I SUPPORT TYRANNY AND DEATH IN IRAQ

>It’s strange how you can take a position that I basically

>support and make it feel so wrong.

Maybe you're sugar-coating what those who were opposed to this war are REALLY standing for, and my pointing it out makes you uncomfortable. It's sort of like fucking - you jump into bed all hot and aroused, and then you cum, you look in the mirror - see what you REALLY just did - and you "feel so wrong." Interesting choice of words.

Either way, you began by saying that I make your position "feel so wrong," but then proceed to say nothing inconsistent with what I said.

As I see it, anyone who could hear the atrocities committed by Saddam, and see teh outright jubiliation on the face of Iraqis who are FREE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER - and STILL not acknowledge how much Good this war achieved, is eitherirrationally drowning in hatred for this country, or petrified fearful of changing their view. Either way, it is unfathomable to me how someone can so rigidly oppose an action which yielded this result.

>As others have stated,

>just because you don’t have a solution for the problem, it

>does not mean you support Saddam staying in power. I don’t

>have an answer for world hunger, but I certainly do not

>support the fact that there are starving children in the

>world.

BUT WE DO HAVE A SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM!!!! IT'S CALLED WAR.

There is a Huge difference betweeen not knowing how to solve a problem - and knowing how to the problem but opposing that solution. To use your example, if you assume that having every ciitzen of the Western World donate $1 a year on their tax return would solve world hunger, and you said that you opposed that, AND HAD NO OTHER WAY TO SOLVE IT, I think it's fair to say that you are against the elimination of world hunger, since the ONLY SOLUTION is one that you oppose. Don't you think so?

>I’m with you on this. We tried containment and a more-or-less

>peaceful approach for 12-years. It wasn’t working and no one

>was coming up with any alternative except to keep waiting and

>keep trying the same old same old.

Then how can you say that the people who advocated this - KNOWING IT WOULD NOT DISLODGE SADDAM FROM POWER -- were not, in effect, working to keep him in power, and against the liberation of Iraqis.

What matters are ACTIONS - not words expressing concern.

>A lot can happen between now and the next election. I believe

>this approval rating is more of a “rally around the chief”

>kind of approval rating. Granted he had a high approval

>rating before this, but just like this shot up quickly, it can

>fall back down just as quickly if things start going south.

Obviously, this Administration can make mistakes in the future which harm his ratings. I was just responding to the ridiculous assertion that this extraordinarily popular Adminstration NOW has "egg on its face."

>Either position is premature at this point. Why argue about

>something that has yet to be resolved? It certainly appears

>they were prepared for a chemical attack, but we all know that

>the government would be crowing if they had found anything.

>Only time will tell.

I'm not saying he has such weaspons, becasue I don't know. The evidence certainly suggests that he does. We know FOR SURE that he DID - and he can't account for where they went.

The LESSON OF 9/11 IS THAT WE DON'T WAIT AROUND FOR ABSOULTE PROOF BEFORE ACTING!!!!!! We don't need 100% proof of a threat in order to act against it. With these kinds of weaspons, the "proof" that they exist will be their use - and given how destructive they are, anyone who WAITS for that before acting is, at best, amoral and responsible for the devestation.

Nick was making the point that we should ASSUME THAT WEASPONS DON'T EXIST UNTIL WE SEE THEM. Don't you realize how sick and dangerous that mentality is??

>This was probably true in the sixth century (or whenever it

>was coined) but it’s just not that simple anymore. In today’s

>world, governments must often choose between the lesser of two

>evils and it’s naïve to think otherwise.

Exactly - OSL will choose between teh lesser of 2 evils, the US or a secular, but Arab and Muslim Saddam. Similarly, Saddam would have done the same thing. That is how TERRORISTS AND "SECULAR" STATES WORK TOGETHER TO HARM THE UNITED STATES.

It's also why all of this dismissive rhetoric of "oh- don't worry if Saddam has WMD - he won't give them to Al-Qaueda, because it's religious and he's secular' - was so incredibly naive and irresponsible.

>>Which is exactly why it is so alarming and intolerable for

>>countries that HATE US to get weapons which can literally

>>destroy our civilization.

>

>A little dramatic don’t you think? There is not a nation on

>the planet that could destroy our civilization.

Tell me what you think would happen if a radiological bomb were detonated in Manhattan, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Do you think it

would be society-threatening?

How about if small pox were unleashed in the population? Or antrhax in every major metropolitan subway. You think it's being dramatic to describe those sorts of acts as civilization-threatening?

>I guess my main problem with your approach is that you act

>like invading the country and ousting Saddam is the entire

>war. In my mind, that is just one battle and a foregone

>conclusion. The war will be won if we are successful in

>establishing a stable democracy. We have a long way to go

>before we can call that a success and there is an awful lot

>that has to go right between now and then.

You have me confused with someone else. I made the point that this is BUT ONE step in a long, comprehensive battle. Wherever there are countries boiling over with hatred of the U.S and the West, and where dictatorships reign, and where destructive weapons have a good chance to be floating around, we have to act strongly and decisively to put an end to that - REGARLDESS OF HOW MANY OTHER COUNTRIES THINK WE SHOULD.

>We’ll see…we’ll see.

>

You are quite right, we'll see you in Damascus next!

hey hey smeg .........gotta tell ya i'd much rather be related to aging hippies with strength,conviction,and a moral conscience; than war mongering gutless clowns that let others fight their battles......my uncle has taught me a lot of things,one of them is if you really believe in something,you put your reputation and life on the line for it.........if you don't you are a morally bankrupt coward..HEY by the way .......for an old guy you really do have a cool sense of humour....thats why you are the only right wing nut i still read.......well woodlawns okay too but he's not a nut,......anyway gotta go,you know us bleeding heart liberals,always caring about things that the right wingers don't like .........hmmmmmm like your right to suck as many dicks as you want without going to jail.........damn pesky [email protected]:29-04/10/03

>hey hey smeg .........gotta tell ya i'd much rather be

>related to aging hippies with strength,conviction,and a moral

>conscience;

That's some "moral conscience" you have. Go read about the Iraqis who have freedom for the first time; who are, after 30 years, emancipated from an unimaginably brutal dictator who denied every basic liberty which you, lazily and in the most self-absorbed way possible, take for granted.

You opposed their liberation. If you had your way, they would be condemend to 30 more years of extreme, violent suppression and suffocating, soul-destroying tyranny. So, too, would the entire Eastern bloc.

Next time you go to publicly declare how "moral" you are, focus on that.

>Interesting choice of words.

Don’t read anything into it. Sometimes a cigar is really just a cigar.

>Either way, you began by saying that I make your position

>"feel so wrong," but then proceed to say nothing inconsistent

>with what I said.

There’s nothing more to say other than one does not equal the other. I agree that the war is a necessary evil. I do not agree that not supporting it is the same as supporting Saddam. That’s just way too black-and-white.

>As I see it, anyone who could hear the atrocities committed by

>Saddam, and see teh outright jubiliation on the face of Iraqis

There are five million people in Baghdad. I’ve seen a few thousand on the streets. I don’t know that the majority of Iraqis are NOT filled will jubilation, but seeing a few thousand on the street does not settle the case. What if this is the sum total of the disenfranchised population? I don’t think it is, but again, it’s too soon to say.

>There is a Huge difference betweeen not knowing how to solve a

>problem - and knowing how to the problem but opposing that

>solution. To use your example, if you assume that having

>every ciitzen of the Western World donate $1 a year on their

>tax return would solve world hunger, and you said that you

>opposed that, AND HAD NO OTHER WAY TO SOLVE IT, I think it's

>fair to say that you are against the elimination of world

>hunger, since the ONLY SOLUTION is one that you oppose. Don't

>you think so?

I agree with your hunger example, but you simply can’t apply that level of certainty to this war. There is a certainty that Saddam is out, but we won’t know for a while whether the Iraqis will be better off in the long run.

>What matters are ACTIONS - not words expressing concern.

That might be paramount if the only issue was the Iraqis personal freedom, but we are also approaching this out of self-interest. There is a perfectly reasonable school of thought that says this may actually make it much more dangerous for Americans. This could polarize the entire Arab world against us and ensure that we are never the lesser of two evils. An Arab world united by their hatred for the U.S. would be a very unpleasant thing.

>You think it's

>being dramatic to describe those sorts of acts as

>civilization-threatening?

I don’t want to split hairs, but you said, “literally destroy our civilization”. That is very different from “society-threatening” and “civilization-threatening”.

>Everyone had concerns about what will occur after the

>liberation. Everyone still does. But nobody - including the

>two commentators that you mentioned - were opposed to the war

>on the ground that what would occur post-liberation would be

>worse for the Iraqis than was Saddam.

I really don't think you have any business speaking for all of the people who opposed this war, as you purport to do in the paragraph quoted above. There were those who expressed serious misgivings about this war for exactly that reason, and you can't make them disappear simply by saying it isn't so. Another thing you can't do is say that they were wrong. At this point no one, including you and me, knows whether what will follow Saddam will be better or worse in the long run.

>It is NOT the case that the anti-war protestors couldn't

>merely figure out how to solve the problem of Saddam. We DID

>figure out how to do that - the ONLY way - which was a war.

Sorry, but that is merely your opinion, an opinion that is clearly not shared by everyone in this thread, let alone everyone in the world. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true.

>I was referring to the orgy of

>>revenge killings that occurred in the Southern or Shiite

>towns

>>immediately after the 1991 defeat of Saddam's forces by the

>>allies, when it seemd to many Shiites that the Saddam regime

>>was finished. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people

>>associated with the regime were butchered in a matter of

>days.

>> The Western press didn't pay a lot of attention to this --

>>that may be why you've never heard of it. I hope the same

>>thing doesn't happen again.

>It is ALREADY happening. There are lots of reports of

>vengence killings, attacks on Ba'ath Party members and

>pro-Saddam imams, etc.

I have heard only one such report, that of a murderous attack on a Shiite religious scholar in the town of Najaf. This man, far from being a "pro-Saddam imam," was the son of a Shiite Grand Ayatollah who was executed by Saddam years ago. The son had been in exile for a number of years and had become a prominent voice for reconciliation among the various religious and ethnic groups in Iraq.

If you have heard reports of the kind of widespread, deadly violence that occurred in 1991 I wish you would refer me to the sources where I can read them as well. Not that I would get any pleasure from it, but I would like to know if this is actually happening.

>Such events, while unfortunate, are both understandable and

>inevitable. After 30 years of terror, many of these people

>have had their family members and neighbors tortured and

>slaughtered by this regime for the slightest infraction or no

>infraction. Clearly, anyone working for or on behalf of that

>regime is going to be a target of lots of vengence.

>But nobody would suggest (at least, prior to reading your

>post, I didn't think anyone would) that these incidents would

>render this extraordinary war of liberation unjust.

You keep saying "nobody would suggest" this or that. I really don't know where you got the idea that you can speak for everyone involved in this debate. You can't.

As I said above, there is a dispute involving a large number of people on each side about whether this invasion is going to make things better or worse for Iraq and for the entire region. The death of Tito in Yugoslavia ultimately gave rise to a cycle of ethnic violence in that country that I think many of its inhabitants would agree was worse than anything that happened under his iron-fisted rule. I sincerely hope that the same thing does not happen in Iraq. But at this point "nobody" is in a position to rule it out.

With regard to your statement about the killings, there are officially 2 clerics killed at the same time in the report you speak of. In addition there is the news report that the British are trying to confiscate guns in Basra. The residents of the city have stated thta if the British do not arrest the Saddam loyalists, then the residents of the city will take matters into their own hands with regard to the Saddam loyalists and kill them. I can only assume that the same situation will occur in all locations that have torture cells such as the one the British found in Basra where victims or relatives of victims of the torture still live in the area.

>The death of Tito in Yugoslavia ultimately gave rise

>to a cycle of ethnic violence in that country that I think

>many of its inhabitants would agree was worse than anything

>that happened under his iron-fisted rule. I sincerely hope

>that the same thing does not happen in Iraq. But at this

>point "nobody" is in a position to rule it out.

And let me just add that Thomas Friedman, of whose columns on this subject you must have heard, has repeatedly referred to Iraq as "the Arab Yugoslavia." He has been a supporter, not an opponent, of this war. But he has warned again and again that there is the potential for the country to dissolve into ethnic and religious violence just as Yugoslavia did. That would be worse than Saddam.

>I have heard only one such report, that of a murderous attack

>on a Shiite religious scholar in the town of Najaf. This man,

>far from being a "pro-Saddam imam," was the son of a Shiite

>Grand Ayatollah who was executed by Saddam years ago.

As another poster pointed out. There were 2 (and perhaps 3) people killed in that attack. One was Abdul Majid al-Khoei, the son of the Shiite cleric to whom you referred.

The other, however, was Haider al-Kadar, with whom al-Khoei decided to attend a meeting at the mosque as a gesture of reconciliation. Here is what MSNBC.com said about him:

<<Al-Kadar was hated by many for his ties to Saddam’s regime. “Al-Kadar was an animal,” said Adil Adnan al-Moussawi, 25, who witnessed the confrontation. “The people were shouting they hate him, he should not be here.”>>

>If you have heard reports of the kind of widespread, deadly

>violence that occurred in 1991 I wish you would refer me to

>the sources where I can read them as well. Not that I would

>get any pleasure from it, but I would like to know if this is

>actually happening.

It is not yet that widespread. It's only been 24 hours, and large parts of Iraq are still not completely liberated. For now, there is social upheaval of all kinds; law and order has broken down; and there are, in addition to incidents such as this one, numerous threats of mass killings and repraisals, as well as lesser acts of violence (such as brutal beatings of suspected fayadeen members). There were also reports of a Police Officer being murdered on a street corner in Basra two days ago due to his excess brutality under Saddam. If you haven't read that, I'll post the link for it.

There is likely to be some degree of disorder and violence in the wake of the disapperance of a 30-year dictatorship. To say the lease, that pales in comparision to the limitless promise and opportunity that has been created for Iraq as a result of the actions of our country.

>NICK - Why won't you answer this question:

>

>>>NICK - CAN YOU TELL ME PLEASE - DID YOU FAVOR THE CONTINUED

>>>OPPRESSION OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE BY SADDAM HUSSEIN? IF NOT,

>>>WHAT DID YOU PROPOSE, SHORT OF THIS WAR, TO END THEIR MASS

>>>SUFFERING?

>>>

>>>ANYTHING AT ALL? Or do you just prefer to make cheap,

>trite

>>>comments about Bush's need to please his father in lieu of

>>>doing anything?

I did not favor the continued oppression of the Iraqi people. A war waged for the purpose of freeing them is acceptable, as many ARabs are starting to realize. One man was quoted today as saying that the ARab people should have realized Saddam's brutality earlier and done somehting about it as a region.

Bush did not wage this war for the iraqi people. He did it to outdo his father; to give lucrative oil contracts to his rich buddies and to distract the nation, quite successfully, from the failure to bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

>What did you propose that we do to get Saddam and the Taliban

>out of power, then? Anything at all?

Well, until 9/11, that was the prevailing policy of the Bush the elected, Clinton and Bush the appointed administrations. The war against the Taliban was justified because they were harboring bin Laden and al Qaeda. We were perfectly content before that to let the human rights violations against women in Afghanistan go unchalleneged.

>Where is this "egg on the face of the administration"

>reflected? In the 80% approval ratings for George Bush? In

>the Republican election sweep in November, 2002? In the

>parades of gratitude and celebration taking place on the

>streets in Iraq? If that's "egg on one's face," I think more

>governments would like to have it.

Apples and oranges, my friend. Bush was soundly drubbed in all quarters for his failure to handle North Korea. He was so busy creating the fake threat of Iraq, that when a real one emreged, North Korea, it made him look like even more of an idiot then he already is.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/luckovich/2003/images/mike012103.gif

>I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that as long as bad

>people hide their bad weapons, then they don't exist.

If there's no weapon, there's no crime. But wait, you must subsrcibe to the Ashcroft dogma of guilty before proven innocent.

After that overwrought departure from the board 10 days ago, it appears that Love Bubble Butt couldn't stay away after all.;-)

ahhhhhhhhhhh so that's who this fool is..........

>If you

>haven't read that, I'll post the link for it.

Thank you. I have not heard any reports of widespread communal violence, and I hope that none occurs. If it does, there will be a real danger that "the Arab Yugoslavia" will be more than a metaphor, and if so the people of Iraq may come to wish this "liberation" had never happened. Let's not forget that the result of getting rid of the dictatorship of Tito and instituting a system of elections was that Milosevic got elected.

>There is likely to be some degree of disorder and violence in

>the wake of the disapperance of a 30-year dictatorship. To

>say the lease, that pales in comparision to the limitless

>promise and opportunity that has been created for Iraq as a

>result of the actions of our country.

Whether it "pales in comparison" depends on whether the promise and opportunity are ever actually realized. If they are not, no one will remember anything about them, it will be remembered only that we made an already bad situation worse.

>Little boys who like to play big

>>peoples' games make me vomit.

And who exactly are the "big people" in this scenario? Bush is surrounded by people like Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld who have far more experience with foreign and military affairs than he does. But somehow he has managed to steer a course between these guys without being entirely dominated by any of them, and the course he has steered seems to have accomplished exactly what he said it would. By now it should be clear to anyone with a brain that underestimating Bush is a fatal mistake. He has made fools of people who have done that again and again and again in the past two years.

>Woody,

>

>Pissboy came out of hiding. I know you call him shitboy, but

>shit implies something of substance, and I have yet to see

>that.

Well, what can you say about someone who cheated on his wife, then cheated on his boyfriend, and with a sterling resume like that still has the nerve to complain about the deceitfulness of others? I don't think the English language offers us a sufficiently descriptive term, do you?

Check his profile.

Great pics and what he does to the guy in the one video clip...hmmmm

Jeff

I checked his profile. What does that prove? He can come here under any handle he wants as often as he wants. Is he a citizen of the U.S.? If not, then how dare he criticize U.S. citizens excercising their Constitutional rights? If he doesn't like that then to quote LBB "love it or leave it" and take his sorry, war mongering butt back to Brazil!

Hey taylor, once a fool always a jackass, huh? no matter what handle he wants to hide behind! Doesn't even have big enough balls to pick a handle and post his thoughts consistently using that handle. Kind of tells you what a cowering shadow of a person he is. TOTALLY USELESS! Let Americans die for his non-American butt and rail against Americans excercising their Constitutional rights of dissent and protest. As LBB said "love it or leave it!" If he doesn't like Americans excercising their right, then he can go back to Brazil! Is there anything more pathetic than someone who can't be honest with himself and his dealings with others?

Keep the Faith Kid! Young gay guys like you, make me realize there is hope for the future.

>Well, what can you say about someone who cheated on his wife,

>then cheated on his boyfriend, and with a sterling resume like

>that still has the nerve to complain about the deceitfulness

>of others? I don't think the English language offers us a

>sufficiently descriptive term, do you?

You could say "pissy old fart" if you don't mind sharing it, or you could say "he who sticks with his handle, unlike me." I do think it's cool how you save every little thing said and then twist it for later ammunition. You haven't worked that "cat" thing in lately. I'm proud of how I've handled my life. Your biggest accomplishment is defending the blue haired set from those defective voting booths in Florida. As George says to Martha: if you existed, I'd divorce you.

>for an old guy

That's Mr. Old Guy to you, Shorty.

Here's another funny for the Board:

Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best patients to operate on.

The first surgeon says, "I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered,"

The second responds, "Yeah, but you should try electricians. Everything inside them is color-coded,"

The third surgeon says, "No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order."

The fourth surgeon chimes in: "You know, I like construction workers. They always understand when you have a few parts left over at the end and when the job takes longer than you said it would."

But the fifth surgeon, Dr. Morris Smith, shuts them all up when he

observes: "The French are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no balls and no spine. Plus the head and ass are interchangeable.

Later.

PS. For anyone who wants to sign it, I'm sending an e-card to in yer face wishing him the best at his new job at the NAACP - that would be the National Association for the Advancement of Crybaby Prostitutes.

>>Well, what can you say about someone who cheated on his

>wife,

>>then cheated on his boyfriend, and with a sterling resume

>like

>>that still has the nerve to complain about the deceitfulness

>>of others? I don't think the English language offers us a

>>sufficiently descriptive term, do you?

>You could say "pissy old fart" if you don't mind sharing it,

>or you could say "he who sticks with his handle, unlike me."

>I do think it's cool how you save every little thing said and

>then twist it for later ammunition.

It never ceases to amaze me that someone like you, who has deceived and betrayed the people closest to him, thinks it's a badge of honor that he posts on an obscure message board under the same made-up screen name from one month to another. I've never come across a better example of someone who values what is trivial and ignores what is important.

>I'm proud of how I've handled my life.

Well, no one can claim that you're an honest or honorable person, but at least you're consistent.

> Your biggest accomplishment is defending the blue haired set

>from those defective voting booths in Florida. As George says

>to Martha: if you existed, I'd divorce you.

You know nothing about me or my accomplishments because unlike you I don't get a charge out of talking about myself. Why come to a message board to tell people (who have never really asked) all about your life? Can't you get anyone else to listen?

GO BACK TO BRAZIL

Ok, so hes not only NOT EVEN AMERICAN. But hes living in this country ILLEGALY. Hes not paying taxes. And to top it off, hes from a country that is still harboring NAZI WAR CRIMINALS, and has regular death squad murders of people who speak against their government, as well as gay men. Why did anyone even respond to this guy? He doesnt know jack shit about the AMerican way of life. Fuck him, and the bannana boat he road in on.

Sorry, I had to come out of retirement for this one last post. It was fact that I cant seem to keep out of these kinds of conversations that I decided to leave. I need to not know whats going on in the world for awhile.

>ahhhhhhhhhhh so that's who this fool is..........

I'm confused. If Hairy Dom is LBB, and in yer face is ethan, and fukamarine is TB, am I still Keanu Reeves? Please advise.

Thanks.

Later.

RE: GO BACK TO BRAZIL

>Ok, so hes not only NOT EVEN AMERICAN. But hes living in this

>country ILLEGALY. . . . Fuck him, and the bannana boat he road

>in on.

My favorite thing BY FAR - I mean, NOTHING makes me laugh harder -- is when individuals who run around self-righteously screaming "racism" and "bigotry" at anyone who doesn't agree with their sociliast views, and who seems themselves as oh-so-good-and-just, starts exploding with all sorts of angry jingoism and primitive stereotrypes when their "views" are disproven ("he's not even American!!! He has no right ot speak! He is Brazilian, so he came over on a banana boat").

I'm of Brazilian descent, and therefore, according to these geniuses who are the beacons of Egalitariansm and Humanity -- according to this Va Hawk thing and this in yer face virus -- this means that:

(1) I am a non-U.S. citizen (since Americans are never from a different country and there are no U.S. citizens of Brazilian descent);

(2) I'm an illegal immigrant;

(3) I'm a tax evader;

(4) I'm someone who came here on a banana boat; and,

(5) I'm someone who should go back to the third world shithole they assume I came from because I have expressed my political opinion.

All this because I'm Brazilian!! LOL!!!!!

This means that they are REALLY frustrated; have nothing to say; and so they get naked and show who they REALLY are. I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!! David Duke speaks more considerately about "foreigners" than these self-anointed guardians of liberal goodness.

I know you lost the last election, and the country you were rooting against just won this war, and you opposed a war which freed 10 million people, and everyone is know seeing how corrupt your views are, but still - try to get a grip on yourselves and exercise a little bit of self-restraint. These sorts of out-of-control outbursts can't be good for your blood pressure - or your reputation!

>Hey taylor, once a fool always a jackass, huh? no matter what

>handle he wants to hide behind! Doesn't even have big enough

>balls to pick a handle and post his thoughts consistently

>using that handle. Kind of tells you what a cowering shadow

>of a person he is. TOTALLY USELESS!

WOW - My critique of your "political views," along with the rating I gave you, must really have gotten to you. You OK?

FIRST - you delete your ratings so that nobody can read the rating I put in.

THEN - you run around the Board to every thread I'm in screaming personal names at me like "jackass".

THEN - you tell me to go back to Brazil (from where you assume I came) because you don't like my political views.

THEN - after telling me to get out of your country because you don't like my views - the consummate attempt to stifle someone's right to speak -- you whine and claim that I have somehow tried to suppress your right to speak, all because I express my view that your opposition to the liberation of Iraqis is unjust and immoral.

I think your frustration -- over the U.S. victory in the war; over your inability to defend your political views; over the hard core awful luck of having to live life as you -- has become a little too much for you to handle. I think a vacation, or at least a nice long rest is in order.

Too bad I got to you like that. It must really have hurt. I hope you're OK.