Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Wanker on March 18, 2003, 08:46:37 AM
-
As a fellow liberal, you and I have walked together on this board arm-in-arm in the crusade against the right-wing reactionaries that permeate Aces High.
As defenders of the enlightened, we have survived numerous jokes about blow jobs in the white house, and the "selection" of an even bigger joke, who is now a resident of the white house.
With that being said, I must say that no matter what you think of President-Select Bush, the truth is that his administration is taking the correct action in Iraq.
When you're dealing with a dictatorship that has shown a propensity for trying to subdue it's neighbors(Iran, Kuwait) and willfuly uses weapons of mass destruction on it's own people(the Kurds), it's clear that the world would be that much safer in the long run to have him removed from power.
You may disagree with how its accomplished, but it needs to get done. Left alone, Saddam would eventually either use weapons of mass destruction himself against some country again, or he would sell or give them to terrorists, who would then use them to attack Americans in America.
Don't believe me? Read your history books, and learn from them. While it is clear that Hitler's motives were based primarily on revenge for the injustices of the Versailles Treaty of 1919, it is not so much of a stretch to compare the two situations and view them as similar. We are in a similar situation as the British and French found themselves in 1936, when Hitler gambled and re-militarized the Rhineland. The major difference between the late 1930's and now, is that the agressor nation(Germany) was spending huge amounts of money on their military, and it was becoming more powerful than the two armed forces that could've(and should've) done something to stop it. Today, our military far outclasses Iraq's, and the eventual conclusion of the war is not in doubt.
To sit idly by and let Saddam continue to build weapons of mass destruction for later use against the world would be criminal. To be sure, Iraq poses little or not threat to the world at large today. But since America, Great Britain, Australia and Portugal seem to have learned from history, it is up to us to lead the way and do what needs to be done.
War is a horrible thing. I am no war monger, and in fact I don't even own a gun. I am a tree hugger and whale saver to the core. But I am also a student of history, and a realist.
This war is neccessary, and the sooner we get it over with, the sooner Iraq can re-join the world as a prosperous, peaceful nation. Liberals and Conservatives alike need to join arm-in-arm and support the troops as they are about to do what needs to be done to protect the future of the world.
-
But, being a war monger and owning a gun don't have anything to do with one another.
-
Just because you disagree with a war, doesn't mean you don't support the troops.
-
As defenders of the enlightened...
If liberals are so enlightened why do you need to post a letter like this? Don't you think your fellow liberals can figure it out for themselves? Maybe they aren't quite as enlightened as you are.
ra
-
Well said banana, and dowding.
As one of the biggest pinkos on this board, I share your sentiments.
:(
-
As one of the biggest pinkos on this board, I share your sentiments.
banana and Dowding have posted very different sentiments.
-
Originally posted by ra
banana and Dowding have posted very different sentiments.
and as a true lib, he agrees with both :)
-
Well said banana, well said.
-
If liberals are so enlightened why do you need to post a letter like this? Don't you think your fellow liberals can figure it out for themselves? Maybe they aren't quite as enlightened as you are.
First of all, I didn't *need* to post my opinion. I wanted to.
I have no doubt that most liberals(and even most conservatives) are enlightened enough to see the logic in this Iraqi situation. But some liberals are choosing to side with the "No blood for oil" dimwits who have no idea what this war is really about--the future safety of the free world.
My post is an attempt to get them to think a little harder about the consequences of letting Saddam continue in power.
Just because you disagree with a war, doesn't mean you don't support the troops.
That's true, I suppose. But IMO, in this case...those of you who don't support the choice of physical disarmament of Saddam, are sadly short-sided. Diplomacy didn't work in this case. We tried, but it didn't work. Time to let the military handle it now.
-
Oedipus, I didn't label you. If you don't consider yourself a liberal, that's fine ith me. Only you know *what* you really are.
I'm just stating an opinion of those who admit being "blood for oil" liberals.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
And that's my final piece. I've not looked at other topics to see where I might reply because it's futile and only going to continue the b.s and mudslinging. After listening to that speach last night the wind is out of my sail and I don't even feel up to finishing the decent discussions with Kanth or AKIron.
Oed
No problem so far as I'm concerned Oedipus. I do hope you have/will read the facts regarding the patriot act for yourself rather than believe what someone like Weazel spews.
-
bush has gone from the worlds largest coalition to the smallist in two years. the guy could and has screwed up a wet dream. this war will be no different. god bless the troops but dethrone the deserter responsable for the mess. this war wasent nessasary its bushes bumbling idiocy that make it nessasary. i wont accept and argument we should pretend it was for the best all along, it wasen't
-
We have plenty of oil and haven't needed Iraqi oil for many years. Gas prices may be high, but not because there is a shortage of oil for purchase. The argument that we're making war on Iraq for its oil doesn't hold water.
Regards, Shuckins
-
banana. Its amazing how Liberals and Conservatives seem to be able to put aside their differences and pull together somewhere in the middle when a crisies erupts.
As a conservative, I share your opinion that at this point, the only important thing is getting in and out with as few casualties as possible and the realization of our goal.
-
I'll give a view from the other side. I am a war monger. I would fully support armed intervention in North Korea to stop their nuke program. I would fully support immediate air strikes to disable NK's two reactors which will be able to support the creation of several devices per year. And I would support any ground war that would follow those airstrikes as a result of NKs invasion of SK. NK has the technology to produce nukes and has delivery systems capable of striking the US and our Pacific allies. They are an immediate and credible threat.
I do own a gun (several in fact) and I've drawn one on another person with full intent to pull the trigger had he continued to threaten my safety. I have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I frequently do.
However, this war against Saddam is contrived and is unnecessary at this time. Saddam has been militarily marginalized for the past 12 years. Saddam is no where near Hitler's level...Hitler had a plan and twisted vision. To say that Saddam is anywhere near Hitter's league disrespects the millions who died at that madman's hands. Is Saddam a cruel leader who uses all the tactics of a dictator to stay in power...yes. Should we be the ones to overthrow him for the sake of the Iraqi people...no. If they don't like him, let them do it. It has been done before in the region. The Iranian people did not like the Shah (who was arguably just as cruel a dictator as Saddam) and they revolted. I don't like the theocratic government that replaced the Shah, nor do I like that during the revolution our embassy was invaded...but I do respect that the people made their own choice about their leadership and did not require an outside country make the choice for them.
If you want to compare Saddam to a historical figure, then the closest simile is Muammar Kadafi. He was once an major threat, but he was slapped down and he has been a marginal player ever since. Saddam has already been slapped and he is also a marginal player and will continue to be one. We have not been sitting by idly...we have imposed and enforced and can continue to enforce UN 1441. I agree we have not done as good a job as we could at enforcing 1441, but if given a chance to do better at enforcing the UN sanctions he will continue to be a toothless junk yard dog.
If you say that Saddam has WMD...where is the proof. And don't point to a set of vague intercepted messages that may indicate WMD if you interpret the wording in a certain way. I want a smoking gun. And so far the UN inspectors have not been able to find it and the Bush Administration is either unwilling or unable to present it.
We are a nation whose judicial system is not built on imposing penalties based on suspicion alone. Nor is it based on penalizing someone who has not yet committed a crime but might commit a crime because people think he is a bad person. And unfortunately that frequently means that we can only act after a crime takes place. Why are we invading a country that is only suspected, based on very weak evidence, of having WMD.
If you say that he may secretly have WMD and give them to terrorists...tell me who Saddam would possibly trust enough to give WMD? Weapons which could just as easily be used against Saddam and Iraq as it could against the US. Al Queada? BS...UBL does not like Saddam any more than we do and would be just as likely to use WMD against Saddam as he would against the US.
If you say that this war will deter terrorism you are wrong. It will increase terrorism. What would make you think that a war of aggression against an Arab state that Muslims identify as an Islamic country would do anything but incite more Arabs and Muslims against the US and create more terrorists willing to die to kill us?
-
It's not exact, shuckins.
Stop a moment, and think on the long run, on the big numbers.
And you will realize how important is to leave as much as possible the "home reserves" untouched, and use the "outbound ones"; how much can be done by acquiring the control of the 50% and more of world's oil reserves, and decide where, when and for who raise or drop the prices.
World is steering in a direction that will force our children to wear a black uniform and kill the "untermenscht", or face their revenge.
And this is not the bright future some of our heros died for.
Signed: Cassandra.
-
Naso,
We BUY 50% of the world's oil, but we don't own it, or even control it. Remember that the next time OPEC raises the price of a barrel of crude.
By the way, the rest of the world would raise hell if the U.S. seized permanent control of Iraq's oil, and this administration knows it. So the argument that this is a war about oil is spurious. Opposing the war because it IS a war makes more sense.
Nevertheless, deposing Saddam not only can be done but it SHOULD be done.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
bush has gone from the worlds largest coalition to the smallist in two years. the guy could and has screwed up a wet dream. this war will be no different. god bless the troops but dethrone the deserter responsable for the mess. this war wasent nessasary its bushes bumbling idiocy that make it nessasary. i wont accept and argument we should pretend it was for the best all along, it wasen't
Obviously you were not in Communications department of the Navy, what exactly *did* you do in the Navy?
-
If you want to compare Saddam to a historical figure, then the closest simile is Muammar Kadafi. He was once an major threat, but he was slapped down and he has been a marginal player ever since.
Except for Lockerbie, of course.
That heavy handed approach to terrorism worked just fine.
-
However, this war against Saddam is contrived and is unnecessary at this time. Saddam has been militarily marginalized for the past 12 years. Saddam is no where near Hitler's level...Hitler had a plan and twisted vision. To say that Saddam is anywhere near Hitter's league disrespects the millions who died at that madman's hands. Is Saddam a cruel leader who uses all the tactics of a dictator to stay in power...yes. Should we be the ones to overthrow him for the sake of the Iraqi people...no.
Crow, of course Saddam is nowhere near the threat that Hitler was. I never said he was. But I was using the Hitler example to demonstrate how dangerous it is to let a proven madman run loose. Hitler went so far as to tell the world of his plans in "Mein Kampf". Saddam told the world of his plans by attacking Iran and then Kuwait. And did he not use chemical weapons againt his own people, the Kurds? How much more proof do you need?
There was no smoking gun in WW2 when the Allies were given intel that the Germans were killing people in the concentration camps. However, as proven once those camps were liberated, the smoking guns did exist. We just didn't have proof. The same sort of thing *could* be happening with the WMD in the current Iraqi situation. Do the Iraqi's have WMD, and will they use them? The countries against the war are gambling that they don't have them. America and her allies in this war and not willing to take that gamble. Too much is potentially at stake. Time will tell who is right.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
However, this war against Saddam is contrived and is unnecessary at this time. Saddam has been militarily marginalized for the past 12 years. Saddam is no where near Hitler's level...Hitler had a plan and twisted vision. To say that Saddam is anywhere near Hitter's league disrespects the millions who died at that madman's hands. Is Saddam a cruel leader who uses all the tactics of a dictator to stay in power...yes. Should we be the ones to overthrow him for the sake of the Iraqi people...no. If they don't like him, let them do it. It has been done before in the region. The Iranian people did not like the Shah (who was arguably just as cruel a dictator as Saddam) and they revolted. I don't like the theocratic government that replaced the Shah, nor do I like that during the revolution our embassy was invaded...but I do respect that the people made their own choice about their leadership and did not require an outside country make the choice for them.
If you want to compare Saddam to a historical figure, then the closest simile is Muammar Kadafi. He was once an major threat, but he was slapped down and he has been a marginal player ever since. Saddam has already been slapped and he is also a marginal player and will continue to be one. We have not been sitting by idly...we have imposed and enforced and can continue to enforce UN 1441. I agree we have not done as good a job as we could at enforcing 1441, but if given a chance to do better at enforcing the UN sanctions he will continue to be a toothless junk yard dog.
If you say that Saddam has WMD...where is the proof. And don't point to a set of vague intercepted messages that may indicate WMD if you interpret the wording in a certain way. I want a smoking gun. And so far the UN inspectors have not been able to find it and the Bush Administration is either unwilling or unable to present it.
We are a nation whose judicial system is not built on imposing penalties based on suspicion alone. Nor is it based on penalizing someone who has not yet committed a crime but might commit a crime because people think he is a bad person. And unfortunately that frequently means that we can only act after a crime takes place. Why are we invading a country that is only suspected, based on very weak evidence, of having WMD.
If you say that he may secretly have WMD and give them to terrorists...tell me who Saddam would possibly trust enough to give WMD? Weapons which could just as easily be used against Saddam and Iraq as it could against the US. Al Queada? BS...UBL does not like Saddam any more than we do and would be just as likely to use WMD against Saddam as he would against the US.
If you say that this war will deter terrorism you are wrong. It will increase terrorism. What would make you think that a war of aggression against an Arab state that Muslims identify as an Islamic country would do anything but incite more Arabs and Muslims against the US and create more terrorists willing to die to kill us?
crowMAW,
Bravo! ~S~! Saved me some typing.
******************
banana,
If we're to draw parallels, The US, not Iraq, is closer to Nazi Germany (not in ideology). The negotiating tactics that Bush and Hitler used are very similar in that keep demanding more and more as concessions are granted. They both keep upping the anty until they get the war they want. In Hitler's case, he got a country as all his concessions were met. BTW, who supplied Sadaam with his Chems? Who turned a blind eye (or even supported his wars against the Kurds and Iran? Why don't we condemn Turkey for killing the Kurds? Hell, we even sided with Iraq after they almost sank one of our ships! I guess Lincoln was a war criminal too, eh? After all he's responsible for killing a lot of fellow Americans, no?
Perhaps it is you that need to brush up on history.
-
Crow..your wrong...
So i guess when saddam admitted to the tons of VX/anthrax gas in 1991..and he said its gone with no proof we beleive him?
Was isreal Wrong attaking the Nuke Plant a decade ago Crow?
Its veryhard for me to understand people think he only has tanks and mortatrs...
Hell fuk it..I could care less about his WMDs...lets test soem new weapons..lolol ya you libs will liek that 1..lololoLMFAO
Owell..we will see in a few days ehh?
And diddly LIBERALS....hows thats...feel free to run our country into the ground...Yes...We are cutting all the school spending for war..WHAT A crock of LIES and roadkill..How can you guys support theses guys???
Your former Leader Daschle makes me sick....DIe and go to hell
DASHLCE IS A MaGGOT politican..everytime i hear him speak it makes me sick..and pissed off...good thing I cant do more then note support the freak show liberals..yes..Welcoem to California..
Straight from my heart:)
Love
BiGB
xoxo
yes..spelling is for secrataries you biches
-
ohh sorry i dont live up to the stirling level of grammar in you delusional idea of our navy.
back to your crack pipe mr professional flamer.
-
As for the idea of a smoking gun .. the Israeli's bombed a "suspected" nuclear facility created for developing the ability to make nuclear weapons. They did not have a smoking gun at the time. They were criticized at the time. Up until that time the International Atomic Energy Association had been giving Iraq flying colors for compliance to the non-proliferation treaty. While in truth the Iraqi's had a very active program going on to develop nuclear weapons.
After the Gulf War we found the smoking gun / the evidence that Iraq had been trying to develop nuclear weapons, that the facility that Israel hit was being used for the purpose. That if they had not hit it when they had in previous years that it was possible that Iraq would have had some nuclear weapons in 1991.
I personally don't like how Bush has tried to handle the diplomacy with other nations on this issue. I think it has been heavy handed and brutish. Would a few more months make a difference one way or another .. who know. But they have been trying to get him to comply since 1991. Nobody has said they believed Iraq has complied and has gotten rid of its WPM or the ability to produce them. They are just disagreeing about what to do about it. At some whether now or later somebody has to say enough is enough after 12 years.
I do agree with banana on this ... look at the history of the man and his regime. Look what they did try to develop, look how they used what they developed (they gassed Kurds and Iranian troops), look at their evasions in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s. Yes, Iraq has been marginalized and is not a conventional threat to us or probably even Iran or Saudi Arabia any more. However, think on the fact that a nuclear or biological weapon does not have to be delivered by a jet fighter but can be walked into a country. He has a history of using whatever means he has at his disposal to accomplish his goals and then trying to gain access to more deadlier weaponry.
Do we have a smoking gun .. no. Did the Israeli's no. Did Britain, France, and the world have a smoking gun on the holocaust in World War II. The gun was found afterwards.
The question is simple are we willing to gamble that if he ever does develop it and he was desperately trying that he won't use it or pass it on to another to use.
-
The negotiating tactics that Bush and Hitler used are very similar in that keep demanding more and more as concessions are granted. They both keep upping the anty until they get the war they want. In Hitler's case, he got a country as all his concessions were met.
Saburo, there are two big differences, though. Hitler's ultimate intent was to enslave Europe by conquest. Our intent is to overthrow a tyrannical and potentially dangerous government.
The other small difference you over-looked is that we are a Democracy and Germany was a totalitarian state. That fact alone makes your comparison spurious.
I will grant you, however, that America is not always in the right. There are many instances of unfortunate American imperialism(The Indian wars, the war in the Phillipines at the turn of the 20th century, etc.)
-
banana you are correct .. America has made blunders. We are currently reaping what we helped to build in the 1980s when we supported and equipped Iraq versus Iran.
We rationalized our support saying we were using one evil that we could control or influence to stop another evil (Iran). And by evil I mean evil in our opinion. We supported and armed and gave intel to a despot and it turned around and finally bit us in the hand hard.
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
ohh sorry i dont live up to the stirling level of grammar in you delusional idea of our navy.
back to your crack pipe mr professional flamer.
I just don't believe you were in the Navy. The Navy as I remember after visiting a recruiter, had much higher education level they allowed in...frankly speaking..you don't seem like you'd fit their type of recruit. Maybe your generation dipped so low in academics that they were forced to take what they could get?
-
banana - Nice post.
hi Ghost.
-
You guys must wish you had Blair for President. A man of integrity and words.
-
Did the Israelis do the right thing by hitting the Iraqi nuke plant before it went online? Yes...that is a smoking gun in my opinion...read my post again and see that I would support airstrikes against the similar plants being built in NK. But where is the nuke plant in Iraq that is making weapons grade plutonium? You think it is hidden well enough that our satellites can't see the heat plume? Do you realize how nearly impossible that is to do even for a country as technologically advanced as the US let alone a technologically handicapped country like Iraq?!
I also supported the air strikes in late 1998 of Iraqi chemical plants that were obviously designed to manufacture chemical weapons. Those were smoking guns. There is no evidence that Saddam has had time to rebuild those facilities or even gather the equipment that would be necessary, all of which would need to be purchased from other countries. And it is not like we haven't been watching for that kind of activity.
What has happened to the missing anthrax? First, from what I understand it is not actual anthrax that is unaccounted for but rather the yeast that can be used as a growing medium for anthrax. If this is not correct please point me to documents that show otherwise. However, the problem is in production and then storage of anthrax. Iraq was never able to perfect the drying process and had always kept anthrax in a slurry form, which has a limited shelf life. By now any slurry anthrax produced before the Gulf War that Saddam might have successfully hidden from UN inspectors in the early '90s would be useless. As far as the UN inspectors could determine, Iraq has still not figured out how to create dried anthrax.
As for the holocaust...none of the allied combatants went to war with Hitler because they suspected the holocaust. The smoking gun for Europe was a blitz on Poland. And for the US the smoking gun was Pearl Harbor. Did the US seriously suspect that Japan was going to attack...yes...was the US prepared to carry out a preemptive strike against Japan based on that suspicion alone...evidently not.
And BiGB...honey sweetie pie...I hate to break it to ya but Tony Blair is not a member of the Conservative Party, he's one of those damn Labour Party liberals...kisses.
-
crowMAW the Iraqi Nuclear facility was not a smoking gun in the opinion of the world at the time. At the time is was billed as a facility for the development and support of commercial nuclear energy production. The Iraqi's never came out and said we are using this facility for creating nuclear weapons or enriching material so that it can be used for making bombs.
It was very suspicious when you thought why do they need nuclear power plants when they have all that oil? But even then a good part of the world cried foul over the Israeli actions. Saying they had no just cause for attacking and destroying a commercial plant. Later it was proven that it was more than just a commercial plant.
Also it was shown that after this attack by the Israelis that the Iraqi regime then made efforts to disperse and hide its nuclear facilities and program so that in the future it could not be hit and disrupted by a strike that the Israelis did. Again proven after the gulf war.
So in this case it was not a smoking gun. And then afterwards they hid and dispersed.
In the case of NK it is a smoking gun since NK has come out and said publically that they are working on a Nuclear Weapons program. Their facilities were not a smoking gun before they said this since other countries argued they needed these so called commercial facilities for creating energy. Only after the NK said no we are working to creating Nuclear Weapons did the other countries then go .. oh, these facilities could be used to aid with that. Don't bring them online. Before NK said that it was .. oh, NK needs energy and these are just commercial facilities.
As for the World II analogy you are right no country went to war because of the holocaust. They simply would not believe the reports of it the recieved and dismissed it as propoganda.
You are right the smoking gun .. if you can call it that was an attack on Poland and attack on Pearl Harbor. And actually an attack on Russia. In all three cases the allied side had evidence pointing to a looming attack. In all three cases an argument can be made that they waited too long to start preparing for war and beefing up the particular forces in hot spots.
Russia refused to believe it was going to be attacked by Hitler until it was. If they had prepared for an attack things might have gone different. Might not have but might have.
Britain and France did nothing substantial to support Poland but make threats to Germany of what they would do if Hitler did something. This after allowing him the rearm, to occupy the sudentland, absorb in all but name Austria, etc., etc.
The U.S. knew that things might develop into war and had made some preparations for it and expected the Phillipines to be the real target. But even there they did not really beef up the forces their to the extent to resist and onslaught.
All three examples the evidence was there pointing to the fact that Germany and Japan were serious and were ready to attack but it was not given the weight it should have or the preparations to counter it that should have been done.
At the time you could argue we could afford to let the other guy take the first punch (attack Poland, attack Russia, attack Pearl Harbor). The problem today is to let the other guy take the first punch when he might be armed with chemical weapons, atomic weapons, or biological weapons and has shown that he will use what he has (chemical in the past) is something that can be much, much, much more catastrophic than in the past.
In my opinion Bush should have given more time and done more diplomatically than he has to get a consensus on the issue. But eventually it still comes down to the point that it is very likely that Iraq still would not comply and still be evasive and when do you say enough is enough? Or do you run inspections from here till Saddam dies of old age. Because if you stop running inspections then he will reconstitute his programs and he has shown the will to use these weapons when he has them.
Its a nasty situation no matter what way you look at it.
-
banana,
from two counties over, in Owatonna, and 7 or 8 steps to the right in the political spectrum :)
I must respectfully disagree with my squaddies CroMAW and BGBMAW; Cro as to his ultimate conclusion, and BGB as to his tone toward our fellow members who regard themselves as liberals. Mr. Blair, our coalition partner, would term himself a liberal, or perhaps even a socialist. You shouldn't have to be a conservative to see the nature of the Saddam regime. Even tho he is nominally a Baath Socialist, his real ideology is Saddamite, and his only God is himself. I am sorry that the governments of France, Germany, China and Russia are not with our coalition, but am glad that 14 European nations and numerous others will be supporting us in our effort to remove a regional and perhaps soon, a world threat, and liberating a captive people. If some Muslims hate us for freeing fellow Muslims from a hellish regime, well, I won't spend a lot of effort trying persuade them otherwise. I pray that each of the soldiers come home, and that all the innocent Iraqis live to see the dawn of freedom.
-RkMAW
-
yes Tony Blair..wow..He was Willy Clintons Good friend...
Now..how can you liberal explain why he is sticking by what is supposed to be the political nme conservitves?
Why?..Cause he has common sense.....he knows and has seen what saddam can and would do...
So why doenst this make you other liberal "guys" say hmm why cant we see what he sees?..
Blair has put his career on the line to do what he feels is morally right. I salute him for that..very brave ..especailly compared to the stinkin toejam piles we have on capitol hill...(Daschle) For Dascjhle to say rigth after Bush's speeach i think should be treason..(or somthn)..
DASCHLE: 'This president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war'...
So ..how about everyone who agrees with this toejam pile please let me know....
Why do you guys think that the Democratic party lost there tulips last election?......actaully save it..I have to go hug a tree with my chain saw
No Love
BiGB
666
P.S. Rk..I still think the majority of liberals/democrats are fuk nuts..I know many of you may hate that/me..thats how i feel..I live surrounded by them...maybe they are just more extreme
anyways I dont agree with all the "republican " ideas...but I sure in the hell agree wit them 80% more then any other group..
I dont support "artist" who toejam on a bible and get tax dollars for it..Afirmative Action...diddly this toejam..BS!..well i guess i do..i pay taxes.Repartriations!!?? You fikn kidding me?
To see your democratic party try to take Shots at Bush after his adress is disgusting to me...and any one who agrees with Daschles statement to me...is sickning..again..my opinion
-
BGBMAW thanks for posting. Should I re-enter the fray of the Main Arena and be looking for a squad I will avoid yours like it's the plague. If you aren't the biggest idiot in The O'Club you're at least in the top three along with DavidPT40 and RC51. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if you're all the same person, only when you're BGBMAW you wear a ballgag and leather speedo... I'm embarassed you live about 15 minutes from me.
-
While I consider myself a conservative, I have come to respect Tony Blair. He has proven to be a friend as stern and stedfast as Margaret Thatcher.
Here's to him!
Regards, Shuckins
-
yeah sounds like he might have to cross the aisle, or have the Tory's send some back benchers to his side :) Looks like the Liberal Social Dems are out of the question as a destination.
-
I think we're paying too steep a price to remove a two-bit dictator, but I truely hope it comes out like the White House says it will.
I will gladly post a "You guys were right" thread and I strongly wish the circumstances and events of the next year put me in a position to make that post.
United States of America!
-
Airhead.....blah blah...WHat do you think is so"idoitic"
Yes please come join us......I have a great spot for you
And let me guess you are part of the Rainbow Coalition and voted for Grey Davis..if so...then really..diddly you.. actaully no you cant be..you wouldnt be here i think
But I cant say you guys are so bad..we have a common interests..ww2 Aircraft & History..which i love..so i will salute that part....
But Like Scott Ritter..you can serve your country and still be a child molesting maggot..or you can still be an "American" and i can still call you a piece of toejam liek the French/German Gov
There all over the world...
Love
BiGB
x6o6x6o
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Airhead.....blah blah...WHat do you think is so"idoitic"
Yes please come join us......I have a great spot for you
Love
BiGB
x6o6x6o
ALL your posts are idiotic. LOL Seriously, you are stupid. Which wouldn't be a problem if you were smart enough to realize you were stupid- unfortunately you aren't smart enough to realize you are stupid, and that's Darwinism-style sad.
Thanks for the invitation to join your squad, but after listening to the idiocic ramblings of you I'm surprised more sensible members of the MAWs tolorate your idiotic ass.
-
BGB's an ok squaddie, he just needs me to edit his posts before he hits that enter key. :)
-
Originally posted by Rasker
BGB's an ok squaddie, he just needs me to edit his posts before he hits that enter key. :)
Hell, it would be just fine if he would run a spell check before hitting enter!! :)
-
I dont think fu&^ is in any spellcheck dictionary :)
-
He lives bout half an hour away from me- if he'd like I'd be more than happy to meet him at the Sierra College Blvd. exit off of I-80 at the commuter parking lot and discuss why I think he's a punk without the protection of the Internet to stand between us. How bout it BGMAW- you game? I am. I named the place, you name the time and I'll be there. I would love to kick your dumb redneck ass.
-
hmm threats of physical violence, BGB, you must have found the right button to push. :)
-
Originally posted by Rasker
hmm threats of physical violence, BGB, you must have found the right button to push. :)
Nah... He's safe. I was hoping he would agree to meet me and be confronted by a derelict holding up an "I Work For Food" cardboard sign and get busted for being drunk and disorderly- maybe he's smarter than I thought.
Sorry, but BGMAW is too smart to meet me in person- and I am too chicken to meet him in person. In the meantime I wish the rest of the MAW luck in their squad and hope they win the reset and overcome the idiot among their midst. Hey. he's your problem, not mine.
-
well, I've known BGB for many months if not years, he's much nicer than his ferocious posts :)
-
banana, in regards to your first post
your candor and opinion.
-
Originally posted by banana
Saburo, there are two big differences, though. Hitler's ultimate intent was to enslave Europe by conquest. Our intent is to overthrow a tyrannical and potentially dangerous government.
The other small difference you over-looked is that we are a Democracy and Germany was a totalitarian state. That fact alone makes your comparison spurious.
I will grant you, however, that America is not always in the right. There are many instances of unfortunate American imperialism(The Indian wars, the war in the Phillipines at the turn of the 20th century, etc.)
"But we are a Democracy"? Like that makes any difference in this case? What is so democratic about our nation invading another sovereign state? Without world support? To the Iraqis, we don't look so democratic in their eyes. Suppose you'll tell me when free elections, freedom of the press, labor unions, etc. spring up after we overthrow Sadaam? It won't happen, not in the near future. Won't in Afghanistan either. For the U.S. to thumb its nose at France, Germany, Russia, and any other country that happens to disagree the present pro-war coarse of action is very short-sided indeed.
Perhaps you'll tell me about the "great democratic" regimes of Batista (Cuba), Somoza (Nicaragua), Pinochet (Chile), the death squads of El Salvador, Pahlavi (Iran), Hussein (Iraq '80s) etc. (I could go long but this list is long.) Yeah, real liberty and freedom :rolleyes:
Please spare me the arguments:
1) He has used WMD on his own people and Iran in their war!
Big frikken deal! How long ago was that? Where were your voices of protest then? Oh, he was our ally at the time! Oh, he might of gotten those same chemical weapons from the US! Why aren't you all protesting the massacre of those same Kurds by our ally Turkey? Most countries that have a segment of their population trying to break free and have their own sovereign nation has met with great resistance from the "mother" country. For example, the U.S.A. in its own civil war. A lot of Americans died in that war. The Kurds are fighting for their own independent state from Iraq AND Turkey. Either you support the Kurds or you do not. Do not use the Kurds as an excuse to attack another sovereign state you happen to not like. BTW, Iraq is not the only country to have used WMD. Turkey and Iraq don't consider the Kurds as their own people. the Kurds don't consider themselves Iraqis or Turks, they are Kurds.
2) Saddam is crazy! Really, who said? what experts analysed him? If he is crazy, was he always crazy? Why was he our ally then? Oh, I get it, He is crazy now only because he's our enemy. When he was our ally, he was sane!
3) We gotta invade Iraq for peace and freedom. LOL! REALLY!?
I love the oxymorons there.
4) If we don't get Saddam now, we might face WMD attacks from Iraq in the future! Really? Despite we being the #1 military power in conventional, nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in the world and could wipe out any country in 30 minutes, we fear what Saddam MIGHT do to us? Unfrikken believable. That insecure? So our criteria is based on "tyrannical and potentially dangerous governments?" There's a lot of countries that could go on that list. Some more dangerous than Iraq ever was. We going to go invade and overthrow all those governments too? Keep in mind the military actions bear a heavy financial burden on us, the invaders. How many can we afford?
5) We don't need the rest of the world's support. Especially those greedy French and Germans. We can win this War on terrorism on our own! I disagree. We need the rest of the world's support even more, now, post 9/11. I just saw a news report yesterday that Bush says prepare for more terrorist attacks. Gee, our invasion of Iraq is just so justified :rolleyes:
To disrespect the French, Germans, and anyone else that happens to disagree with us is very short-sided and childish indeed. When the toejam really hits the fan and we need our allies, who among those we insulted are going to come to our aid? Can we say isolated?
************
Bottom line: This war isn't about freedom and democracy. Not about terrorism. Not about Iraq proving it destroyed its WMD.
It is about one sovereign nation invading another for its own selfish goals, not to benefit the world or the Iraqis.
-
Originally posted by banana
The other small difference you over-looked is that we are a Democracy and Germany was a totalitarian state. That fact alone makes your comparison spurious.
BTW I didn't overlook the differences in the idealogies of both countries, hence my reply earlier:
If we're to draw parallels, The US, not Iraq, is closer to Nazi Germany (not in ideology).
-
talk about hitting the nail on the head.
wish i was that eloquent.
but hell i spell to bad to be a veteran. thanks ripsnort
-
Nice post banana...Not even going to pull quotes outta it,just going to say I disagree.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Naso,
We BUY 50% of the world's oil, but we don't own it, or even control it. Remember that the next time OPEC raises the price of a barrel of crude.
By the way, the rest of the world would raise hell if the U.S. seized permanent control of Iraq's oil, and this administration knows it. So the argument that this is a war about oil is spurious. Opposing the war because it IS a war makes more sense.
Nevertheless, deposing Saddam not only can be done but it SHOULD be done.
Regards, Shuckins
You control, via the seven sister (partly owned by your own governent), the distribution of almost 90% of crude and refined oil, the only thing that OPEC can control is the extraction rate, the last time 7 sisters and OPEC disagreed was in the half '70 (1974?) when all western country had huge problems for the cuts in oil extractions.
Since then an agreement was reached, and the things have been gone smoothly (for the instance Bush senior and junior both worked for a big oil company and had good affairs with Osama's family, a powerfull saudi family, but this is a "must-forget" fact).
But now, there's an occasion to grab control (an hidden control) of one of the bigger extraction site in the world, and you can bet it will be not an official thing.
What push France, Germany and Russia (the latter have his own reserves, but know that is strategically better to not touch it), to oppose this war is not humanitarian reason, only a naive man can believe it, the more probable reason is that the "preferential" treatment their oil company have obtained from Saddam is in danger for the future, and a "good" agreement has not been reached with the US for the "after".
The same reason, reversed, Italy have to back up US and be called "one of the good allies", against the huge majority of citizens opposing the war for naive humanitarian reasons (near to 80%), nice big deals in the reconstruction of Iraq ;)
So in my opinion ONE of the reasons of this war IS oil, is not the only one, and we can discuss in another place about strategic dominance, the division of EU, the war equipment productors role and pressure, the various lobbies and pressures that concurr in producing this war.
In my cinic vision of politics, based on history and some first hand experiences, the only reason that have no credibility (politically speaking, or better historically speaking) is the "remove a dictator" one, in all our (as humans) history a dictator removing has always been a secondary effect of other reasons.
Hell, there have been even moments in witch a dictator has been supported by OUR democratic states for our dirty reasons (and Saddam has been one of them), so I dont buy his removing as the real and unique reason.
It's good for masses, for public opinion, coupled with some terrorism fear and other nice propaganda (true) facts used at the correct moment for the politics agenda.
But we can believe we are'nt "masses" can we? ;)
As I have stated in other places, in my opinion, I am happy if Saddam and his minions are removed from humankind quick, but this war, in this political way, is not the best thing to do, for the consequences that will put OUR nations on an edge, with the hate (and is already enough big) for us growing, the economics more in the hand of a little number of people (and their interests can diverge from ours), and put ourselves in the position to become the SOBs in this world, more than we already are, what we hated more, what your fathers fought over the ocean (but with a much much better control on the masses).
We are building a future that will be very difficult to justify to our children, or nephew.
-
banana, old friend... I respectfully disagree.
-
"To sit idly by and let Saddam continue to build weapons of mass destruction for later use against the world would be criminal. To be sure, Iraq poses little or not threat to the world at large today. But since America, Great Britain, Australia and Portugal seem to have learned from history, it is up to us to lead the way and do what needs to be done."
Hell, why not!!!
We all sat around while Britian inserted Israel a Jewish state in a Arab dominated part of the world so Britian could protect the Suez canal and it's just newly found oil reservers in the middle-east.
We all sat around while western oil companies one British and two American were screwing over the Arab oil producing countries to the tune of $2 a barrel, hence OPEC.
We all sat around when Britian and the US supported a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran who was not western oil campany friendly. Enter the Shah of Iran.
We all sat around while the Reagan took Saddam off the terrorist list and then supplied him with Sarin Gas and Anthrax and the technology to produce more in an effort to control the instability created by the Shah of Iran.
We all sat around by while Britian had occuping troops in Ireland and ironically the IRA's main funding came from the US.
We all sat while the Bush Sr supported Pinochet who was murdering thousands and that dirty little assassination by the CIA and Kissenger.
We all sat around when the US Army was training freedom fighter at the SOA and then sending them to El Salvadore where they were killing thousands of civillians per month.
The world is a hypocritical dirty little place.
Find that morale high ground when you can!
-
We all sat around by while Britian had occuping troops in Ireland and ironically the IRA's main funding came from the US.
I suggest you check your sources. 60% of the inhabitants of Northern Ireland (not Ireland) want to remain as part of the UK. I don't call that an army of occupation.
-
Originally posted by Nash
banana, old friend... I respectfully disagree.
Hiya Nash, my Canadian friend :)
It seems that Saburo(among others) is in disagreement with me because they think we have broken the mold by punishing the crime before the actual crime is comitted. Sort of the "Minority Report" syndrome.
I beg to differ. But first, let me concede that the WMD issue is the "excuse du jour" of the Bush administration. Fair enough. I agree that if that wasn't a concern, they would've used some other excuse to justify topling Saddam's regime. Let's face it, since Bush Sr. didn't finish the job at hand in 1991, it's been on the U.S.'s "to do" list. We are now just finally getting around to finishing up what should've been taken care of in '91.
Now then, back to my point of why I support this war. Let's take, just for argument's sake, WMD out of the picture. Even if you pretend that 9/11 didn't happen, there is still sufficient reason why Saddam must go. He has a proven track record of creating instability in the region. He has invaded Iran and Kuwait already. Left alone, who's to say that he wouldn't have gone on to invade other so-called "Islamic brother nations"?
Yes, America is very sensitive to having our supply of oil placed in danger, and that is an unfortunate indiosyncracy of the American nation(we like big, gas-guzzling cars...we are wasteful, etc.). But there it is. That's the reality that we are living with at the moment. While I concede that oil does play a part in this scenario, it is not the only issue. When you combine Saddam's potential to invade his neighbors if left alone, and the possible Israeli retaliation if he were to get to close to Isreal....it makes me shudder.
Even if you agree that Saddam poses a threat to the stability in the middle east, then we get to whether to leave the solution up to diplomacy and inspections, or armed military intervention. In this case, based on how little has been accomplished in 12 years, I think it's been demonstrated that diplomacy doesn't work on dictators. The Iraqi's have been playing the UN like a fiddle for 12 years. The fact that only the US and it's small band of Allies realizes this, is a sad reminder that the lessons of Munich in 1938 have not been taken to heart. At that time, the Allies thought diplomacy would work on "you-know-who" as well.
Fact: Saddam invaded Iran
Fact: Saddam invaded Kuwait
Fact: Saddam has used WMD previously
Fact: Saddam is a potential menace to middle east stability
Opinion: Saddam could potentially invade another country or provide terrorists with the WMD they need to kill Americans.
Opinion: Terrorists will continue to try to kill Americans, regardless of whether we overthrow Saddam or not.
Opinion: Unfortunately, diplomacy didn't work. It's time for a military solution.
-
Originally posted by Torque
"To sit idly by and let Saddam continue to build weapons of mass destruction for later use against the world would be criminal. To be sure, Iraq poses little or not threat to the world at large today. But since America, Great Britain, Australia and Portugal seem to have learned from history, it is up to us to lead the way and do what needs to be done."
Hell, why not!!!
We all sat around while Britian inserted Israel a Jewish state in a Arab dominated part of the world so Britian could protect the Suez canal and it's just newly found oil reservers in the middle-east.
We all sat around while western oil companies one British and two American were screwing over the Arab oil producing countries to the tune of $2 a barrel, hence OPEC.
We all sat around when Britian and the US supported a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president of Iran who was not western oil campany friendly. Enter the Shah of Iran.
We all sat around while the Reagan took Saddam off the terrorist list and then supplied him with Sarin Gas and Anthrax and the technology to produce more in an effort to control the instability created by the Shah of Iran.
We all sat around by while Britian had occuping troops in Ireland and ironically the IRA's main funding came from the US.
We all sat while the Bush Sr supported Pinochet who was murdering thousands and that dirty little assassination by the CIA and Kissenger.
We all sat around when the US Army was training freedom fighter at the SOA and then sending them to El Salvadore where they were killing thousands of civillians per month.
The world is a hypocritical dirty little place.
Find that morale high ground when you can!
I agree, Torque. But then again, one could go through every country's dirty laundry basket and find things like that. I noticed that you left off a few good things the Americans have been known for doing. But then, maybe a balanced view was not your intent.
-
Unless there is some sort of miracle within the next day or two, there's going to be an invasion of Iraq.
You never know, Saddam may just haul butt for Libya with the best 72 virgins he can find and his $20 Billion stashed in Switzerland. He may decide to take the real and ready virgins over the ephemeral promised ones. We can hope, but it isn't likely.
Bush might back down; but it isn't likely.
So, there's going to be a war almost certainly.
The who, what, where, when and why and historical recriminations have all be thrashed about soundly. Nothing really left to say that would be new.
So now it is time.
Time for people and nations to decide whether they stand with the dictator or not.
-
Originally posted by ghostdancer
As for the idea of a smoking gun .. the Israeli's bombed a "suspected" nuclear facility created for developing the ability to make nuclear weapons.
[/b]
What I would consider a threshold from prima facie to satisfactory proof is much lower. The fact that the plant exists and the Israeli's could point to it is sufficient enough.
We on the other hand can point at nothing but rumors and tapes that are vague in meaning at best. Our position does not even meet prima facie.
He has a history of using whatever means he has at his disposal to accomplish his goals and then trying to gain access to more deadlier weaponry.
[/b]
Let me ask...what do you believe his goals have been for the past 12years? Do you believe that he has been planning a way to be able to invade any of his neighbors? You do agree that he has been militarily marginalized. What would a first strike offensive use of WMD get Saddam? It would get him out of power and dead. Personally, I think he has been trying avoid that from happening.
The question is simple are we willing to gamble that if he ever does develop it and he was desperately trying that he won't use it or pass it on to another to use.
Please tell me one group that Saddam would trust enough to pass WMD for them to use against the US? It ain't Al Qaeda...they are just as likely to use some of the material provided against Saddam and he knows that.
The US currently lives under that gamble everyday and will continue to after Saddam is gone. There are sources of WMD from the former Soviet bloc countries and other weapons suppliers such as NK which have a much higher risk of providing WMDs such as VX to organizations hostile to the US. Using force to remove Saddam will not significantly decrease the risk of WMD proliferation to hostile organizations. On the contrary, it will create a new funding to buy those weapons from other sources and a new cadre of terrorist recruits willing to utilize them.
-
Find that morale high ground when you can!
Is there any room left up there?
-
Please tell me one group that Saddam would trust enough to pass WMD for them to use against the US? It ain't Al Qaeda...they are just as likely to use some of the material provided against Saddam and he knows that.
No, he knows that Al Qaeda would love to kill him and his entire family, and install an Islamic government. But they would never use WMD against a Moslem Arab country, even to depose it's leader. You ca't use WMD to target one man, you target an entire city. There would be way too much loss of Moslem life. They would lose all the support they have been trying to gain over the years. They would only use WMD against Israel, the US, and the West.
ra
-
Originally posted by Torque
We all sat around while Britian inserted Israel a Jewish state in a Arab dominated part of the world so Britian could protect the Suez canal and it's just newly found oil reservers in the middle-east.
The world is a hypocritical dirty little place.
Find that morale high ground when you can!
Hmm, from what I know, the Brits tried their best to keep Jewish emigrants away from Palestine, fought a nasty little guerilla war with the militant Jews over that. Then they turned it the whole place over to the United Nations, where partition was decided.
Heck during World War II, Britain and the Allies attacked the neutral French fleet, occupied neutral French territory in North Africa, occupied Iraq, deposed the reigning Shah in Persia (Iran), and occupied that country. All to aid the war effort against Hitler. Churchill, as First Sea Lord, was even planning to invade neutral Norway, to cut off German iron ore imports from Sweden when the Baltic froze, when Hitler beat him to that, in part to spoil that very threat from the British. Would the Allies have won without these violations of international law? I would guess so, but I can't be sure. Do these infractions make the Allies as bad or worse than Hitler? Certainly not, in my view. In view of these infractions, would you have been neutral in a war between Hitler and the Allies?
Should Saddam be able to hide behind legality, sovereignty and technicalties when he is the poster boy for the rule of force and fear? I think not, and I think the world will be that much better a place with him out of power. I hope that more of the world's dictators feel a bit insecure, that might modify their behavior a bit for the better. But Saddam is alone in being a charged and convicted aggressor, who was put on parole and repeatedly and seriously flouted the cease-fire conditions. He had never anticipated the conjunction of Bush and Blair, and his pack of tame worms were not able to shield him. Fini. Requiscat in Gehenna.
-
Originally posted by ra
You ca't use WMD to target one man, you target an entire city.
Or an Iraqi army garrison.
There would be way too much loss of Moslem life. They would lose all the support they have been trying to gain over the years.
And what religion are members of the Northern Alliance that the Taliban and Al Qaeda were fighting in Astudmuffinanistan. How many Muslim lives were lost there?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Unless there is some sort of miracle within the next day or two, there's going to be an invasion of Iraq.
You never know, Saddam may just haul butt for Libya with the best 72 virgins he can find and his $20 Billion stashed in Switzerland. He may decide to take the real and ready virgins over the ephemeral promised ones. We can hope, but it isn't likely.
Bush might back down; but it isn't likely.
So, there's going to be a war almost certainly.
The who, what, where, when and why and historical recriminations have all be thrashed about soundly. Nothing really left to say that would be new.
So now it is time.
Time for people and nations to decide whether they stand with the dictator or not.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if Saddam did go in exile. I'll bet you this: If he did the US would add yet another more harsh demand in order to avoid war. Bush and his team has wanted this war from the beginning. In each demand they've given against Iraq, they expected noncompliance, hence the justifiable invasion. What Bush and team didn't expect was compliance with the new demands. We finally got the UN unlimited access for inspections that were supposed to be sooo important to our security (remember it was our reasoning for them), so we get the all important inspections. But it is still not good enough. Yet we haven't found the stockpile we say that are there. Seems we're afraid after the UN finally goes over the whole country and doesn't find any, we won't have the justification for our war. Bottom line, Bush doesn't want peace in this case, he never has. BTW, hope you all enjoy the tax hike we're going to endure to support our ever increasing war on terror.
BTW Toad, to answer your dictator question, no I do not support Bush's skewed policies regarding Iraq. War is the absolute last ditch resort after all else has failed. Apparantly, the laws of physics (time-wise) just isn't good enough for our president.
-
Saburo..You are full of toejam..
We did not get "unlimited Acces"
why did they say no to U2 fligths at first? Huh? yes they did after huh?
And what about Scientist?
Whatever,,its usless diddly all of you who beleive that toejam
THE UN IS NOT THERE TO FIND WEAPONS>>>>>
THEY WERE THERE TO SEE THE PROOF OF THERE DESTRUction..Plain and simple..
And diddly You again..If Saddam left there would be no war...
WHAT THE diddly DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT 1441.!!!
Immediate..unconditional....I F you dont see that then diddly You
UAV's Long Range Missels..Liquid filled War heads..Yes .....You are a Blind idiot...diddly You
All of you who say Bush is going to war no matter what..areso blind and diddlying stupid.
So I guess the 45 other countries who agree are "warmongers too"? O ya its the pressure we put on them..
Yes I guess the 70& of Americans who agree are wrong too...
Owell...as I say...."diddly You"
Im not backing up toejam...beleive what you want..
WHAAA Taxes are going up...BREAK YOURSELF you winnie squeak or move your bellybutton to france..PEace Brother..Peace..Cant we all just get along
diddly You
BiGB
xoxo
666
-
P.S.
diddly you ahead of time
and You align your self with Daschle...diddly YOU AND HIM..HEs a maggot....
the Democratic Party is a sinking sack of toejam Thx god let them speak....
no wonder they lost there bellybutton 2/3 's of there seats
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
bush has gone from the worlds largest coalition to the smallist in two years. the guy could and has screwed up a wet dream. this war will be no different. god bless the troops but dethrone the deserter responsable for the mess. this war wasent nessasary its bushes bumbling idiocy that make it nessasary. i wont accept and argument we should pretend it was for the best all along, it wasen't
Good grief Lord Dolf...get a spell checker, fer cryin out loud;)
-
Uh, Lord Dolf, forget what I said bout th spell checker. I shoulda read all the other posts...lol. Too many others worse than you.:eek:
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Saburo..You are full of toejam..
We did not get "unlimited Acces"
why did they say no to U2 fligths at first? Huh? yes they did after huh?
And what about Scientist?
Whatever,,its usless diddly all of you who beleive that toejam
THE UN IS NOT THERE TO FIND WEAPONS>>>>>
THEY WERE THERE TO SEE THE PROOF OF THERE DESTRUction..Plain and simple..
And diddly You again..If Saddam left there would be no war...
WHAT THE diddly DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT 1441.!!!
Immediate..unconditional....I F you dont see that then diddly You
UAV's Long Range Missels..Liquid filled War heads..Yes .....You are a Blind idiot...diddly You
All of you who say Bush is going to war no matter what..areso blind and diddlying stupid.
So I guess the 45 other countries who agree are "warmongers too"? O ya its the pressure we put on them..
Yes I guess the 70& of Americans who agree are wrong too...
Owell...as I say...."diddly You"
Im not backing up toejam...beleive what you want..
WHAAA Taxes are going up...BREAK YOURSELF you winnie squeak or move your bellybutton to france..PEace Brother..Peace..Cant we all just get along
diddly You
BiGB
xoxo
666
Is this kind of profanity allowed?
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
P.S.
diddly you ahead of time
and You align your self with Daschle...diddly YOU AND HIM..HEs a maggot....
the Democratic Party is a sinking sack of toejam Thx god let them speak....
no wonder they lost there bellybutton 2/3 's of there seats
Or this?
-
Is this kind of profanity allowed?
No, now you will be banned.
-
LOL ra :)
-
Geez, thanks for destroying what was a stimulating discussion. All you potty mouths can just leave this thread and go somewhere, thanks.
-
this langauge just emphasis the feelings i have for soem of these'people"..
what your virgin ears hurt..owell..
I have to laff and hate at the same time..
If not i would snap and go kill the hippis down at the "anti usa " rallies
yawn...............
BiGB
666
-
Yer such a banana!!!
:D
-
Sling, just because you let me down and got me killed in the 2v2 duel at the con last year...
:D
-
BGBMAW..I don't luv you no more.
-
Doh!!
Dont remind me. We were lucky to even win one out of the three. Too bad I cant make this year's con. You can be my wingman anytime.
:D