot exist in any meaningful way without the support of rogue governments.

2. We know those governments that support terror in many different forms include Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and Pakistan.

3. We can only win the War on Terror by destroying those state regimes that support terror.

4. The best strategy for destroying those regimes is to attack, conquer, and control Iraq first.

5. Why? Because that would remove Saddam, his regime, and any possibility that he might attain nukes in the future, or that he might transfer WMD technology and systems to terror organizations now in existence - like Al-Qaeda or, more likely, Hamas.

6. It would also allow us to free the Iraqi people from a brutal and deadly despotism, and to set up a nascent democratic state in the heart of Middle Eastern tyrants, it's very existence serving to destabilize the regimes of our enemies.

7. It would also give us a secure base for our military power, one within easy reach of the entire middle east, but not subject to the whims of various middle eastern tyrants.

8. It would also give us control of Iraq's oil, which would effectively negate the major weapon of our primary enemy, the Saudi economic oil weapon.

9. Iraq is the key to fighting and winning the war on terror. Unless you address these points, I will simply assume you are beyond rational argument on the issue, and just post this following every comment of yours in which you claim there is no connection between Saddam, invading and conquering Iraq, and the War on Terror.


Handy.

First tobacco, now chocolate? On NRO, Andrew Stuttaford writes, "the totalitarians of 'public health' are now eyeing your chocolate bar."

Finally, please don't miss the usual greatness from IMAO.

Posted by oscarjr at January 19, 2003 03:18 PM | TrackBack
Comments

They'll get my Snickers when they pry it out of my cold, dead, brown-stained hands.

Or something like that.

Posted by: CGHill at 03:44 PM

Mr. Hill:

Hah!, and thanks for the first real comment on this site.

From the original article, "Bumper chocolate bars should be banned and confectionery firms made to sign a strict new nutrition code, a leading public health expert claims."

I'm partial to Snickers, too, and Dustbury.com.

Oscar Jr.

Posted by: Oscar Jr. at 03:45 PM

It won't happen. Millions of women (and not a few men) will revolt if you take away their chocolate.

Not even the most headstrong bureaucrat will be able to withstand their fury.

Posted by: CGHill at 03:46 PM

I hope you're right about this. Still, I find it surprising how often (and regarding how many different, legal things) terms like "ban" and "restrict" are being used.

Posted by: Oscar Jr. at 03:47 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?







Get a GoStats hit counter