While doing a google search I came across this

Not suprised.

Dude, look at what he did to himself.

This is a joke, right? Looking at the quote it has to be...

That doesn't mean it suprises me that someone would do that.

War is war. Every war is different. Every war's the same.

this man are sick

This is what I'm talking about:

The Man Who Ate His Fingers - A Story About the Stupidity of War and The Idiots Who Glorify It

A powerful and graphic anti-war story narrated by a syndicated newspaper columnist about a homeless Gulf War vet who decides to eat a finger a day to speak out about war and to force President Bush to bring home the troops.

“He had seen a photograph on an Internet site of an eight-year-old Iraqi boy named Ali, whose fingers had all been blown off when he picked up a brightly colored unexploded canister from a cluster bomb. Sam wondered how it would be to go through life without fingers, to be unable to write or to hold and read a book. As he thought about the boy and the pain he must have felt, Sam conceived what it was he could do to stop the war.

“Sam proposed to fast for two weeks, except that he was going to chew off one of his fingers each morning for five days, take the weekend off, and continue the next week for five more days until they were all gone. He would stop if President Bush agreed to immediately bring home the troops. Knowing that concession was unlikely, all Sam asked of me was to write a daily column about what he was doing and why, publish a photograph to prove his progress and help keep his location secret from the authorities. He feared being arrested as a mental case and he was determined to finish once he had started. We talked all afternoon. I concluded that I couldn’t help Sam maim himself, but I did agree to tell his story.”

It was less of a sick thing and more of a stupid thing.

Yeah that story was pretty lame.

Should he be in some special home or something?

I would say so.

mmm, crunchy fingers.

I dont see how its a good way to protest against the war.

Gunning down the odd politician seems a better way, but each to his own i suppose.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Well, the fact still remains, thats one dictator less... one country that is slowly becoming democratized.

Think of the saving on gloves!

Yes. Or perhaps in several simultaneously.

Gives new meaning to "finger lickin' good."

The Malcom X quote... no, that refers to something else. Although, indeed, who knows if the story is true or not.



All I'm going to say about this is...

"There was a 24.9 percent increase in temperature today"
"That's almost 25%!"



Do you appreciate the irony of what you said?

[QUOTE=- Tony -]Think of the saving on gloves![/QUOTE]
YES

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]

Do you appreciate the irony of what you said?[/QUOTE]

no i do not, please enlighten me.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I heard fingers taste better when mixed with chili.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]All I'm going to say about this is...

"There was a 24.9 percent increase in temperature today"
"That's almost 25%!"[/QUOTE]

What?

Do you even know what a "dictator" is? What about Saudi Arabia? It's ok for them to do the EXACT same thing Iraq does, because they're on our side? That's the one thing I don't get from all this: How can the Iraqi war be justified when Iran, Saudi Arabia, and several African Countries are having literal HALOCAUSTS and have been for over 100 years?

JediKirby

The U.S. does not have the power to wage war with all dictator countrys. The U.S. cannot risk extending its military power soo much at a time. We got things going in Afghanistan, Iraq, Columbia, and who knows where else.

So why go into Iraq first when there are places that are worse off, if we are doing it purely to off a dictator and improve quality of life? No, it is in our own interest somehow.

You're right about one thing though, we are already stretched thin, though I think we could survive two major fronts, it would be costly.

I'm not sure I believe it. A journalist's fingers are his livelihood.

That's messed up s***.

We get the point already!

[As Spook said] So we go to war with a little Country that hadn't seen any activity or made any threats towards any other countries in the past 9 years? Clinton's strike on Iraq shut them up for a while. Iran, however, is threatening nuclear activity against it's enemies. Other countries, like North Korea are shining their nuclear power badges. There are people, very BAD people out there that want US heads on stakes in their front lawn, and are making it very apparent. Instead, we focus all of our energy on Iraq? That's stupid, and obviously not what it seems.

I'm beginning more and more to believe that the pipeline from afganistan to saudi arabia is going to cut straight through the kurdish area of Iraq, and this entire war was to secure that land. Although, it'd make more sense to just convince the Kurds to retaliate against Saddam, so I don't know why we wen't through the issue of fighting the entire battle ourselves.

JediKirby

Yes, I do see that it is a rather sick story.

However, while it is almost universaly agreed upon now that entering such a war in Iraq is considered an act that was "stupid," (as well as countless other words I will spare you from) it would be an even greater mistake to immediately pull out.

Yes, looking directly at the issue, removing a slightly irrational dicator from power is a good thing to do. Unfortunately, looking just at that is extremely short-sighted, and not realizing that every action on such a scale has a serious effect on the rest of the world surrounding it.

In this case, we're seeing it clearly now, in the form of the insurgency. Make no mistake, these insurgents were not active in Iraq while Saddam Hussein was in power. I am not being one to judge which is worse than the other, but it should be duly noted that we (referring to Iraq, the US, and all other countries involved) have traded one problem for another, that is still significant.

It would be sheer folly to leave without ensuring that all of these problems won't become deadly to the Iraqi state. Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the restructuring program to democratize Iraq was that we saw the elimination of ALL of the government structure that was there under Saddam Hussein. Hence, Iraq has returned to a complete "infancy" state. Without a LOT of growth, the state will not be able to stand on its own. The fact that it's a state that must hold three nations (Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish) together doesn't help either.

As it currently stands, Iraq is poised at the edge here. A fall will mean a civil war, and by most possible outcomes, a major war that would stretch outside of the Middle East. I think we could all agree that this is an outcome that should be avoided at virtually all costs. Thankfuly, at least, we're getting there; the new government seems to actually hold legitimacy, (the fact that the three abovementioned nations are now accurately represented in the legislature) and actually developing into a stable state are in sight. With any luck, such a state would actually manage to remain democratic as well.

Right, if we pull out immediately, Iraq goes down the ****ter, and these hippie protesters that only know wars kill people don't realize that.

I'm guessing it's because there's more journalism here than anywhere else.

Just look at the Bermuda triangle, it has the most lost ships and airplanes and such in the world because it's the MOST HEAVILY TRAFFICED area in the ocean.

Haha, that sounds like something I would say to get attention.

An anti-war protester who abhors the diffuse effects of violence caused by war going and killing random politicians. Seems a bit hypyocritical.

[QUOTE=Lord Kuat]An anti-war protester who abhors the diffuse effects of violence caused by war going and killing random politicians. Seems a bit hypyocritical.[/QUOTE]

An alliance of western armies, who officially abhor the use of torture and killing, invade a country, end up killing many innocent people, then capture and torture terrorists. Seems a bit hypocritical.

:em321:

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Seconded.

On a sidenote, it doesn't really look like that fingers-eating story is for real.

I don't see how you can generalize the actions of one squad to an entire coalition.

And hypothetical.

Not exactly. (Human Rights Watch Annual Report 2005)

:em321:

Yes exactly.

Man, I've been thinking the exact same thing. It's good that Saddam's out. But consistency???!

I've always wondered what definition of 'terrorism' or 'evil' it is that allows the US to install dictators, or be friends with Israel (not exactly the nation with the most ummm.... people skills), etc etc.... while holding strong views against Iraq.

This story is sick by the way. Peace activism, yes, but try to stay inside normality.