The W
Views: 99949882
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
23.10.07 0647
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Some Nobel Laureates Oppose War with Iraq
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(1865 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (35 total)
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 88/2266
EXP: 7348291
For next: 120650

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
#1 Posted on 11.2.03 2220.00
Reposted on: 11.2.10 2222.34
Restores my some of my faith in acadamia...

American Nobel Laureatesí Position on a Unilateral, Preventive Attack on Iraq

http://www.nobellaureatesoniraq.org/

And the vast majority who have signed earned their Nobels in either Chemistry or Physics.

As well as Hans A. Bethe, Director, Theory Division, WWII Manhattan Project.
Promote this thread!
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1056/3029
EXP: 11258287
For next: 213158

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 12 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 11.2.03 2225.28
Reposted on: 11.2.10 2226.57
What a buncha stupid liberals who couldn't find Iraq on a map!
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 478/1528
EXP: 4084574
For next: 106574

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 11.2.03 2238.26
Reposted on: 11.2.10 2239.31

    Originally posted by Leroy
    Restores my some of my faith in acadamia...

    American Nobel Laureatesí Position on a Unilateral, Preventive Attack on Iraq

    http://www.nobellaureatesoniraq.org/

    And the vast majority who have signed earned their Nobels in either Chemistry or Physics.

    As well as Hans A. Bethe, Director, Theory Division, WWII Manhattan Project.



What!? Restores your faith in academia? You DOUBTED that academia was liberal? Have faith, Leroy. Noam Chomsky still waves the hammer and sickle; the flag of liberalism still flies over the ivory tower.

And, come on, JIMMY CARTER got a Nobel Prize. Carter has devalued the Nobel Prize as if it were the US dollar and we were back in the 1970s.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 946/4700
EXP: 21583452
For next: 253210

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#4 Posted on 12.2.03 0606.11
Reposted on: 12.2.10 0610.09
Follow this liberal logic....

One of the undersigned listed on this page is the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Now I've heard of this crowd before, with thier misinformation and lies regarding the gun debate. So I mosied on over to check out their view on this. And low and behold what do I see. One of their goals reads as follows:

Nuclear/Security: Help end the greatest threat to humanity, weapons of mass destruction, through action and education.

Right....

CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 1674/16298
EXP: 142650787
For next: 716120

Since: 9.12.01
From: „Éü„Éć„āĘ„ÉĚ„É™„āĻ

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 12.2.03 0610.42
Reposted on: 12.2.10 0619.02

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    What a buncha stupid liberals who couldn't find Iraq on a map!
Arrgh.
OldManChase
Cotto
Level: 16

Posts: 7/43
EXP: 18432
For next: 1825

Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4118 days
Last activity: 3798 days
#6 Posted on 12.2.03 0740.39
Reposted on: 12.2.10 0741.24
My experience with academics usually leaves me convinced they are out of touch with the "real world". These folks deal in theories and abstract notions all day and are usually (I realize this is a vast generalization) quite ignorant of how the real world works. Sure, in theory, peace would be great, how to achieve iit s the focus of the debate. A quick look at history indicates that appeasement doesn't work (although always advocated by the "smart set") but peace through strength seems to work just fine (e.g. compare the handling of Hitler in the 30s and the handling of communism in the 70s and 80s). Jimmy Carter's appeasement did nothing but allow the spread of Communism, while Reagan called their bluff ... the results are quite noticable today. Anyway, academics find this philosophy too "cowboy" like, remmber these folks don't like simple solutions - they deal with things like quantum mechanics all day. Look at all the acedmics who were apoligists for the tyrants of the last century (Lenin, Hitler, Stalin ... ). Winning a nobel doesn't really make you enlightened, Jimmy Carter is probably as responsioble for as many deaths in the 20th century as any other political figure (including those bad guys I named above).
astrobstrd
Bockwurst
Level: 52

Posts: 364/612
EXP: 1027608
For next: 56240

Since: 13.3.02
From: Loveland, OH

Since last post: 2580 days
Last activity: 2547 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 12.2.03 0757.03
Reposted on: 12.2.10 0759.02

    Originally posted by OldManChase
    My experience with academics usually leaves me convinced they are out of touch with the "real world". These folks deal in theories and abstract notions all day and are usually (I realize this is a vast generalization) quite ignorant of how the real world works. Sure, in theory, peace would be great, how to achieve iit s the focus of the debate. A quick look at history indicates that appeasement doesn't work (although always advocated by the "smart set") but peace through strength seems to work just fine (e.g. compare the handling of Hitler in the 30s and the handling of communism in the 70s and 80s). Jimmy Carter's appeasement did nothing but allow the spread of Communism, while Reagan called their bluff ... the results are quite noticable today. Anyway, academics find this philosophy too "cowboy" like, remmber these folks don't like simple solutions - they deal with things like quantum mechanics all day. Look at all the acedmics who were apoligists for the tyrants of the last century (Lenin, Hitler, Stalin ... ). Winning a nobel doesn't really make you enlightened, Jimmy Carter is probably as responsioble for as many deaths in the 20th century as any other political figure (including those bad guys I named above).



Before you call out Carter on how many deaths he was responsible for, take a look at Central America in the 80's/early 90's. All of a sudden the "cowboy" approach doesn't hold a lot of water. I don't remember a lot of "cowboys" training para-military death squads to rape, tortue, and kill peasant villages.
OldManChase
Cotto
Level: 16

Posts: 8/43
EXP: 18432
For next: 1825

Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4118 days
Last activity: 3798 days
#8 Posted on 12.2.03 0851.29
Reposted on: 12.2.10 0852.18
And just how did we get into that mess in Central America? Yep, that's right, appeasement of the Communists in the 70s. Indeed, the cold war did not leave anybody smelling like roses. There was raping, killing, etc on both sides. But when the choice is between a group of raping and killing Soviet backed socialist or raping and killing military strongmen and the like, sometimes you have to swallow and make the tough choice. It made sense to oppose Soviet backed governments in the Western hemisphere. And if the freedom fighters (I know, I know, one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist) weren't backed, unopposed Soviet puppet goverments left to their own accord would have probably killed far MORE people - lets look at the record - Cambodia, USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, former Eastern European countries ... Anyways, isn't it fun to have such an exchange of ideas - good old democracy.

Astrobstrd just summed up the problem with academic thinking. Sometimes the best solution isn't one of the choices. Sure, no raping and killing in Central America would have been great. However during the 80s that wasn't much of an option, so then the rational solution is to back those who are most likely to eventually bring about conditions of peace. Same with the current climate. The best solution is peace -therefore, in the academics mind that is the only solution and hence, no war at any cost. They do not understand that sometimes the best solution is not an option. The rational mind realizes peace may not be an option right now, but can be achieved with painful decisions at first (e.g. war).

Sorry, I have gone on long enough and shall go do some work now.

(edited by OldManChase on 12.2.03 0703)
TheCow
Landjager
Level: 63

Posts: 348/948
EXP: 1995852
For next: 101311

Since: 3.1.02
From: Knoxville, TN

Since last post: 2449 days
Last activity: 2449 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 12.2.03 1027.25
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1028.10
Actually, you could probably make an argument that our involvement in Central American affairs began back at the Monroe Doctrine, followed by the Roosevelt Corollary, but I normally try to stay out of arguments here (unless it's about education), so take that history lesson for what you will.
OldManChase
Cotto
Level: 16

Posts: 9/43
EXP: 18432
For next: 1825

Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4118 days
Last activity: 3798 days
#10 Posted on 12.2.03 1411.28
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1426.10
Thanks for the history lesson, you must of went to a fancy private school. You could say American involvement went back further than that if you wanted to stretch it. Everything is connected to the past, there is no reset like there is in wrestling. That wasn't the point of the post. The problems of the 80s can be directly attributed to policies from the 70s (in my view anyway). If different policies were in place during the 70s the problems of the 80s could have been avoided ... of course the problems of the 70s can be traced to previous decades ... babble, babble, babble ... it's all the fault of Columbus.

Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 89/2266
EXP: 7348291
For next: 120650

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
#11 Posted on 12.2.03 1507.32
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1517.11
Well, silly me... I posted the link actually believing some people might actually read the statement before responding to it. Perhaps it is because I did not hypertext the link. So let me try this again:

http://www.nobellaureatesoniraq.org/

And just to put too fine a point on it... the statement reads:

"The undersigned oppose a preventive war against Iraq without broad international support. Military operations against Iraq may indeed lead to a relatively swift victory in the short term. But war is characterized by surprise, human loss, and unintended consequences. Even with a victory, we believe that the medical, economic, environmental, moral, spiritual, political, and legal consequences of an American preventive attack on Iraq would undermine, not protect, U.S. security and standing in the world".

As it states clearly, these folks do not oppose (at least in the context of this statement) ANY military action in Iraq. They simply oppose a unilateral preventive war which, in my view, is pretty difficult to argue against (although I am sure a few folks in Wienerville will do their best).

And regardless how one feels about academics, if they are completely out of touch with reality or not really makes no difference. The fact remain that their arguments against the war are what's important. You can dismiss Chomsky as some "hammer and sickle" waving Communist all you want (which, BTW, is not even remotely accurate), that does not mean he's wrong.

calvinh0560
Boudin rouge
Level: 48

Posts: 245/518
EXP: 806151
For next: 17397

Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 560 days
Last activity: 36 min.
#12 Posted on 12.2.03 1529.26
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1531.55
The problem I have with these type of statements is that we are not going in unilateraly. Great Britan, Spain, Italy, many others are with us right now. It has never been JUST the US who wants this war but alot of these aint-war protesters don't seem to know that.
OldManChase
Cotto
Level: 16

Posts: 16/43
EXP: 18432
For next: 1825

Since: 9.2.03
From: Parts Unknown

Since last post: 4118 days
Last activity: 3798 days
#13 Posted on 12.2.03 1534.03
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1534.12
The US has about 40 nations on board with them now. Why does not having UN approval mean unilateral action? Why should we care what the UN thinks. The UN isn't really the United Nations, but the united governments. And I would say about 2/3 of these governments are undemocratic and/or inhumane, etc. Should anybody really care what Syria, China or Cuba thinks.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 945/1759
EXP: 4929867
For next: 63003

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 81 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 12.2.03 1542.29
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1559.01
Smart or ignorant- protestors against the war are showing their true colors as time progresses. The fair minded protesters have slowly been bleeding off from the rest as the evidence continues to mount against them. Iraq is a threat. Iraq is in bed with Al Quaidi. Iraq has WoMD. Al Quaidi has the capability to attack us directly. Iraq still has not complied with the terms of their surrender (disarmament) from the last war. If left alone, Iraq (and Al Quaida) could seriously hurt this country).

The people who continue to protest harder and harder in face of these ever-strengthening facts are just putting their collective foot in their mouth. Let them talk. Let them protest. They are only going to further reveal that they are not anti-war- they are just anti-anything a Republican proposed (see- current Judicial Nomination fillubuster attempt for another example of this). They are going to hurt themselves, destroy their supposed "cause" and gain nothing that they want by ignoring the fact. Let them talk. Let them protest. They have a right to after all. Just as we have a right to recognize what is really going on with them.

I am personally enjoying watching them discredit themselves before our very eyes...
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 959/4700
EXP: 21583452
For next: 253210

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#15 Posted on 12.2.03 1546.31
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1559.04

    Originally posted by Leroy
    They simply oppose a unilateral preventive war which, in my view, is pretty difficult to argue against (although I am sure a few folks in Wienerville will do their best).


The following countries will be participating in this "unilateral war"

United States
Canada
United Kingdom
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Poland
Hungary
Denmark
Greece
Turkey
Saudi Arabia
Jordan
Israel
United Arab Emirates
Pakistan
Bharain
Yemen

And there are a shitload of them I missed. This isn't exactly the nWo B team here. So unless "unilateral" is now a synonym for "most of Europe and friends", this is about as unilateral as organized football.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 860/3059
EXP: 11570434
For next: 291731

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1987 days
Last activity: 1921 days
#16 Posted on 12.2.03 1636.56
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1637.32
I can't speak for the rest of the supporting countries, but as a people Great Britain are most definitely not with you.

"Iraq is a threat. Iraq is in bed with Al Quaidi. Iraq has WoMD. Al Quaidi has the capability to attack us directly. Iraq still has not complied with the terms of their surrender (disarmament) from the last war. If left alone, Iraq (and Al Quaida) could seriously hurt this country)."

Nice to see you backing things up with evidence there. If Iraq is such a threat, how come you've waited twelve years to do something about it? And if you've waited that long, can't you wait another two-three months so that there is conclusive proof of the necessity of war? Also, there is no concrete link between Iraq and Al-Qu'aida, so please don't throw that out there like it's gospel and expect us all to go along with it. It's equivalent to me saying "The US's major motive for war is the control of oil supplies", and we all know how well THAT would go down with YOU.

"These folks deal in theories and abstract notions all day"

Hmm, sounds like Colin Powell's address on the "undeniable evidence" that Iraq is a threat.



Aggghh, I need to take a time-out from this. The overwhelming arrogance that seems to pervade so many US citizens is starting to drive me crazy. Call me a liberal all you want,I'm not talking from a political standpoint any more. I'm talking about common sense, I'm talking about not acting like short-sighted jackasses that believe their coountry is the only thing that matters in the world and must be protected from ANY damage, even at massive cost to others. I'm talking about the arrogance of holding your country above the assembled remainder of the world and saying "We're better than all of you, so WE decide what happens in this world". I'm talking about the inability to accept when you're wrong, especially concerning previous approaches to middle Eastern affairs and the arming of tyrants for "the US's best interests"-I'm sure Saddam views damaging the US as "for Iraq's best interests".

Just forget it. I'l be back in a week, I need to wrap a hot towel around my head and chill out.
Mr. Heat Miser
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 84/259
EXP: 284279
For next: 23834

Since: 27.1.02

Since last post: 2544 days
Last activity: 647 days
#17 Posted on 12.2.03 1652.40
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1656.34
Canada hasn't committed to anything yet.


The following is from today's Toronto Star.


Click Here

Where did your list come from?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 948/1759
EXP: 4929867
For next: 63003

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1315 days
Last activity: 81 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#18 Posted on 12.2.03 1809.34
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1811.06
I was under the impression that the evidence was presented time and time again of Iraq's association with Al Quaida, and Iraq's refusal to disarm. It is still being presented. For me to do so as well is redundant.

The reasons we have waited 12 years are many. We were GIVING time for diplomacy to work. For 8 of those 12 years, we had a "do nothing" President. We were allowing the United Nations to do it's job (bang up one at that). Shall I go on?

No, waiting a few more months in this instance is not an option. First off, when it comes to the UN, a few more months yields to a few more, and a few more... And then in 6 when we are hit by a dirty bomb people complain we did not do something sooner. We have been pressing Iraq to present us the proof thet they have indeed complied. They have completely disreguarded OUR demands,and those of the UN. And didn't this whole push to go into Iraq start months ago? Wasn't it then that the rest of the world was like "wait a couple of months for diplomacy to be attempted?" Hasn't a couple of months passed, with NO results?

As far as the arogance of the US... normally I can understand complaints of that nature. But in this case, it is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. The nations who oppose us are showing EXTREME arogance. They refuse to support the US, even in light of the facts, because they result that we are taking a leadership role in this matter. And why not? If the UN got off their asses and decided that military action was needed, who would be called upon to bear the bulk of that responsibility? The United States of America. Whose troops would lead the way into battle? Those of the United States of America. We deserve a loud voice in this matter because it is OUR men and resources which will be in the most harm. It is our nation that is called upon to lead and solve these problems around the world. I ask again, why SHOULDN'T this be, at least in part, on our terms? Especially when the problem at hand puts our own nation at risk.

It is extreme arogance on that part of the world that we are to be at their beck and call when hotspots appear, and we are just to silently and humbly submit to the so-called leadership of the UN...
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 91

Posts: 91/2266
EXP: 7348291
For next: 120650

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 7 days
Last activity: 6 days
#19 Posted on 12.2.03 1912.33
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1914.10

    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I was under the impression that the evidence was presented time and time again of Iraq's association with Al Quaida, and Iraq's refusal to disarm. It is still being presented. For me to do so as well is redundant.



Redundant? Bin Laden and Hussein HATE each other. And there's such a strong link between Iraq and Al-Quaida the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi and Eqyptian. The largest operation that terrorist group pulled off contained no Iraqi agents.



    The reasons we have waited 12 years are many. We were GIVING time for diplomacy to work. For 8 of those 12 years, we had a "do nothing" President. We were allowing the United Nations to do it's job (bang up one at that). Shall I go on?


That "do nothing" President was still bombing Iraq all during his term, and supported economic sanctions that directly caused the death of over 1.5 million Iraqi children. Which helped to strengthen Hussein's power, since most people were completely dependant on him for survival.

In fact, we bombed Iraq today (from Rueters/Yahoo.com):

Western Jets Again Attack Iraq Battlefield Missiles



    No, waiting a few more months in this instance is not an option. First off, when it comes to the UN, a few more months yields to a few more, and a few more... And then in 6 when we are hit by a dirty bomb people complain we did not do something sooner. We have been pressing Iraq to present us the proof thet they have indeed complied. They have completely disreguarded OUR demands,and those of the UN. And didn't this whole push to go into Iraq start months ago? Wasn't it then that the rest of the world was like "wait a couple of months for diplomacy to be attempted?" Hasn't a couple of months passed, with NO results?


Iraq - a third world country with a population of 25 million - poses such a threat to the US - the world's most dominate military and economic power - that we are not willing to simply tell the UN weapon's inspectors where the WMDs are? Sorry, but that makes little sense to me. And I hope our intellegence is better that what we had when we bombed the Chinese embassy in Bosnia, or the medicine factory in the Sudan.

Oh, and here's CNN's report on the "threat" of a dirty bomb...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/dirty.bomb/

So effective are dirty bombs, in fact, that Iraq stopped research in this area in 1987 because it was not deadly enough.



    As far as the arogance of the US... normally I can understand complaints of that nature. But in this case, it is a severe case of the pot calling the kettle black. The nations who oppose us are showing EXTREME arogance. They refuse to support the US, even in light of the facts, because they result that we are taking a leadership role in this matter. And why not? If the UN got off their asses and decided that military action was needed, who would be called upon to bear the bulk of that responsibility? The United States of America. Whose troops would lead the way into battle? Those of the United States of America.


First off, the "facts" are VERY debatable at this point. Secondly, why is it arrogant to say, "We don't think war is acceptable at this point - we want to continue to work for solution is which no innocent women and children are killed." War is bloody, mean, and causes and immense amount of pain and suffering. It should be an absolute last resort.



    We deserve a loud voice in this matter because it is OUR men and resources which will be in the most harm. It is our nation that is called upon to lead and solve these problems around the world. I ask again, why SHOULDN'T this be, at least in part, on our terms? Especially when the problem at hand puts our own nation at risk.

    It is extreme arogance on that part of the world that we are to be at their beck and call when hotspots appear, and we are just to silently and humbly submit to the so-called leadership of the UN...



When has Hussein ever initiated any attack against the US? We supported him all through the 70's and through the Iraq-Iran conflict (when we were arming both sides).


From the Guardian: Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'

We knew he was developing chemical weapons and using them against his own people. It's the same cast of characters in the US during the Reagan administration, and yet, suddenly, he has become the biggest threat since Hitler. And US coporations were helping supply him with materials 2-3 years prior to the initial Gulf war.

I am tired of our government being a party to these individuals in the first place. I am tired of the same old rhetoric being brought forth, without my government taking any responsibility in creating these madmen. And I am sick and tired of war and bombing being the first course of action, when strong diplomacy could have prevented all of it from happening in the first place.

PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 479/1528
EXP: 4084574
For next: 106574

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2830 days
Last activity: 2672 days
AIM:  
#20 Posted on 12.2.03 1926.47
Reposted on: 12.2.10 1929.10
    Originally Posted by Leroy
    That "do nothing" President was still bombing Iraq all during his term, and supported economic sanctions that directly caused the death of over 1.5 million Iraqi children. Which helped to strengthen Hussein's power, since most people were completely dependant on him for survival.


Sanctions directly caused the deaths of 1.5 million children? What, then, is the Food for Oil program? And, if we lifted those sanctions, do you think Saddam would spend the money on weapons or food? Look at Jong Il, that other lunatic. If he cut his army in half, he could feed his people. He doesn't want to, and neither does Hussein.


    Originally Posted by Leroy
    Redundant? Bin Laden and Hussein HATE each other.


That's not what bin Laden says.



    Originally Posted by Leroy
    Iraq - a third world country with a population of 25 million - poses such a threat to the US - the world's most dominate military and economic power - that we are not willing to simply tell the UN weapon's inspectors where the WMDs are?


Forget a third world country being a threat. In this climate, a loosely organized bunch of extremists is a threat. If Al-Qaeda can do what it does without the explicit backing of a nation, then just what is within the realm of possibility for a nation, even a third world nation?


    Originally Posted by oldschoolhero
    I'm talking about common sense, I'm talking about not acting like short-sighted jackasses that believe their coountry is the only thing that matters in the world and must be protected from ANY damage, even at massive cost to others. I'm talking about the arrogance of holding your country above the assembled remainder of the world and saying "We're better than all of you, so WE decide what happens in this world".


Well, when your country wants to pay to maintain the world's strongest military, feel free to to decide what happens in the world. Vietnam began as a French problem, remember. The US has bailed the rest of the world out time and time again. If North Korea tried to invade another nation tomorrow, only the US could stop them. It is a simple historical fact that the United States, above all other nations, has been, for better or worse, Big Brother. We rebuilt Europe. We allowed nations that we conquered, or helped conquer, to maintain their freedom. And maybe you think Americans should die before we kill innocent Iraqis, but I don't. It's tragic, but we're under no obligation to simply let ourselves be killed. If that's your attitude, then we'll forever be under the thumb of murderers and dictators.


(edited by PalpatineW on 12.2.03 2029)
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: This Might Top Headless Body Found in Topless Bar
Next thread: Ah, the Press
Previous thread: pheww!
(1865 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Some Nobel Laureates Oppose War with IraqRegister 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 0.457 seconds.