|
|
 |
|
#17
01-12-2007, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That's an interesting article. Thanks for the link. Now, for a minute, consider the game of poker. The game begins and you sit with a big pile of chips after 9-11. You lose pot after pot, but you keep on betting. Bluff as big as the bluffer you want to see hung. He is, and you still have another card or two to play, one more hand, or maybe two. Except, now you're going "all in", betting on Maliki. To me, that's not a smart bet. And the "chips" are the additional soldiers lives that get thrown into the "game". They'll buy some time for the next hand, if it's dealt. The next hand is already being stacked in the shuffle. The cards will come up Iran, Iran, Iran. Seems to me that there just seem to be too many wars to start, too little time, and a horrible legacy to consider. So, the Taliban is back bigger than ever in Afghanistan? So what? So, Iraq is lost except for letting the next one pick up the losing cards. So what? So, the "war on terror" is world wide and the dupes see it limited to Iraq. so what? The next hand will be dealt, and it will be all about Iran. Sad to say, this losing poker player is playing with our chips, and we'll all walk away from the table as much the losers as he is. But, so what? btw, if you're a poker player and can read faces at the table, have a look at the video of his speech. It says it all. DTS 
|
Threaded Mode