The Daily Static
  The Daily Static
UF Archives
Register
UF Membership
Ad Free Site
Postcards
Community

Geekfinder
UFie Gear
Advertise on UF

Forum Rules
& FAQ


Username

Password


Create a New Account

 
 

Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index

Holy cow! 40,000 US deserters since 2000?! by Illiad2006-11-19 12:55:59
  Awol just means you went missing by joecrouse2006-09-08 09:32:45
    Sounds to me like they are counting by DesertRat662006-09-08 09:48:10
      Ok, so what would you do? by Control2006-09-08 11:27:57
        Wrong question by DesertRat662006-09-08 12:07:10
          Heh. by TheRantingGeek2006-09-08 12:35:27
            the reasoning of you two makes me sick by lurker69 2006-09-08 13:56:45
While I totally agree with you on "taking the oath when signing..." there are 2 grave mistakes in what you are saying:
Your country was neither taken over by Clinton, nor Bush in his 1st term: the majority of your people VOTED for them. So go and complain about them, not the president elected.
Taken over -i.e. not properly elected- it was for Bush's 2nd term but that would be a distraction from our topic now.
Next: Exactly that "If he ordered my unit to go overseas and engage in a war to protect American interests" is the gist of what the Western world tries to overcome since end of the colonization time:
NO, we do not go OVERSEAS to war no more, just because another country has something we would also like to have. Instead we are trying to convince by being great, beautiful and on the "battleground of international business". Note: this is aside from defending against immediate dangers of your country (in the sense of your territory, not your world-wide interests!).
And with the, oh my dear, so nice helping against evil rulers of little, evil countries, MAYBE capable of building weapons themselves: why the strange selection? The US could go for over 40 rulers of nations which treat their people even worse than saddam did: instead such people get suppport because of "national interest": that was the case with Bin Laden in the early 90-ies (late 80ies?) and is now being repeated e.g. in Equatorial Guinea, which changed within a year from total morons into a viable partner: incidently after lots of oil was found.

Exactly this implicit "You are either totally in favour of us, or you're our enemy, especially if you have valuable resources" brings you in the situation of the (late!) Roman empire: comparable to none (concerning power, achievements and standard of living, well at least onaverage :-) ), suicidal not to have you as "friend" but slowly but surely hated for your openly selfish behaviour and double standards.
So overall I must be happy that only about half (to my personal, statisticallly not significant experience) of your countrymen are falling for this unfortunate way of thinking...




Lurker
[ Reply ]
              You got your "facts" way wrong by DesertRat662006-09-08 14:10:35
                I know! by VivianC2006-09-08 14:15:54
                  I think it was Carter. by TheRantingGeek2006-09-08 14:25:10
                thank you for pecking on little details by lurker692006-09-08 14:33:03
                  That's democracy for you. by TheRantingGeek2006-09-08 14:35:23

 

[Todays Cartoon Discussion] [News Index]

Come get yer ARS (Account Registration System) Source Code here!
All images, characters, content and text are copyrighted and trademarks of J.D. Frazer except where other ownership applies. Don't do bad things, we have lawyers.
UserFriendly.Org and its operators are not liable for comments or content posted by its visitors, and will cheerfully assist the lawful authorities in hunting down script-kiddies, spammers and other net scum. And if you're really bad, we'll call your mom. (We're not kidding, we've done it before.)