Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

fustakrakich's Journal: Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan 13

Journal by fustakrakich

Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal

WASHINGTON--As they scoured the Internet for more juicy details about former CIA director David Petraeus' affair with biographer Paula Broadwell, Americans were reportedly horrified today upon learning that a protracted, bloody war involving U.S. forces is currently raging in the nation of Afghanistan. "Oh my God, this is terrible," Allie Lipscomb, 29, said after accidentally stumbling on an article about the war while she tried to ascertain details about what specific sexual acts Petraeus and Broadwell might have engaged in. "According to this, 2,000 American troops have died, 18,000 have been wounded, and more than 20,000 civilians have been killed. Jesus Christ. And it's been happening for, like, 11 years." Sources confirmed that after reading a few paragraphs about the brutal war, the nation quickly became distracted by a headline about Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash's alleged sexual abuse of a 16-year-old boy.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan

Comments Filter:
  • by H3rm3$ (2773453)
    i kind of believe that some how thats not very surprising
  • TFA is disturbingly real.
    Given the population is daft, should one altruistically try to save what you can, or just mine the population for political power?
    • Given the population is daft...

      Which one? Ours or theirs?

      11 years of mining the population for political power hasn't worked out very well. We shouldn't be spilling blood to protect the poppy fields and profits of a few warlords, both foreign and domestic. The only truly altruistic option over there is to vacate the premises... immediately.. now. But I do understand the desire to keep the Russians and/or Chinese from moving in on our turf. These wars cannot end until we (the whole world) bite the bullet and

      • 11? I straight up argue a full century [theothermccain.com].
        • Yes, well, that's why I asked the question..

          And though you are correct about the Fed, can you show me how it was better before then? Aside from the absence of the IRS? Maybe you prefer a return to the Gilded Age? Good times indeed, no? Or even better the pre civil war era. Please, point out a time when there was less corruption than there is now.

          • I would not argue that things were "better" in any aggregate sense. That is, scaled for population, I hold human evil and idiocy a constant.
            Economically, I think that managing the corruption at a lower level, e.g. States, would offer less threat of tyranny to the country as a whole than the current situation.
            • Economically, I think that managing the corruption at a lower level, e.g. States, would offer less threat of tyranny to the country as a whole than the current situation.

              Yet history tends to differ, and machine politics is just one example. There are other issues that do not respect artificial boundaries, and you cannot separate economics from them, since that is a principle driving force behind most other types of corruption. And personally, I believe that without the power of the feds, you would have... E

              • "with checkpoints at every border"

                If there is a requirement and the willingness to staff such (not sure of either) then why not?
                The point here is that the Federal government is imploding, sucking all power into itself, and taking the US economy with it.
                It isn't clear that anything short of catastrophic failure is going to change matters.
                • If there is a requirement and the willingness to staff such (not sure of either) then why not?

                  In case you're not trolling:
                  To hell with that! That's why not. We need to tear down the borders we have now. Restriction of a person's right to travel is never a good thing. And you say you're for more liberty... If you think checkpoints are good thing, then obviously you're not, but I've already determined that by your other posts. On freedom to travel alone, I'll take the feds over the states' possible willingnes

                  • "Restriction of a person's right to travel is never a good thing."

                    Are you one of those "let's manufacture 'rights' and sell them" folks? You've as much natural "right to travel" as you do to free birth control.
                    Listen--I hate the TSA as much as the next American: it was George W. Bush turning security theater into a jobs program, straight up.
                    But if you look at what I wrote, "requirement and willingness", internal voters should be just as capable of voting in useless, redundant internal security as they a
                    • You're right. Rights, all of them, including the right to life, require big gun to protect them. Well, I'm voting for the biggest gun there is to protect ours. So, your weaponry not withstanding, you have no right to tell a person where he can go and where he can be. You only have the right to protect yourself from being displaced and/or detained, and so does everybody else.

                      And you're gripes about this phony deficit are pure BS. There is no 'debt'. If you're looking for something that's manufactured, that c

                    • No, liberty just means liberty.
                    • That you claim our liberties are 'manufactured rights' only shows your very narrow definition of the term to be applied only a select few as a special privilege. Liberty is not 'god given'. It is granted by armed men with a bit of empathy.

Are you having fun yet?

Working...