They can draw the border anywhere they want, but they'll still be coming over it by the millions.

Perhaps we should draw the line somewhere just north of Mexico City. Much less walking to get "here" then.

Michelle Malkin has once again proved that she owns not one shred of a sense of humor. She makes a living out of being outraged over silly little things like vodka ads.

You know when you go to that site and read the comments, you realize that there are a lot of people who just can't see the irony here. Americans laughed when the radical Muslims were angry with the Danes for poking fun at them through political cartoons. Now that Swedish vodka company is doing the same thing to us, and so many of the commentators have smoke coming out of their ears. Are we no better than that? Why fight over some advertising manager's idea of humor?

I doubt there's going to be rioting in the streets, cars burning or any fatwahs issued against the ad agency or the company over this, unlike the Muslim cartoon controversy. Just some people who are going to migrate to Stoly or some other vodka instead of Absolut, and if it ends up costing them a point or two of their U.S. market share, maybe the next time the company's new owners will think twice before going with an ad campaign that's too-cute by half.

In the world of advertising, anything that gets your product's name in the news over and over is ultimately a good thing. People forget what the controversy was about, and then when they go to the liquor store, they say to themselves, "Absolut. Hey, I've heard of that," and they buy the product because they think it's famous or well-known. Rather than losing his job, the advertising manager is more likely to be hailed as a genius when sales go up.

Spot on, John.

They riot, threaten, and all to often kill.

We Photoshop.

Morally equivalent on Planet Pandora.

Irony I recognize...and can take. Irony coupled with violence and death? Pandora sees only the irony, I guess.

Turn your swords into blogs!

I dare you to photoshop Muhammad slamming down some Absolut with 72 chicas south of the border.

"Radical fundamentalists amount to just one one-hundredth of one percent of the world's one billion Muslims." - Chuck Norris.

The Danes discovered that Muslims frowned at humor that ridiculed their Prophet, and that small number of vocal fundamentalists completely blew their tops over it.
On Planet Pandora, the equivalent would probably be a Danish cartoon ridiculing Jesus. Most of us would frown, but a few preachers would go ballistic.
My point is that adults should be able to take a little kidding, whether it's a joke about one's Prophet or a joke about the country's borders.

I don't think it comes across as a joke. Many believe that Mexico's or "Aztlan's" borders should be drawn this way. So instead of a joke, Absolut's add appears to be an endorsement.

Now since it is addressed to Mexico, which is a joke of a nation, maybe it should be taken lightly, like teasing a toddler with something they want but are physically, mentally, socially incapable of achieving.

Sheehan and Chavez - there are two whom the Bush Regime never could intimidate!

Old Timer, it is not as though you are typing your comments out in a Gulag somewhere.

Intimidation by the Bush Regime!

Ooooooooooooh! Scary stuff, indeed.

Man up, dude.

You have to admit that Cindy Sheehan is one brave woman, and will be remembered in history books as the mother who cried out at the gates for an end to a foolish war. Millions and millions of women in America understand and are in sympathy with her cause. Every time she appeared at Bush's ranch he fled on some hastily-planned trip to get away from her. She was definitely the "Winter Soldier" who helped turn the tide of American opinion away from a useless, costly foreign war. Now 81 percent of Americans believe that America is headed in the wrong direction.

You have to admit that Cindy Sheehan is one brave woman, and will be remembered in history books as the mother who cried out at the gates for an end to a foolish war.

No, actually, I don't. Cindy Sheehan is a self-promoting corpse-humper who for a time was featured prominently in the news because of her usefulness to Bush's enemies on the left and who signed her own death warrant as 'newsworthy' the second she declared she was running against Nancy Pelosi.

There is a hero named Sheehan, however.

His name is Casey and he was worth a thousand Cindys.

Easter Sunday the 4,000th American soldier died in Iraq. That's a lot of grieving parents, sisters, brothers, sweethearts, children, wives and husbands. You could ask yourself, "Who is brave?" Not only the 4,000 who died, the perhaps 100,000 now wounded in this war, but the few courageous Americans who dare to speak out and risk retaliation and criticism. All wars eventually end, and the reason is usually that the aggressor is running out of both soldiers and money, as well as the war becoming unpopular at home. Eventually the people demand peace, as their economy nears collapse from the massive amounts of money needed to pursue the conflict.

You could ask yourself, "Who is brave?" Not only the 4,000 who died, the perhaps 100,000 now wounded in this war, but the few courageous Americans who dare to speak out and risk retaliation and criticism.

I can ask myself...and I can answer:

The 4,000 who died? Absolutely. It is a debt that can never be repaid.

The 100,000 wounded? Every bit as brave and as deserving of every bit of praise and thanks.

The 'few' courageous Americans who dare to speak out and risk 'retaliation' and 'criticism'?

Like you, I suppose?

Uh, no.

The day that they announce a Medal of Honor winner is not the optimum time to thump your chest and say, "Hey! I risked criticism!"

Actually, there is no good time for that. You need to get over yourself.

All wars eventually end,

as will this one.

and the reason is usually that the aggressor is running out of both soldiers and money,

as is happening with the Iraq insurgency and al queda's iraqi component.

as well as the war becoming unpopular at home.

the insurgents overplayed their hand last year, and indeed, lost a lot of support from local Iraqis

Eventually the people demand peace, as their economy nears collapse from the massive amounts of money needed to pursue the conflict.

Which the Iraqi people and many in the region are now doing. The tide has turned, why should the US cut and run now? Wars, societies, and governments evolve. Time to quit living in the past.

"To cut and run" is such a loaded phrase. At first glance it looks like a bad thing to do, until one realizes that it comes from the phrase "to cut one's losses" by removing troops from the battlefield.
When the Soviet Union was trapped in Afghanistan, it became apparent that the huge casualties, the loss of support at home, and the heavy toll on their economic resources would cause them to have to withdraw. They accomplished this in two 3-month phases, May to August 1988 and then November, 1988 to February, 1989. Basically, they got themselves out of that place in six months. Before the decision to withdraw, they had lost 14,453 people and had 469,685 sick and wounded. The Mujahideen did not interfere whatsoever with their withdrawal.
Will America ever withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? McCain promises a hundred-year war. Right-Wing pundits warn that it could take two years or more for our withdrawal, with massive casualties, but they are careful not to mention how the Russians got out of their war in six months and lost only one soldier.
Have we not already bombed that region into the stone age? The only Iraqis left are the ones too poor to leave, as the rich Iraqis have long ago fled to other countries.
Of course, if we let our soldiers come home, they would have to leave the oil behind.

Then I will not be so careful as to not mention how the Russians got out in six months and lost only one soldier: They surrendered.

And I really cannot ever remember seeing anyone treat outright surrender with the reverance and admiration that you do.

Plus, I am so damned tired of people throwing out b.s. like, "McCain promises a hundred-year war".

No. He doesn't. That is not what he said. I know it. You probably know it. But if you don't, then you need to so provide a link to the actual quote and I will show why you are (at best) mistaken.

Russia's goals in invading Afghanistan were much different that the US goals in invading Iraq.

Russia accomplished none of their goals. We have accomplished many of ours.