Repubs agree: More soldiers must die to keep the war profits rolling in.

[Philosoraptor]

All the republican candidates agree, the war profiteering must continue, a quick pullout of Iraq would seriously inhibit the trillions of dollars that the war profiteers are raking in. More sacrifice is required, not theirs, but your sons and daughters must continue to sacrifice their blood, limbs, eyes and lives, indefinitely.

Leaving before the job is done would be silly, war makes more profits than casinos, and you have a steady supply of workers, soldiers, mercenaries and dignitaries to keep the profits flowing like a river.

The soldiers must keep dying to guarantee that rich, white elderly men like the ones on reagan's grave last night can continue to live lives of baronial splendor.

The deaths of a few thousand nameless, faceless soldiers are nothing in comparison to all the billions upon billions of dollars being pocketed by the rich, white men in gray suits.

The men who 'debated' last night under the smiling face of reagan's ghost need more money ladies and gentlemen, they need more money than we do, they need tons and tons of money, they never have enough for themselves and their friends, and the best way to turn a profit these days is war.

So the soldiers will continue to die and become permanently crippled and blinded and burned, the innocent Iraqis will continue dying by the thousands, families will continue to shed bitter tears of grief, and the republican politicians will continue to invent lies, smile for the cameras, sign important documents and live like kings among men.

Nothing has changed, and nothing ever will. The 'war' must go on, and on, and on, war without end....amen.

[theantirobot]

1. Every republican except Ron Paul

You shouldn't forget about Ron Paul. He is against the war and has been from the beginning. Here is clip from the debate which pretty much sums him up.

[Philosoraptor]

2. He stood out like a silver dollar in a goat's ass.

And I assume he's continuing his republican suicide with his stance. I like what he says, but for the war profiteers, it's just too, too logical.

[Philosoraptor]

5. Paul seems to have made an impression among the repubs.

Even many here like him.

[gratuitous]

7. Paul's such a two-faced little coward

Too afraid of losing his precious do-nothing seat to run as an independent, he cashes in on the Republican brand to borrow some credibility for his faint-hearted beliefs.

[theantirobot]

8. I simply do not see how you can make that assertion.

He is BOLD and BRAVE to run as a republican when his ideas so radically different, and so radically closer to the what the republican party is supposed to be.

[truedelphi]

9. I agree. The third party is dismissed by the Mainstream media

And I don't see how you can run as a third party candidate in a race for the Presidency.

[Ilsa]

13. Nah, the first assessment was more accurate. I'm in his district.

This is a red district, and he didn't win anything as a libertarian. The only way he could win was to change parties, even though he isn't a GOPer. The R after his name is a lie to the public.

[Preening Fop]

3. Tis True, there is a clear life cycle for all empires: Murder & Pillage...!

:hide:

[Philosoraptor]

4. Are you mocking me? I will NOT be mocked!

I saw you--you were mocking me!

The fops in suits would really appreciate the job being finished in Iraq.

[bonito]

6. K&R

But sadly.

[truedelphi]

10. What debate were you watching?

Not once did these brave Republican candidates mention profits, or profiteering, or
scandalously corrupt profiteering.

They are on the side of fighting andunpopular war because of the honesty and goodness of their brave little Republican hearts! And McCain is even offering to be a uniter and not a divider!

[Initech]

11. That's all the war is for, it's all profit.

Was this much profit being made during Vietnam? Does anybody know?

[Supersedeas]

12. to the victor goes the spoils