Standardized Conflagration Competency Exam

[DaveB]

By Sam Smith, The Progressive Review

For those in favor of war...

1. In order to get rid of Saddam Hussein it is likely that some Americans will be killed as well. How many do you think is a reasonable number? How many is too many?

2. Some reports indicate that there are other people living in Iraq besides Saddam Hussein. How many would be worth killing in order to get rid of Hussein? How many is too many? Does this also apply to those who have no weapons of mass destruction in their homes?

3. When will the Afghan invasion be over? How can we tell?

4. If we bomb Baghdad, some targets in the U.S. may be hit in retaliation. Which of the following are expendable in order to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein?

- The Sears Tower
- The New York Stock Exchange
- Hoover Dam
- New York City
- New York City excluding Manhattan
- The NY Times and Washington Post editorial offices
- The headquarters of the Council on Foreign Relations

5. List the names of all relatives you consider expendable in the effort to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

6. List those cities that could be damaged by chemical, biological, or nuclear attack without discommoding the New American Century.

7. After we obliterate Iraq, how many more countries do we need to invade?

8. Are the people selling their stocks in the various markets appeasers, hippies, and Stalinists? If not, why are they so worried about war?

9. How did you get to be so smart about military operations?

10. What can high level military doubters do to reach your level of proficiency in these matters?


db

 

[Azrael256]

1. One is too many. As of now, the count stands at something like 4,000. It would be nice to keep it at that, but the only way to keep casualties down is a swift and total victory.

2. Again, one is too many. God only knows what the count is on that one. Saddam has killed too many to count. Once again, the key to minimizing casualties is to swiftly crush Saddam's regime.

3. The invasion is over. The invasion ended when we got our troops there. Please refer to Webster's or some other dictionary as to the definitions of 'invasion' and 'occupation'

4. No American target is expendable. The fact is that terrorism has happened, and will again happen in the United States. There is one way to stop it, and that is to kill terrorists and those who fund them. Saddam falls under the second category, and members of his regime fall under the first.

5. I consider no human life to be expendable. This is why I want Saddam's regime to be destroyed quickly and completely, thus safeguarding the lives of all people.

6. No city can be attacked with WMD without disrupting American life. To prevent this, we must destroy the weapons with which terrorists will carry out acts of terrorism, and capture or kill the terrorists. Saddam and his regime posess these weapons, and harbor these terrorists. This is VERY simple logic.

7. After Iraq, we should consider North Korea, although I believe that a peaceful settlement will be found. Other than that, this is a rather silly question. Ask a person from 1895 who the next great war will involve, and I doubt that Germany will come to their mind. I cannot predict the future. I can say, however, that whoever threatens us or murders our people will be subject to the wrath of this great nation.

8. They are worried about war because people die, and money is lost. Neither of these are good things, but they are the reality of this life. Again, simple logic here.

9. Honestly, I don't see a single question that tests my knowledge of military operations. These are all simple logic exercises. To directly answer the question, however, I will say that study and practical experience have given me what knowledge I posess.

10. I am not quite sure what a "high level military doubter" is, however, anyone can attain my level of knowledge with study and practical experience.

 

[jmbg29]

Where is the yawn smilie?

 

[Mikul]

1. 150,000,000. Reducing the population by that level should take care of the unemployment problem and give me a 50% chance of being rid of my annoying neighbors.

2. All of them. There's only one way to be sure. Salt the earth.

3. When everyone is dead. The smell is usually a dead giveaway, but with arabs we may need to devise another method.

4. They all sound good. Can I add the UN building to the list?

5. Andrew, the lazy SOB who has sponged off of his parents and left his wife. You can send him over. Christa the good-for-nothing civil servant who hasn't done any work since the Johnson administration. Uncle John, the shiftless loser who has been skiing while collecting total disability insurance can go too.

6. New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Philadelphia.

7. After obliterating Iraq, I recommend France since there will be no opposition. Most of Europe would be happy to get rid of her. The entire continent of Africa could be invaded by two marines armed with the little plastic swords we would commandeer from French bars.

8. They've studied history because their pocketbooks depend on it.

9. The same way you did.

10. Use their brains instead of their, um, well, you know...

 

[Ed Brunner]

I don't spend much time answering silly questions.

 

[Selfdfenz]

I don't have to know the answer to any of those questions to know that Mr. Sam Smith of the Progressive Review is a butthead (sorry Oleg/Runt/Mods...it's so hard to break those old bad habits).

Sam Smith... I bet that's not even his real name.
S-

 

[Hkmp5sd]

1. In order to get rid of Saddam Hussein it is likely that some Americans will be killed as well. How many do you think is a reasonable number? How many is too many?

I love how these morons word questions. Perhaps a more correct question would be

1. In order to get rid of Saddam Hussein it is likely that some more Americans will be killed in addition to those already killed in the Gulf War and on 9/11. In the event we do nothing to Saddam Hussein, thousands of American citizens may be killed by one of his WMD used in the continental US. Is it reasonable to risk a small number of US military casualties now vice risking the possible destruction of an entire US city later?

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

Aren't you assuming that invading Iraq will lead to a safer situation than not invading?

It is indeed possible to argue that not invading will make us safer, with the persuance of other policies instead.

IMHO, if there is one situation in which Saddam would be compelled to use NBC weapons, it would be an invasion of his country with the obvious complications of him losing power, and at the least ending up in a prison cell, more probably being dead.

 

[Khornet]

Yes, Vladimir,

it is indeed possible to argue that not invading will make us safer. It's just not possible to be correct while doing it.