bliZsham wrote:Rollinredcavy, I mentioned this earlier in a different topic directed toward you, but the Senate DID NOT vote to go to war. The Senate has absolutely no power to go to war. The Senate voted to give the president the authority to go to war. That is a huge difference, and the bottom line is no one is responsible for our troops being overseas but the man sitting in the oval office.
so basically in a nut shell the senate gave the president the ability to go to war. the senate new he wanted to go to war and gave him the a-ok. that makes them just as responsible.
"I'm not criminalizing rich people or anything, but they're generally stingier - relative to their income - than are middle/lower class people. I mean, their not rich for no reason, and spending nearly all your money is no way to stay rich. This as such lowers the economic impact of giving more to the rich. Think about this one. Who spends a greater percentage of their income, rich people or poor people? Obviously the answer is - poor people. Really though, lower income people spend nearly to completely everything they make."
actually you are kinda dogging on rich people saying they are more stingy, but the truth is the probalby dontate more money then poor people because they have it to give. i'll give u the fact that the poor does spend a greater percentage of their income. but that in no way means a greater impact because it takes far fewer rich people to make the same kind of impact. u may have a dozen poor people spending their 300$ weekly checks on items. where as u may have one rich guy who can afford to spend that same amount each week. there are allot of rich people out there that are spending week to week just like poorer people. just because they have a huge home doesnt mean they dont have a huge mortgage to go alone with it. your making blind assumptions that just arnt accurate.
as for afirmitive action. its long outdated and needed to be dumped. let the best man get the job, no the man with a certain colored skin. right is right wether its good for the econemy or not.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sndsgood/ https://www.facebook.com/#!/Square1Photography
bliZsham wrote:Rollinredcavy, I mentioned this earlier in a different topic directed toward you, but the Senate DID NOT vote to go to war. The Senate has absolutely no power to go to war. The Senate voted to give the president the authority to go to war. That is a huge difference, and the bottom line is no one is responsible for our troops being overseas but the man sitting in the oval office.
Your right... CONGRESS is the only US body that has the right to declare war. The Senate really doesnt do poop but ask a bunch of questions after the fact.
and some how this president convinced congress to give him (ONE MAN) the power to declare war.
Scarry @!#$ if you ask me.
some politicians simply lie their way to the top, However If we can get through this difficult time we will be stronger than ever.
bliZsham wrote:no one is responsible for our troops being overseas but the man sitting in the oval office.
Yea, funny how the Bush haters never mention OBL or Saddam as reasons.....funny how that works....
Seems that just as the hunt was on for UBL, the lion's share of the troops were pulled for the foray into Iraq. Interesting? Certainly.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Seems that just as the hunt was on for UBL, the lion's share of the troops were pulled for the foray into Iraq. Interesting? Certainly.
Read General Frank's book. He refutes that claim 100%.
Amazon link?
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
NM.. I found it...
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060731583/104-4079168-7815158?v=glance">Tommy Franks - American Soldier</a>
Interesting that you say that he refuted the "claim" that the US went into Iraq soon after losing UBL:
from the Amazon Editorial portion:
Quote:
... Franks was the one in operational control until July 2003, and he offers not a single instance where Rumsfeld, Feith or any other politico forced him to do anything he didn't want to do.
Perhaps they should have. American Soldier reveals numerous blind spots: Franks never discusses why he didn't send more U.S. soldiers to cut off al Qaeda fighters escaping Tora Bora in December 2003 or Ba'athists fleeing to the Sunni Triangle in April 2004. Nor does he seriously ponder what more he could have done to foster a secure postwar environment in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the "impractical" suggestions from Feith that he disregarded, we now know, was to rally Iraqis to assist in their country's liberation. More than a year later, the United States continues to pay a heavy price for not having mobilized sufficient Iraqi security forces early on.
He's not perfect.
Earlier in the editorial:
Quote:
To the contrary, American Soldier rebuts some criticisms directed against the president. Bush has been accused, for instance, of taking his eye off Afghanistan by ordering the plan for a possible war with Iraq in the fall of 2001. Franks writes that, given the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, this was a sensible request, and that "our mission in Afghanistan never suffered" as a result.
Well, it seems to me that unless he's all of a sudden become omniscient, it HAS suffered... US Army/Marine forces are at less than (correct me if I'm wrong) 5% of their operational strength in Afghanistan, they have not found UBL, the Afghani people are still dealing with the Taliban and war-lords in the low-country, and the streets of Kabul, Jallalabad and Khandahar are still pretty unfriendly places.. and there's been 4 years worth of military deployment there. The US mission there is small, and frankly, the job was not finished. Hopefully a similar f**k up won't be repeated in Iraq, but then again, liberation only counts when there's something of value at stake (not like in Afghanistan where the only thing worth going after is the heroin-poppy fields).
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Matt, OBL won't ever be found. If he is it will be TOTAL LUCK. It is his NETWORK that needed disbandment, not him. The forces of good around the globl have done a decent job of doing just that.
They also eliminated a Gov't that housed, fed and harbored them. The UN is more in control of military opps(Peacekeeping) in Afghanstan than the US is. The opposition in those kind of countries will ever just dry up and go away. You should realize that.
Funny, Sudan housed, fed, aided and abetted him...
Al-qaeda is still at work in Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Yemen, Oman and UAE as well as finding a lot of well-to-do financiers in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, as well as still recruiting people from all the aforementioned countries AND Palestine, Lebanon, Croatia, Slovenia... hell even Britain.
You think Al-qaeda is dismantled? The forces of good? What fantasy world do you live in?
UBL
could have been captured, and you'll notice in the book review (I've ordered the unabridged audio version, I don't retain well from texts) Franks doesn't admit fault in not committing more people to the search. Now, he
won't or can't be captured because of that omission. Since he's no longer in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Kazakhstan and Kashmir (okay.. India) have bigger problems to attend to like making sure they blow themselves or each other up.
If you want to make organisations like al-qaeda an endangered species, you have to cut off either their supply of money, or their supply of people or both. Money: Drug money (heroin.. in.. Afghanistan?) people: help spur an economy by funding rebuilding projects and perhaps studies of what the people are good at doing (IIRC, Afghanistan had a large textile industry in the 50's, or even convert the existing poppy fields from heroin production to Morphine... Phizer/GSC et al would jump on that), or something of the sort. If people have a job, they won't (most likely) have to resort to criminal methods to live.
If you don't help the people with a viable alternative to their present conditions, they won't be able to collectively push the likes of al-qaeda away... the idea that "we have ours, and you can't get yours" sets up positions like this... it's what got Afghanistan into the whole mess with the Taliban to begin with (US & the west got Afghanis to drive out the soviets with Warsaw pact and NATO weapons as well as the promise of post-war rebuilding.. the latter didn't happen).
You're right in that the UN controls peace-keeping in Afghanistan, but it's voluntary for countries to commit troops, the US withdrew support to go after a... peccadillo. As long as there is tasset support there, Bush (specifically, but 2-3 presidents after) has a tenuous moral foothold.
Look at it like this: Turks and Greeks were at each other's throats for generations, and it threatened to really go south fast... this was in the 50's. There were Peacekeepers (remember, these are "civilised" countries) there until 1996. Over 40 years of keeping them apart. How long do you think it'll be until the war-lords, the Taliban, and al-qaeda are driven out of Afghanistan? I'd wager as long as it takes to set up decent living conditions, train an army and police force, and set up an industry or 2 that has long-term viability.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
mrgto wrote:bliZsham wrote:no one is responsible for our troops being overseas but the man sitting in the oval office.
Yea, funny how the Bush haters never mention OBL or Saddam as reasons.....funny how that works....
Why would I mention OBL or Saddam as reasons for going to war when the only reason we were given is weapons of mass destruction? Despite what you think, you can't change your reason for going to war. Our president and every member of our military who has served in Iraq is a war criminal in just about every country but our own... Think about that for a while.
^^I agree on the war criminals...they should just start up Nuremburg again for the joint cheifs, the whitehouse, and capitol hill.
After all a soldier can't disobey an order from the CiC, can they?
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
I don't think taking Saddam out of power was worth the 100k lives our military has taken. I would rather have Saddam back in power and also retain the respect of the international community. There are countries with far worse track records than Iraq (specifically Saddam) for human rights. We chose to go to war in Iraq based on oil and a personal vendetta held by our president.
Actually, I'm wrong... it was WMD. No wait, now it was to take a dictator out of power...
mrgto wrote:bliZsham wrote:no one is responsible for our troops being overseas but the man sitting in the oval office.
Yea, funny how the Bush haters never mention OBL or Saddam as reasons.....funny how that works....
So, Osama Bin Lauden and Saddam asked and/or forced us to come over? I don't think so...
It's also funny that you'd give OSB as a reason to go into Iraq. That's rich considering that he had NOTHING to do with Iraq, nothing at all(formerly at least - pre-"Operation Iraqi Freedom"). Well now he does have some connection to Iraq, and that's only because we made that possible. Despite the standard issue propaganda this administration has inspired, there NEVER was a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. The Iraqi regime and Al Queda had never been the best of friends, Saddam being a secular totalitarian ruler and Al Queda being a fundumentalist exremist Islamic militant group. If Al Queda had any real presence in Iraq at the time, they would only have been a potential threat to Saddam's power, and we all know how he delt with such inconvienient things. Now what we did to make the current situation possible(if not probable) is this - We removed Saddam & company(the entire power structure in Iraq at the time) from power - obviously without having any plans or even means to set-up a strong enough governing and security infastructure in a reasonable timeframe. Even though we didn't have the ability to do the entire job that needed to be done, we removed Saddam anyways - and chaos is the obvious result. And now here we are paying for (big understatement-->
short-sightedness. Of course Iraq is suffering plenty as well for our mistakes.
Now if OSB or Al Queda where the real concern, we would have never went to Iraq. Come on now, do you know how many troops we have put into Iraq vs Afganistan? Do you honestly think that if we had all those troops in Afganistan(especially in the first place), that we couldn't have caught OSB and more? Plus we might have brought a bit more stability to Afganistan. Yeah OSB may not be in charge of much anymore, but he is a symbolic leader still, and so catching him and bring him to justice is still important. Many radicals may think that we can't catch him because of God's protection of the rightious or something like that. He is still a tremendous source of inspiration to the radicals, and that can be just as important as any other part of Al Queda - and certainly a hell of a lot more important that Saddam. He needs to go down.
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
bliZsham wrote:I don't think taking Saddam out of power was worth the 100k lives our military has taken. I would rather have Saddam back in power and also retain the respect of the international community. There are countries with far worse track records than Iraq (specifically Saddam) for human rights. We chose to go to war in Iraq based on oil and a personal vendetta held by our president.
Actually, I'm wrong... it was WMD. No wait, now it was to take a dictator out of power...
Where are you getting we killed 100K people since 2003? And FYI, Saddam killed MANY MANY More people than that over his nice little reign. So glad you would want a mass murderer left in power, it speaks VOLUME's about you.
Which other countries with those human rights violations were a threat to the regions they are in? And where is the UN when it comes to those countries?
Remember, he started a war, we finally finished it. And fyi, if Clinton had had any balls at all, he would have taken out Saddam for trying to kill former President Bush. He had the authority to do that.
Bastardking3000 wrote:mrgto wrote:bliZsham wrote:no one is responsible for our troops being overseas but the man sitting in the oval office.
Yea, funny how the Bush haters never mention OBL or Saddam as reasons.....funny how that works....
So, Osama Bin Lauden and Saddam asked and/or forced us to come over? I don't think so...
It's also funny that you'd give OSB as a reason to go into Iraq. That's rich considering that he had NOTHING to do with Iraq, nothing at all(formerly at least - pre-"Operation Iraqi Freedom"). Well now he does have some connection to Iraq, and that's only because we made that possible. Despite the standard issue propaganda this administration has inspired, there NEVER was a connection between Al Queda and Iraq. The Iraqi regime and Al Queda had never been the best of friends, Saddam being a secular totalitarian ruler and Al Queda being a fundumentalist exremist Islamic militant group. If Al Queda had any real presence in Iraq at the time, they would only have been a potential threat to Saddam's power, and we all know how he delt with such inconvienient things. Now what we did to make the current situation possible(if not probable) is this - We removed Saddam & company(the entire power structure in Iraq at the time) from power - obviously without having any plans or even means to set-up a strong enough governing and security infastructure in a reasonable timeframe. Even though we didn't have the ability to do the entire job that needed to be done, we removed Saddam anyways - and chaos is the obvious result. And now here we are paying for (big understatement-->short-sightedness. Of course Iraq is suffering plenty as well for our mistakes.
Now if OSB or Al Queda where the real concern, we would have never went to Iraq. Come on now, do you know how many troops we have put into Iraq vs Afganistan? Do you honestly think that if we had all those troops in Afganistan(especially in the first place), that we couldn't have caught OSB and more? Plus we might have brought a bit more stability to Afganistan. Yeah OSB may not be in charge of much anymore, but he is a symbolic leader still, and so catching him and bring him to justice is still important. Many radicals may think that we can't catch him because of God's protection of the rightious or something like that. He is still a tremendous source of inspiration to the radicals, and that can be just as important as any other part of Al Queda - and certainly a hell of a lot more important that Saddam. He needs to go down.
OBL had no choice and Saddam had a choice but he refused. Bad choice on his part. OBL did indirectly cause the war in Iraq. Bush would have had no reason to go into Iraq had it not been for the 9/11 attacks. His CIA director told him that AQ wanted WMD and the easiest most direct way to obtain those was from Iraq.
Al Queda NEVER EVER had a beef with Iraq becuse if they did it would have started around 1991. Ever hear the phrase, the enemy of my enemy is my friend?
OBL was and will always be harbored by warlords and tribesman in Afghanastan and Pakistan. We won't ever find him. Needle in a haystack.
He refused?
Ahem... He was COMPLYING WITH UN demands up until Bush told him he and his brood had 48 hrs to leave Iraq... and then Ari Fleischer said they were invading anyhow.
UBL caused the war on Iraq? How do you figure?? He escaped and the US needed to hunt down another boogeyman??? Or was it that Bush had the support of the people and figured it was no or never?
Tennet said no such thing BTW... If Al-qaeda wants WMD's they'll go where every other nation that has recently developed Nuclear Technology goes: Pakistan and North Korea. Tennet knew the British Intel on Iraq trying to procure U235 and plutonium Isotopes through "africa" was load of BS, and he told Bush that as well... I guess if you ignore what you're told by an advisor, your version of the truth is correct.
Al-qaeda didn't particularly LIKE Iraq or Hussein either, UBL saw them as a secular and deeply corrupt nation, and only half-heartedly tried to get Hussein in line... They might have tried to radicalise his beliefs, but Hussein was too power hungry to share power, people, or weapons. Hence the fact that Iraq had exactly ZERO connection to 9/11/01.
UBL will hidden or cared for by anyone that has sympathy for him... Warlords? are you for real? They're not going to hide him... they saw their main source of income (ie drug money) get halved or worse when the Taliban seized power. Warlords have no interest in him, because he pushed to have them and their industry destroyed. Pakistan is more likely where he's in hiding, but then again, Pakistan has a "friendly" government.. so friendly that it's not really looking for Bin Laden, and historically so friendly it was flooding the black market with illegal nuclear materials.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:He refused?
Ahem... He was COMPLYING WITH UN demands up until Bush told him he and his brood had 48 hrs to leave Iraq... and then Ari Fleischer said they were invading anyhow.
UBL caused the war on Iraq? How do you figure?? He escaped and the US needed to hunt down another boogeyman??? Or was it that Bush had the support of the people and figured it was no or never?
Tennet said no such thing BTW... If Al-qaeda wants WMD's they'll go where every other nation that has recently developed Nuclear Technology goes: Pakistan and North Korea. Tennet knew the British Intel on Iraq trying to procure U235 and plutonium Isotopes through "africa" was load of BS, and he told Bush that as well... I guess if you ignore what you're told by an advisor, your version of the truth is correct.
Al-qaeda didn't particularly LIKE Iraq or Hussein either, UBL saw them as a secular and deeply corrupt nation, and only half-heartedly tried to get Hussein in line... They might have tried to radicalise his beliefs, but Hussein was too power hungry to share power, people, or weapons. Hence the fact that Iraq had exactly ZERO connection to 9/11/01.
UBL will hidden or cared for by anyone that has sympathy for him... Warlords? are you for real? They're not going to hide him... they saw their main source of income (ie drug money) get halved or worse when the Taliban seized power. Warlords have no interest in him, because he pushed to have them and their industry destroyed. Pakistan is more likely where he's in hiding, but then again, Pakistan has a "friendly" government.. so friendly that it's not really looking for Bin Laden, and historically so friendly it was flooding the black market with illegal nuclear materials.
17 UN resolutions said he didn't. That isn't complying to me. Yup, all he had to do was leave. Enough was enough. He didn't think we would invade because FRANCE told him not to worry about it.
Yup, had there been no 9/11 attacks, I don't think there would have been any kind of support for war in Iraq. It would have been difficult to pass off.
AQ wasn't going to get nuke technology from Pakistan nor NK. pakistan wouldn't give it to them and NK didn't have it perfected. Actually, the "yellow cake" wasn't BS.
But here is a link to it being mentioned.
http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/archives/001447.html
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20...85559-3349r.htm
(Quote
As reported Monday in the Financial Times, however, senior European intelligence officials now say, "Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the U.S.-led invasion" in 2003. This isn't exactly news. A 2002 British dossier on Iraq's weapons programs asserted the same thing, while providing evidence that an inquiring Iraqi official had visited Niger in 1999. In a follow-up story, the Financial Times reports, "three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq." The other countries were North Korea, Iran, Libya and China.
So why didn't OBL try, EVEN ONCE, to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq a Islamic ruled state? NOT ONCE was there ever an attack against his gov't and they were EASY to get to.
mrgto wrote:Remember, he started a war, we finally finished it. And fyi, if Clinton had had any balls at all, he would have taken out Saddam for trying to kill former President Bush. He had the authority to do that.
FYI The only war Saddam started that even remotely involved us was his invading Kuwait, and we we're only involved because we chose to be.(note that Desert Storm was UN sanctioned
) Now how does that translate into him attacking us?! And trying to have George H Bush killed?! WTF are you talking about?! Exactly when did that happen? If you could give a legitimate source that would be appreciated.
mrgto wrote:OBL did indirectly cause the war in Iraq. Bush would have had no reason to go into Iraq had it not been for the 9/11 attacks.
Where do you come up with these things? Could you PLEASE explain just how/why 9/11 gave us ANY reason to go into Iraq. Now you could EASILY make a case as to why 9/11 gave us reason to go into Afghanistan for example, but how do you figure Iraq?! Hell, by that line of thinking, 9/11 is just a good reason to invade Mexico, Japan, or the United Kingdom - as it is to invade Iraq.
mrgto wrote:So why didn't OBL try, EVEN ONCE, to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq a Islamic ruled state? NOT ONCE was there ever an attack against his gov't and they were EASY to get to.
Because Saddam ruled with a iron fist for one. He had an "effective" intelligence service, secret police, etc. The Iraq under Saddam may have been brutal, but it was quite secure. You assume that no one
wanted to attack his government, but they did
want to, and I want to be a billionaire, but it isn't going to happen. Launching a attack/revolt/whatever against Saddam(without getting yourself, friends, and family killed first) wasn't exactly easy. Planning, organizing, and executing any meaningful attack against Saddam was a bit out of even Al Queda's league. Consider just how much planning, preparation, etc it took for their attacks against us, and we where(and still are
) so much less secure it's not funny. Besides as much as they hated Saddam, they hated US much more - and we where obviously the easier target. Now who would you go after in their shoes?
I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?
Saddam had a consoldodated power base, his sons controlled arms of the military, and there were fanatical troops that would have repelled all advances. (Notice the Fedayeen Hussein are giving an occupying force a helluva time?) Al-qaeda isn't a traditional army (at least, not anymore) and getting to Saddam was bloody near impossible. Al-qaeda operatives may be fanatical, but I doubt they're stupid.
BTW, the Washington post article isn't linking right... The board software truncated it.. (bugger...) You'll have to use the link button or a hyperlink.
I've posted the link to the CIA's internal report regarding the founded and unfounded (or miscalculations as I remember it called) allegations regarding the veracity of Iraq's nuclear weapons abilities and it's WMD capacity.
The Uranium they were seeking to purchase was U235... it would have to be greatly enriched to create bomb grade material(U285), and the material is only good if you get a suitable reactant, (like certain Plutonium isotopes that can only be made under heavily guarded and easily spotted enrichment facilities in Iran, North Korea, Russia, Pakistan, the UK, USA, Canada and several other European countries) and then, they only stay stable for so long too...
<a href=""http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm>CIA Report October 2002</a>
Duelfer Report (<a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/">TOC</a>
: <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-02.htm">Nuclear materials</a>.. Take note of the first 3 paragraphs... They've formatted it in columns so I can't copy/paste without a lot of back and forth, so I linked the pertinent page.
<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/08/09/1060360536966.html">Article </a>regarding Al-qaeda and Iraq discussing WMD materials
<a href="http://www.saag.org/papers9/paper867.html">Al-qaeda/North Korea/Pakistan connection?</a> Not entirely bourgeois:
Quote:
25. Of all the Pakistani components of the International Islamic Front (Inserted for clarity, referred to elsewhere in the article) IIF, the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET), which now co-ordinates the activities world-wide of the IIF, has many followers in Pakistan's scientific community who, according to Pakistani media, regularly attend its annual sessions. In this connection, reference is invited to my following observation in my article dated May 3, 2003, and titled "Al Qaeda & Lashkar-e-Toiba" at http://www.saag.org/papers7/paper678.html : "Al Qaeda has been trying to use the organisational infrastructure of the LET in Pakistan, its network in the Islamic world and its large funds for stepping up acts of terrorism against the USA and Israel. The LET's close access to senior officers of the Pakistani military and intelligence establishment could be exploited by Al Qaeda to prevent any action against its surviving cadres in Pakistan. Many members of Pakistan's scientific community in the nuclear and missile fields regularly attend the conventions of the LET. By making use of this, Al Qaeda should be able to seek the assistance of LET sympathisers in the scientific community for acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Since the LET is the Pakistani terrorist organisation most active in J&K and other parts of India, its strengthened nexus with Al Qaeda should be a matter of concern to India."
26. For reasons which are not clear, the LET and the Harkat-ul-Jihad-Al-Islami (HUJI) are two pro-bin Laden jihadi organisations against which Musharraf has been repeatedly avoiding taking any action. The LET now operates under the name Jamaat-ud-Dawa.
27. Some Pakistani sources claim that the Dubai-based individual who, according to the "News", had played a role in the clandestine supply of nuclear material to Iran and Libya, is Dawood Ibrahim, the Indian mafia leader, who took shelter in Karachi after organising the Mumbai blasts of March,1993. The ISI had in the past used his wealth and his ships for payments to North Korea and for the shipment of the missiles from there. On October 16, the US Treasury Department declared him as a designated international terrorist because of his links with Al Qaeda and the LET. The US notification also confirmed that he was living in Karachi with a Pakistani passport, but the Pakistani authorities have strongly denied this.
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and, Distinguished Fellow and Convenor, Advisory Committee, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), Chennai Chapter. E-Mail: corde@vsnl.com )
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
wow im not even going to get into this.........................
all i got to say is notice the link was to MSNBC
so are you the 4th person to ever go to that website or the 5th? LOL
take a lucky guess why those liberal stations don't do good in the ratings?
Maybe the same reason bush was re-elected.
Quote:
I would rather have Saddam back in power and also retain the respect of the international community
as for this quote.......
America is like they guy who's going out with the supermodel, its easier to hate on him then it is to respect him
________________________________________________________________
Click My Sig For My Website
The only thing to respect about america is the uptopia that it was supposedly created as--not the corrupt reality of what it is.
After all Iraq is similar to in many ways to Vietnam, but at least the government isn't being stupid and trying conscription--i'm pretty sure that would state a revolution.
Goodbye Callisto & Skaši, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Tom: If you want to get picky, it was originally reported on the AP news wire.
If you want to start getting down on the news sources, I'll pull from Fox News. Same news, different editorial.. I don't give a damn about what some paid mouthpiece thinks unless it's original, and frankly it hardly ever is, regardless of the news source.
Quote from whatever news source you want, but if you want to post editorial, it looks better in ribbons, and most people have scissors.
Just for your info also: Most men that date supermodels are a dime a dozen pretty faces. I would be a little more careful comparing your country to them.
America is like a meddling mother-in-law.
Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.
Billy G wrote:bush is the worst president we have had.
And this is not specifically directed at you, Billy G. It's directed at everyone......
Can you do better?
Anyone on here can rant and rave about how "bad" our president is, but no one here could do half the job he does.
This Bush/Kerry thing is ignorant. Get over it, Bush won, Kerry lost.
It doesn't matter what your opinion is, bottom line, you would do worse.
Everyone makes mistakes in life. Some are big, some are small.
Either way, the majority elected Bush, and if you don't like it, run for pres in 08 and make some changes.
.....and would you rather have Nads in there? Jeesh.
PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
