The W
Views: 100744682
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.11.07 2148
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iraq getting worse Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(681 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 617/763
EXP: 1444995
For next: 40942

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 612 days
Last activity: 227 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on 14.9.04 1842.01
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1843.01
According to Newsweek (msnbc.msn.com)

Why isnt anyone talking about this? While weve been arguing about Vietnam and who did what, the Insurgents in Iraq are gaining ground and strength, and neither candidate, especially our "warrior" president is talking about it. This is a mess and whoever wins the election is going to have to fix it. We need more troops in there. From us and our Allies.
Promote this thread!
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1056/1494
EXP: 3959826
For next: 46253

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 75 days
Last activity: 8 hours
#2 Posted on 14.9.04 1853.40
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1854.02
I find it ironic that you seem to take a swipe at Bush for being "warrior", yet are calling for an even bigger military commitment in Iraq. So who is more "warrior", you or Bush?

I don't see anything in Iraq worth fighting for myself (ie OUR national security). And in that sense, it is very similar to Vietnam.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1576/1759
EXP: 4946766
For next: 46104

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1346 days
Last activity: 112 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 14.9.04 1924.44
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1926.15
When we are turning out 1000 dead a week in Iraq, I will be worried that it is going "worse." As it is, it is pretty well a known fact that the vast majority of the media avoids at all cost a real picture at how things are going in Iraq and focusing on the deaths. You want to know why there is a spike is casualties? Because we went back on the offensive. And it is working.

To be honest, that entire article read like bullshit. A few sensational examples, followed by a bunch of broad generalizations.

When the generals on the ground call for more troops, I will support sending them. When I want a story about how things really are over there, I will talk to a soldier who has come back, and not some hack reporter with an agenda (the whole Rather thing pretty well proves to me that they aren't interested in painting a true picture of anything).

How are things in Iraq? Not perfect, but it isn't anywhere near as horrific as the media paints it.

I can't understand why anyone actually thought things would be "all better" by now, no matter what side of the argument you were on. We have to rebuild an entire nations government. Train soldiers and police. Fight the throngs of terrorists that were already there, and the ones streaming in from other countries.

If you honesty thought it would be all over and done with in six months, you are a moron. This is not a "mess" in the sense that it is a major screw-up, only in that it is, and continues to be a chaotic situation that requires patience and determination, as well as skill, to come through.

Personally, I am getting sick of the narrow vision the opponents of Iraq display. Take a look at the big picture, and stop running around screaming the "sky is falling!" because a rock hit you on the head. That is pretty much all this article's argument consists of....

No left wing bias my ass...

(edited by Pool-Boy on 14.9.04 1728)
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 371/1040
EXP: 2100706
For next: 113403

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2388 days
Last activity: 857 days
#4 Posted on 14.9.04 1924.47
Reposted on: 14.9.11 1926.22
    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    We need more troops in there. From us and our Allies.


We really can't get more troops. I don't know many people signing up, re-enlistment numbers are down, and I have friends over there who are being driven nuts by the "stop-loss" thing that's going on. My very good friend just got held over there until January (she was supposed to be home August 4). And she was informed that they can recall her to service for up to 2 (maybe 3) years after she gets out in January. Retired National Guardsmen are being called into service. The military is stretched thin, and (short of, God forbid, a draft) we're not going to have a lot of troops in reserve.

Clearly, the administration didn't expect there to be such resistance (hence the "Mission Accomplished" blunder), and, unfortunately, innocents, police officers, and U.S. troops are paying the price. There might be some bad moves that we're making (the Najaf agreement that allowed the insurgents to take their weapons home with them, for example), and I don't think that any amount of troops would help in that case.

Now if our allies would send it troops, it would be great, but the French and the Russians and the Germans don't seem especially eager to help us out on this one. I'm thinking that they're secretly laughing at us for going at it alone. And, while El Salvador supposedly has some great troops (I'm serious, I've read that they're amazing), they don't exactly have a large army.

(edited by Roy. on 14.9.04 2028)
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2422/2679
EXP: 9223872
For next: 93486

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3292 days
Last activity: 3292 days
#5 Posted on 14.9.04 2004.14
Reposted on: 14.9.11 2004.23
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    If you honesty thought it would be all over and done with in six months, you are a moron. This is not a "mess" in the sense that it is a major screw-up, only in that it is, and continues to be a chaotic situation that requires patience and determination, as well as skill, to come through.


Predictable chaos.

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Personally, I am getting sick of the narrow vision the opponents of Iraq display. Take a look at the big picture, and stop running around screaming the "sky is falling!" because a rock hit you on the head. That is pretty much all this article's argument consists of....


The bigger picture might be a scarier one then any sensationalistic article points out. The bigger picture might suggest that the Western world's idea of democracy doesn't work everywhere and cannot be forced upon people. Where has it REALLY worked? Please let me know.

Perhaps Saddam was the only guy who could keep these backwards assed motherfuckers under control? The same people Uday Hussein was alleged to have tortured for losing games said they'd be on the front lines to fight the American troops.

Maybe the bigger picture will show us that Iraq will become another Afghanistan where it became a breeding ground for Anti-American terrorists. Iraqi's weren't commiting acts of violence against Americans before. From all reports, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein would have liked to have wiped each other's people of the face of the earth.

What's really going to happen in Iraq? I pray that it somehow becomes a real democracy and the country thrives but in all reality, it'll be a puppet democracy where the rich are even richer and the poor are even poorer. Then instead of being afraid to do anything about it in fear of Saddam, they'll grow up to hate and kill Americans who "liberated" them.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 618/763
EXP: 1444995
For next: 40942

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 612 days
Last activity: 227 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 14.9.04 2100.02
Reposted on: 14.9.11 2100.16
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    When we are turning out 1000 dead a week in Iraq, I will be worried that it is going "worse." As it is, it is pretty well a known fact that the vast majority of the media avoids at all cost a real picture at how things are going in Iraq and focusing on the deaths. You want to know why there is a spike is casualties? Because we went back on the offensive. And it is working.



I dont need 1000 dead a week to start worrying. And I disagree that the Media is avoiding painting a positive Iraq. Its not all doom and gloom over there but its not all peaches and cream either. The insurgency IS getting worse. They are emboldened by our policy in places like Falluujah and other towns we now totally avoid.


    When I want a story about how things really are over there, I will talk to a soldier who has come back, and not some hack reporter with an agenda


Well I have talked to several guys that have been over there, and they say its pretty bad in some spots. And its going to get progessively worse.



    Personally, I am getting sick of the narrow vision the opponents of Iraq display. Take a look at the big picture, and stop running around screaming the "sky is falling!" because a rock hit you on the head. That is pretty much all this article's argument consists of....



And I think alot of supporters like yourself are ignoring a problem that may not be that big now but is getting worse. The insurgency is getting bigger, that cannot be ignored.

    Originally posted by Roy.
    Now if our allies would send it troops, it would be great, but the French and the Russians and the Germans don't seem especially eager to help us out on this one.


True, but the administration dealings with them hasnt been all that great. If they are willing to compromise and give up some power in Iraq, I think we can get a NATO force in that can take the burden off of our guys. But at this point we have to concede some control in my opinion.

(edited by rockdotcom_2.0 on 14.9.04 2200)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1226/2704
EXP: 8963193
For next: 25626

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#7 Posted on 14.9.04 2205.06
Reposted on: 14.9.11 2205.46
    Originally posted by ges7184
    don't see anything in Iraq worth fighting for myself (ie OUR national security). And in that sense, it is very similar to Vietnam.


In Vietnam we were fighting to contain communism. In Iraq, terrorism. In a material sense there may not be anything worth fighting for. But supporters of both wars have a laundry list of reasons why we should be there.

There are many parallels to Vietnam with Iraq. The biggest being we don't understand our enemy or the people, and insist on the fact that our way of doing things can be transported anywhere.
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 68

Posts: 810/1164
EXP: 2724368
For next: 4446

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3588 days
Last activity: 3588 days
#8 Posted on 15.9.04 0917.23
Reposted on: 15.9.11 0918.46
I don't even seeing National Security as a reason to go into Iraqi in the first place. They were no threat, the UN inspectors kept a close eye on them and if they did try to launch an attack, which I highly doubt, you would have had more of a coalition force to counter it or to invade. Iraqi was more of a stain on the Bush family than a real threat like North Korea or Al Queda or even Iran. Iraqi was easy targert or at least what we thought would be an easy win. It turns out beating the army is the easiest part of the war, rebuilding it is the hardest. A lesson, we should have learned in World War II. The Administration had no nothing like the Marshall Plan and kept lying to people that the hard part was over. I don't know why people are going to vote for Bush on Iraqi, but so be it. People vote for Johnson and Nixon when we were in Vietnam, so it shouldn't shock me as much.

I too have been hearing from family friends in the military who are in Iraqi. There is no rosey picture, the leadership is clueless and they are terrified of a major resistance movement in the next few months. The population hates them and they want to go home soon since supposedly their is an Iraqi government. I know military people telling their families to vote for Kerry instead of Bush if that tells you anything. I just think the election is to close to call and thinking Bush is going to win the military overseas vote is laughable.
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 53/104
EXP: 64926
For next: 2798

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3697 days
Last activity: 3694 days
#9 Posted on 15.9.04 0925.33
Reposted on: 15.9.11 0926.01
Pool Boy, there WERE no terrorists in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion. Saddam was a secular dictator, and only in the past couple of years began paying lip-service to Islam as a way of getting over with his increasingly disenchanted populace. If there's one thing dictators are good at, and Saddam was particularily good at this, it is fending off possible threats to their position, and any theocratic terrorists inside Iraq would have been a direct challenge to his authority.

Remember how terrorists used to call for the overthrow of Saddam, along with the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan and the house of Saud? There was a reason for that.

Of course, the second Shrub decided to finish him off, Saddam morphed into a nuclear-chem-bio-doomsday device weilding crazy mullah. The media played their part in drubbing it into you that Iraq was about to nuke New York any day now unless you invaded, and most Americans blissfully went along with anything they were told. Ergo, your current opinion that Iraq was somehow a terrorist haven before you liberated it.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1577/1759
EXP: 4946766
For next: 46104

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1346 days
Last activity: 112 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 15.9.04 1052.10
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1052.44
    Originally posted by Malarky
    Pool Boy, there WERE no terrorists in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion.


Hmm. I suppose all of those terrorist camps like Salmon Pak just magically appeared after Hussein was gone. And of course Islamic terrorists hated him! That is why he gave so much money to Hamas!

Nothing like running with your blinders up. It is naive in the extreme to think that terrorist groups all HATED Hussein because he was secular. Frankly, the assertion is false.

The facts don't back up your "Ergo" there my friend.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 5069/16361
EXP: 143945990
For next: 1779430

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on 15.9.04 1434.44
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1436.05
    Originally posted by Malarky
    Of course, the second Shrub decided to finish him off, Saddam morphed into a nuclear-chem-bio-doomsday device weilding crazy mullah. The media played their part in drubbing it into you that Iraq was about to nuke New York any day now unless you invaded, and most Americans blissfully went along with anything they were told. Ergo, your current opinion that Iraq was somehow a terrorist haven before you liberated it.
Perhaps, you being such an expert on Americans and all, you could get the name of the American president right,a s cutesy nicknames (in the Wrestling OR Politics forum) tend to annoy the admins and all that.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1230/2704
EXP: 8963193
For next: 25626

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#12 Posted on 15.9.04 1447.28
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1450.30
    Originally posted by A Fan
    I know military people telling their families to vote for Kerry instead of Bush if that tells you anything. I just think the election is to close to call and thinking Bush is going to win the military overseas vote is laughable.


When people voted for Johnson in 1964 our Vietnam involvement was ratcheting up but not huge. PLus he ran against Goldwater who Johnson portrayed as ready to nuke all the commies. Vietnam caused Johnson not to even run in 1968 and Nixon beat Humphrey largely based on his "plan" for Vietnam. In 1972, he ran against McGovern for God's sake.
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 55/104
EXP: 64926
For next: 2798

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3697 days
Last activity: 3694 days
#13 Posted on 15.9.04 1610.46
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1610.54
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
      Originally posted by Malarky
      Pool Boy, there WERE no terrorists in Iraq before the March 2003 invasion.


    Hmm. I suppose all of those terrorist camps like Salmon Pak just magically appeared after Hussein was gone. And of course Islamic terrorists hated him! That is why he gave so much money to Hamas!

    Nothing like running with your blinders up. It is naive in the extreme to think that terrorist groups all HATED Hussein because he was secular. Frankly, the assertion is false.

    The facts don't back up your "Ergo" there my friend.



Those groups were allowed to operate by Saddam with his full knowledge, as they were terrorist groups who were commiteed to the overthrow of the theocracy in Iran. Hardly a threat to America. Not every "terrorist" is so obsessed with the US as your leaders would have you believe.

And the Hamas point, Saddam supported Hamas to the extent that they were blowing up Israelis. He was safe in doing this as they operated outside of Iraq, and were no threat to his base of power.

It's ludicrous that you can defend a policy that has taken a stable, albeit tyrranical regime out and in it's place has created a terrorist swamp, which will continue to fester and will, most ironically, end up being MUCH more of a threat to America than Iraq under Saddam could ever hope to be.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1909/6355
EXP: 33731394
For next: 388704

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#14 Posted on 15.9.04 1640.15
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1640.37
Malarky, are you really, REALLY going to come here and say that the ONLY Terrorists who were EVER in Iraq, were only there because Saddam wanted Iran overthrown? He is secular you claim, yet made payments to suicide bombers in Israel. How is that? He's secular! Please, try to at least come up with some convincing argument as to the threat not being against anybody EXCEPT Iran.

There are years and years of intel that shows that not only did Saddam allow, fund, and help terror networks, but that he was more than happy to send his Secret Service type guys to instruct in bomb making techniques.

And, do you think Terror networks are like McDonalds? You know where they are, who is there, what they are against, who they bomb, who they dont bomb, where they get their money, who trains them, etc?

Could a terrorist help pay a guys way into a nation, in exchange for gaining his own training for his own purposes? You think that would have/could have never happened?
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 57/104
EXP: 64926
For next: 2798

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3697 days
Last activity: 3694 days
#15 Posted on 15.9.04 1659.35
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1659.57
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Malarky, are you really, REALLY going to come here and say that the ONLY Terrorists who were EVER in Iraq, were only there because Saddam wanted Iran overthrown? He is secular you claim, yet made payments to suicide bombers in Israel. How is that? He's secular! Please, try to at least come up with some convincing argument as to the threat not being against anybody EXCEPT Iran.

    There are years and years of intel that shows that not only did Saddam allow, fund, and help terror networks, but that he was more than happy to send his Secret Service type guys to instruct in bomb making techniques.

    And, do you think Terror networks are like McDonalds? You know where they are, who is there, what they are against, who they bomb, who they dont bomb, where they get their money, who trains them, etc?

    Could a terrorist help pay a guys way into a nation, in exchange for gaining his own training for his own purposes? You think that would have/could have never happened?



Everyone and their mother in the Arab world supports blowing up Jews (oversimplifying, but you get my drift). It's that simple. That's in no way a litmus test on one's religiosity. The struggle there is not one based on religion, it's one based on group A coming in and kicking out group B from their homes. And again, don't overlook the fact that Saddam saw how the tide of history was going. He realized that he was a hated man, and latched onto religion as a common currecny between him and his subjects. Only in recent years had the posters and billboards of Saddam, the pious muslim, been spotted around Iraq, as opposed to his usual more martial, secular style that had him puffing out his chest, shades on and dressed in his olive green military uniform. only in previous years had he started construction on the lagrest mosque in the world. It was all a front. The man is on record as modelling himself and his regime on the finest examples of European fascism, and we all know that in a fascist system the government is the religion, the leader your God.

And yes, I don't pretend to know the comings and going of every single militant that may or may not have passed through Iraq in the past 30 years, however I can reasonably claim that Iraq posed no more of a terrorist threat to America than any other country, less so in fact than most. In fact I'd bet on there being more terrorist cells bent on attacking America in Saudi, or Iran, or Egypt, hell, even America than there were in Iraq during Saddam's time in power.

The bottom line in this whole over-arching gabfest over Iraq, to me, is that going by the government's line, this was was illogical. There were/ARE much bigger threats to your security than some 5th rate pisshole that couldn't even defend itself. Every attempt since to justify their war has used a different justification, it's almost as if they're shopping for the right line of BS to tide us over.

Where is the Bush sabre-rattling over North Korea? Iran? If he's so intent on being the alpha male on the world stage (a role he obviously enjoys way too much for someone in control of the US military)he should be a real man and pick a fight with a country that could actually fight back in a meaningful way.

The US is currently bogged down in a stage 3 insurgency in a largely hostile country, with no exit plan, no allies (save for Britain) with any meaningful support in the country, and two overtly hostile countries poised on the edge of nuclear development, and Bush has the nevre to say that the country is safer?

The man's delusional.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 1913/6355
EXP: 33731394
For next: 388704

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#16 Posted on 15.9.04 1725.58
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1726.23
If the conflict there isnt religious, as you assert, then what does Saddam being secular have to do with anything?

Iraq, with lots of money, could and did provide training to terrorist from around the planet. Thats a fact. Becuase Saddam may have not said "go kill americans" doesnt mean he didnt support terror networks, and, in turn, advocate they harm the USA. Like I said, it isnt an A to B direct line, but once C D E and F come into play, there is a link. To the USA, its allies and anybody who doesnt call Islam thier chosen religion. About 90% of Terrorists can attribute thier funds for training from networks set up and funded by the PLO and Yassir Arrafat. The others get training from whomever they can convince of thier usefullness. This is when Iraq comes in.

Believe me, I would LOVE to not have any troops be deployed, but, what they are doing, no matter what justification you use, is the right thing.

Bush should deal with Korea. He should provide them with an opportunity to comply with the wishes of the GLOBAL community. According to the UN, about 12 years should do.



(edited by StaggerLee on 15.9.04 1527)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1231/2704
EXP: 8963193
For next: 25626

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 30 days
Last activity: 6 hours
#17 Posted on 15.9.04 1751.50
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1751.53
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If the conflict there isnt religious, as you assert, then what does Saddam being secular have to do with anything?(edited by StaggerLee on 15.9.04 1527)


There are no religious conflicts. All wars and conflicts are economically rooted to start. They may be couched in religion but that is a smoke screen to get the people to follow.
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 61/104
EXP: 64926
For next: 2798

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3697 days
Last activity: 3694 days
#18 Posted on 15.9.04 1853.21
Reposted on: 15.9.11 1854.36
    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    If the conflict there isnt religious, as you assert, then what does Saddam being secular have to do with anything?

    Iraq, with lots of money, could and did provide training to terrorist from around the planet. Thats a fact. Becuase Saddam may have not said "go kill americans" doesnt mean he didnt support terror networks, and, in turn, advocate they harm the USA. Like I said, it isnt an A to B direct line, but once C D E and F come into play, there is a link. To the USA, its allies and anybody who doesnt call Islam thier chosen religion. About 90% of Terrorists can attribute thier funds for training from networks set up and funded by the PLO and Yassir Arrafat. The others get training from whomever they can convince of thier usefullness. This is when Iraq comes in.

    Believe me, I would LOVE to not have any troops be deployed, but, what they are doing, no matter what justification you use, is the right thing.

    Bush should deal with Korea. He should provide them with an opportunity to comply with the wishes of the GLOBAL community. According to the UN, about 12 years should do.



    (edited by StaggerLee on 15.9.04 1527)


Saddam being secular/the conflict in Israel not being based on religion are two different arguments, don't mix them up for the sake of making a point.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 621/763
EXP: 1444995
For next: 40942

Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 612 days
Last activity: 227 days
AIM:  
#19 Posted on 15.9.04 2051.22
Reposted on: 15.9.11 2051.48
I didnt start this thread to re-argue WHY we're in Iraq. I wanted to discuss whats going there NOW and how we can fix it. Or if fixing is even possible at this point.

Insurgents becoming more sophisticated (story.news.yahoo.com).



Eddie Famous
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 1041/2182
EXP: 7009172
For next: 179464

Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 364 days
Last activity: 358 days
#20 Posted on 15.9.04 2125.26
Reposted on: 15.9.11 2126.50
    Originally posted by Malarky
    Everyone and their mother in the Arab world supports blowing up Jews (oversimplifying, but you get my drift). It's that simple.


Oversimplifying or "it's that simple" which one? Do all Arabs want to kill all Jews or not?

    Originally posted by Malarky
    And yes, I don't pretend to know the comings and going of every single militant that may or may not have passed through Iraq in the past 30 years, however I can reasonably claim that Iraq posed no more of a terrorist threat to America than any other country, less so in fact than most.


So, since you have no idea what had been going on in Iraq, you can tell us that they weren't more of a threat than MOST of the countries in the world?


    Originally posted by Malarky
    Where is the Bush sabre-rattling over North Korea?


Y'see, in order to get at North Korea, you also have to deal with a small country called CHINA.

    Originally posted by Malarky
    If he's so intent on being the alpha male on the world stage (a role he obviously enjoys way too much for someone in control of the US military)he should be a real man and pick a fight with a country that could actually fight back in a meaningful way.


The United States should only take military action against countries who can kill as many or more of us than we of them. That makes a lot of sense.

    Originally posted by Malarky
    two overtly hostile countries poised on the edge of nuclear development


Neither of which has anything to do with the Iraq situation. BTW, remember why the UN went in in the first place? To make sure Iraq dismantled their plans for nuclear development.

    Originally posted by Malarky
    The man's delusional.


You da man!
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Something we didn't know: Bush and Kerry both liars
Next thread: In spite of himself
Previous thread: Quarter of Germans want country resplit
(681 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iraq getting worse Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.192 seconds.