The Iraq War
  • scrubblescrubble October 2007
    it was bound to come up so why not try to keep all the discussion to at least this thread. also just remember, no flaming or anything of the type, let's keep the discussion civil and post worthy.

    now with that out of the way, there are a number of topics to tackle when talking about the war. there is the aspect of it draining resources for domestic issues, i.e. health care, and there is the aspect of troop withdrawal.





    QUOTE
    Bush’s Request for Wars Increases to $196 Billion
    By STEVEN LEE MYERS

    WASHINGTON, Oct. 22 — President Bush asked Congress on Monday to approve $196 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other national security programs, setting the stage for a new confrontation with Democrats over the administration’s handling of Iraq.

    Mr. Bush’s request increased the amount of the proposed spending by $46 billion over the $150 billion already requested this year. Much of the added spending would pay for new armored vehicles designed to withstand attacks by mines and roadside bombs, and a rise in operational costs because of the increase in the force in Iraq, now at more than 160,000 troops.

    The spending request — declared an emergency under spending rules, even though the need for the money was never in question — comes in the middle of the White House’s fight with Congress over a series of spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. None of those bills has been completed so far.

    Democrats on Capitol Hill, having failed last week to override Mr. Bush’s veto of an expansion of a children’s health insurance program costing $35 billion, reacted with dismay and anger that reflected a broader frustration over the war in Iraq. They also said they believed that Mr. Bush delayed his formal request to avoid unfavorable comparisons between his veto and the spending on the war.

    House and Senate leaders have warned they would not take up the president’s request until they resolve differences in the spending bills that Mr. Bush has vowed to veto. Those differences amount to $22 billion, a fraction of the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Representative David R. Obey, Democratic of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, criticized Mr. Bush for pushing the extra financing even as the president attacked Democrats as spendthrifts.

    “It’s amazing to me that the president expects to be taken seriously when he says we cannot afford $20 billion in investments in education, health, law enforcement and science, which will make this country stronger over the long term,” Mr. Obey said in a statement.

    “But he doesn’t blink an eye at asking to borrow $200 billion for a policy in Iraq that leaves us six months from now exactly where we were six months ago.”

    Mr. Bush, appearing at the White House with veterans and relatives of soldiers, warned Congress to move quickly to approve the added spending, though he did not make his final supplemental proposal until three weeks into the fiscal year.

    “Congress should not go home for the holidays while our troops are still waiting for the funds they need,” he said.

    The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, criticized the tactic that allowed the White House to pay for the war with emergency spending, keeping the costs off the budget. “The entire war has been paid with borrowed money,” he said in the Senate.

    The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said that the cost of less than 40 days in Iraq would pay for health-care coverage for 10 million children for a year.

    The Democrats, however, lack enough votes to force any meaningful change in the administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq or the way it is paid for.

    While the bulk of the money requested would go to the Defense Department, the proposal also includes nearly $800 million to support a United Nations peacekeeping mission and elections in Sudan; $106 million for fuel oil under a deal with North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program; and more than $400 million in assistance to the Palestinians as part of the administration’s efforts to nurture a peace treaty with Israel.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/washingt...amp;oref=slogin
  • EvestayEvestay October 2007
    i recommend reading patdollard.com and michaelyon-online.com every day =) -yes both are prowar
  • scrubblescrubble October 2007
    i'll check them out.

    how are we to come up with this money? do people understand that basically it is Japan and China that is keeping the US goverment from sinking in debt? can we really continue a war where it's costing us $2 billion a week. i understand that we need to protect American interests, but when do we say enough is enough.
  • The Iraq war represents the most needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars at the moment. This war is unjust, but the military has already accomplished the objectives it was given in 2003- ensuring there were no WMD's and capturing Saddam Hussein. Now that the job is done we should simply leave.
  • xemplarxemplar October 2007
    QUOTE (Working Class Hero @ Oct 23 2007, 07:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    The Iraq war represents the most needless expenditure of taxpayer dollars at the moment. This war is unjust, but the military has already accomplished the objectives it was given in 2003- ensuring there were no WMD's and capturing Saddam Hussein. Now that the job is done we should simply leave.

    And allow the surrounding countries influence it? That would be a bad idea.
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    QUOTE (xemplar @ Oct 23 2007, 07:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    And allow the surrounding countries influence it? That would be a bad idea.


    Why's that?

    I am 100% pro-pull out. Condoms are for suckers.
  • xemplarxemplar October 2007
    If we allow ourselves to pull out "early"(I don't have a clear definition) then, Iran and Syria will immerse themselves into their resources by aiding them. Thus creating an allusion that they are helping them..In reality though, they aren't. Again, creating a bigger problem. Iran just wants to create bigger problems for the American Government. And by poking their fingers into an already difficult situation, will make it worse. It will be a battle for land. As in the Iraq-Iran War.
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    Iran's influence throughout the world is not measured by the amount of land they own. Britain is one of the most influential countries in the world, and the amount of land they actually control is marginal. We did the favor of a lifetime for Iran when we toppled Saddam, and we're doing them a monumental favor by staying in the middle east. Iran is being empowered by our presence there, not vice versa. By leaving, the reason so many of the people in the middle east hate us can begin to fade. By staying, the support for the anti-US movement in the middle east and even world wide will continue to grow. We could throw an extra 200,000 troops into the fray, and all that will happen is that people will hate us even more. When people hate us; they blow up bombs on their chests and fly planes into our buildings. They might be crazy as hell, but we're doing a magnificent job egging them on.
  • redboneredbone October 2007
    What do we gain by being in Iraq?
  • carto0ncarto0n October 2007
    AMERICA, FUCK YEA!
  • JAmmYJAmmY October 2007
    I have never agreed with going into Iraq, for any reason. Afghanistan was just.

    I however do not agree with a complete pull-out in Iraq, although it honestly makes me mad to believe it because I do not like the idea of our soldiers over there risking thier lives at all.

    Although I cannot back any of these facts up, or go into too much detail, and possibly someone here knows more than me. My reason being is, we would have another Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, when Russia invaded, we threw weapons and money at Afghanistan to repel Russia. I am unsure of whether we sent military personnel, and if we did it was "advisors." After Russia was kicked out of Afghanistan, it became a power vaccum, and that is when the Taliban moved in and took control of Afghanistan. Now, here we are kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We could, and in my opinion, most likely, would be kicking out some terriost backed goverment in Iraq, similar to Afghanistan. We could also see Iran, Syria, and other countries gaining influence and control over Iraq, and its resources. That itself does not concern me. This, however, would concern Isreal. We are creating some stability in the Middle East in a way. If those countries were to gain more power, and resources by using Iraq, you could see these countries attacking Isreal, either by way of terrorism, or full-scale war. This would only create more turmoil in the Middle East.

    So basically put, these are my opinions on how things could turn out. Mostly based off the knowledge of history of these regions.

    Like said before I have never agreed with going into Iraq, but I do feel we need to correct our mistake to the best of our ability. Also I should state, I don't know if military might, and money could solve the issues that I have, and there could possibly be other ways to achiever stability in Iraq.
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    QUOTE (JAmmY @ Oct 24 2007, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I have never agreed with going into Iraq, for any reason. Afghanistan was just.

    I however do not agree with a complete pull-out in Iraq, although it honestly makes me mad to believe it because I do not like the idea of our soldiers over there risking thier lives at all.

    Although I cannot back any of these facts up, or go into too much detail, and possibly someone here knows more than me. My reason being is, we would have another Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, when Russia invaded, we threw weapons and money at Afghanistan to repel Russia. I am unsure of whether we sent military personnel, and if we did it was "advisors." After Russia was kicked out of Afghanistan, it became a power vaccum, and that is when the Taliban moved in and took control of Afghanistan. Now, here we are kicking the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We could, and in my opinion, most likely, would be kicking out some terriost backed goverment in Iraq, similar to Afghanistan. We could also see Iran, Syria, and other countries gaining influence and control over Iraq, and its resources. That itself does not concern me. This, however, would concern Isreal. We are creating some stability in the Middle East in a way. If those countries were to gain more power, and resources by using Iraq, you could see these countries attacking Isreal, either by way of terrorism, or full-scale war. This would only create more turmoil in the Middle East.

    So basically put, these are my opinions on how things could turn out. Mostly based off the knowledge of history of these regions.

    Like said before I have never agreed with going into Iraq, but I do feel we need to correct our mistake to the best of our ability. Also I should state, I don't know if military might, and money could solve the issues that I have, and there could possibly be other ways to achiever stability in Iraq.


    I have to disagree. Saddam provided stability in the middle east; all we've done is remove the balance and feed the fire.
  • JAmmYJAmmY October 2007
    QUOTE (Governor @ Oct 24 2007, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I have to disagree. Saddam provided stability in the middle east; all we've done is remove the balance and feed the fire.



    I agree, but now we have removed that stability, so we must return it. There was always one good thing about Saddam, and that is he kept stability in Iraq.
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    Well, he kept Iran in check at least.

    I don't think we bring stability to Iraq, and I don't think we have the potential to do so in the future. It is impossible to stabilize a country where more and more of its citizens hate you every day.
  • QUOTE (Governor @ Oct 24 2007, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Well, he kept Iran in check at least.

    I don't think we bring stability to Iraq, and I don't think we have the potential to do so in the future. It is impossible to stabilize a country where more and more of its citizens hate you every day.


    I support this message.

    By the way, if things are going so well in Iraq, why is dubya calling for more emergency funding?
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    It's not even a matter of 'well.' What is our goal? We have none. We talk about 'winning' and such, but we have no point outlined where the war is actually won. Our goals are arbitrary, so our ability to achieve them is non-existent.
  • xemplarxemplar October 2007
    I wish our government would just stop throwing ourselves into every little problem/war that goes on in the world. Though, if we didn't I guess people would hate us for not "helping" in some cases.
  • ScabdatesScabdates October 2007
    Can someone tell me what's wrong with Iran? Other than poor women's rights (making massive leaps in that arena actually) I can't seem to see why a lot of people hate them. I don't believe they harbor(ed) terrorists, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems like an intelligent guy, with plenty of reason.
  • xemplarxemplar October 2007
    QUOTE (Scabdates @ Oct 24 2007, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Can someone tell me what's wrong with Iran? Other than poor women's rights (making massive leaps in that arena actually) I can't seem to see why a lot of people hate them. I don't believe they harbor(ed) terrorists, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems like an intelligent guy, with plenty of reason.

    yeah..who wants to quote "wipe Israel off the map"...yeah...theres nothing wrong with that....
  • JAmmYJAmmY October 2007
    QUOTE (Scabdates @ Oct 24 2007, 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Can someone tell me what's wrong with Iran? Other than poor women's rights (making massive leaps in that arena actually) I can't seem to see why a lot of people hate them. I don't believe they harbor(ed) terrorists, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems like an intelligent guy, with plenty of reason.


    I hope you are kidding around...
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is definitely an intelligent, well-educated person. He is, perhaps, a bit delusional, but I don't see him as some psychopath. With that said, I think there is plenty wrong with Iran, but I also think there is plenty wrong with the United States and pretty much every other country I've read anything about.

    I don't want to stray too far from the Iraq discussion, though. This whole topic seems a bit heavy on the pro-withdraw crowd, are there any others that believe in a stay-the-course approach?
  • Black+BalloonBlack Balloon October 2007
    The only visible reason to stay in Iraq would be to gain a foothold in the middle east (obviously by having an allied and dependent democratic country) and extend a sphere of influence there, but even that could be seen as a negative. The largest stigma against Americans is the fact that we have to step in and fuck with [i]everything[i/] (whether or not we really do is beside the point). We need to pull out, cut our losses and start paying more attention to domestic issues. Our economy is in shambles due to the national debt and we need to set a budget towards paying that off; an impossible act with our continued presence.

    And while we probably should pull out as soon as possible (from a socio-economical standpoint), it would be foolish to expect immediate change. Even getting all of our troops out would take a number of years; from proof, look at the Vietnamization effort where it took some three or four years to replace our military with SVN soldiers (who promptly fucked up and lost the war). I would summarize that it's pretty clear what we have to do, but things are going to get worse before they get better.

    As for staying-the-course, the primary duty of the government is (or should be) to protect and serve the people. Our people; US people. Not everyone else. We don't have a whole lot to be prideful of lately, but staying in hope of a victory that is presently unforeseeable and, if it ever comes, unintentional, would be ostensibly ignorant.

    What would a victory be, anyway? How would we know when we've "won"?
  • EvestayEvestay October 2007
    maaaaan I had a really good post about withdrawing from iraq on the old forums that nobody responded to =\
    I will try to sum it up. If we leave Iraq the following things will probably occur:
    -Turkey will move into Northern Iraq to make sure the Kurds do not form an independent Kurdistan. Turkey has been repressing its Kurdish population for decades and do not want them to get any ideas. The Turkish government has already stated that it will move in to prevent an independent Kurdistan (also a reason for why the 3 way division of Iraq wont work).
    -Iran is a Shi'ite Islamic nation that has said that it wants to create a Shi'ite crescent in the region (a zone of power against the overwhelming majority of Sunnis) which includes Iraq as it has a majority of Shi'ites. The government in Iran has already engaged in a proxy war with the US in Iraq (funding and arming of Shi'ite militias, the al quds force which is an arm of the iran revolutionary guards, IED factories, harboring Al Sadr and other terrorists -including the man who mixed the chemicals for the 1st attack on the World Trade Center in the 90s- etc etc) so Iran is looking forward to the US leaving and exerting power.
    -Saudi Arabia is terrified of Iran. They appreciated Saddam in the past as he provided a counter balance to Iran and so they supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. I know they let the US troops come into their country to defend it from Saddam during the 1st Gulf War but that made sense in the context. Anyway, I believe Saudi Arabia will prop up a state made up of Iraqi Sunnis in order to provide a buffer between their country and Iran.
    -Thus, the nations with the top 3 oil reserves in the world will be embroiled in a regional war. 1st- Saudi Arabia; 2nd- Iran; 3rd-Iraq. All of that oil passes through 1 port in between Iraq and Iran and it will surely be bottlenecked. It is easy to imagine oil going to $200-400 / barrel -it is currently ~90/barrel. This would shut down our economy completely and in order to have enough oil for our massive military to have the ability to defend us, we would need to secure that oil. The entire world economy would be hampered as well and only the US would have the capability of handling the situation in Iraq. Estimates are that we would need a million man invasion force to calm down the region and we would enter a highly hostile territory = high casualties.
    -Leaving Iraq and having to reinvade would be seen as an even bigger blunder than going in in the first place. If HClinton becomes President, there is no way she will withdraw from Iraq as she cares about her legacy and she does not want to ruin the world economy, ours included.

    This is not necessarily my reasoning for wanting to stay in Iraq, but it provides the best example of a disaster if we pull out. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

    ooooooooooh sorry to make this longer but i found my old post:
    QUOTE
    I'm not saying I know, but I think it is pretty easy to guess why the administration choose to invade Iraq. 9/11 demonstrated the fact that radical Islam must be dealt with, and more specifically, the countries in the Middle East that fund such extremism (Saudia Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq (before)).

    There is a theory that says that democracies never go to war with each other. Because all of those countries are/were theocracies/dictatorships, we can only be at peace with them if they a) become democracies or b.) pick moderate Islam (will definitely take an Islamic sort of Reformation). So that means we sit around and police terrorism within our borders until the Middle East/Islam goes through its own reformation at its own pace, OR we proactively change the region into a democratic zone of peace.

    Of those 4 nations, Iraq was the easiest to invade. Iraq's different groups of people (Shiite, Sunnis, Kurds) have the possibility to provide a shining example of democracy that every other country in the region can relate to. Imagine the world with a democratic Middle East and you can see why a victory in Iraq is so enticing. Personally, I'm willing to support the US staying in Iraq for as long as it takes to help them form a model democracy.

    Side note: If you had absolute control of the government, do you think you could institute a plan that would lead to a democracy in Iraq? If you could correct every single wrong and prosecute the war perfectly, do you think victory would be possible? As long as you think victory is possible, please support YOUR idea for success and not just ASK for the US to leave Iraq because of the administration's deficiencies.
  • neocronneocron October 2007
    Meh the stuff that has come out in the British press recently and I believe it to a point is that America had pretty much no post war plan. They ignored advice from their "allies" like the British and abolished things like the police force. I'm not saying Iraq today would be one rosey picture but if Bush and his muppets wern't so arrogant and accepted the UK as allies instead of guns for hire the situation in Iraq today might be little better.
  • I'd consider a war between Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia a good thing for the US and her allies. It'd let the extremists blow off some steam killing each other for once, and it might just help the price of oil, once one nation or other gets strapped for cash.

    No more American blood should be spilled on anyone else's behalf, and we should not expect them to give their lives for American interests.
  • EvestayEvestay October 2007
    QUOTE (Working Class Hero @ Oct 25 2007, 08:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I'd consider a war between Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia a good thing for the US and her allies. It'd let the extremists blow off some steam killing each other for once, and it might just help the price of oil, once one nation or other gets strapped for cash.

    No more American blood should be spilled on anyone else's behalf, and we should not expect them to give their lives for American interests.

    No, this would not be a good thing..for anyone. Gas prices that high would mean a world wide recession and I'm sure our quality of life will suffer. Imagine not being able to import cheap Chinese goods anymore because they cant get here = the price of clothing, electronics, raw materials, knick knacks, and the price whatever the hell else they make will skyrocket. Imagine us losing the necessary resources that go into maintaining our technology for such things as computers and farming. We won't be able to do anything as efficiently as we do now and everybody would suffer.

    If the US would be unwilling to go back in to secure the oil, then China would certainly step in to maintain the global economy that is propping them out of poverty. Think of their past human rights violations..think of their less advanced weapons that will kill more civilians than we would..think of the measures they would be willing to employ to restrain the region.. would these things be acceptable to you? We'd probably be happy that they would deal with the problem for us, but we would forever be in the passenger seat and at the whims of their communist government = end of democratic era

    Maybe you should advocate for a Manhattan Project for alternative energy so that we can leave more easily, but the rest of the world would still be using oil and would still suffer, dragging us down with them.
  • GovernorGovernor October 2007
    I'll do some research and add a rebuttal of some kind; however, your economic doomsday scenario seems both outrageous and presumptuous.
  • um, I'm fairly sure that if the Saudis got strapped for cash in the middle of a war, they'd sell oil for less, especially if they actually want to stay in power.

    That'd open up a nice opportunity to begin trading with Iran again, and we could basically buy our oil from the lowest bidder.

    when the US keeps its nose out of other peoples' business, everybody wins. especially our soldiers.
  • EvestayEvestay October 2007
    They will be hitting each others pipelines/refineries/factories which will mean they cant sell oil that they cant produce cheaper. And why would selling for less make sense when they could still charge market value for their oil and make even more money while strapped for cash? I guess they could abandon opec quotas and sell as much oil as possible which would lower prices, but that would mean they need to maintain their ability to produce which is hard during a war.
  • JeddHamptonJeddHampton October 2007
    They'd sell it for less, so that we won't buy it from the other guys. That's the idea. If they are selling it for the same amount as their enemies, there is no specific reason to buy from them. If they sell the oil cheaper, now everyone would want to buy from them first and then they'd make more money.
  • redboneredbone October 2007
    I would like to think a combination of attacking each others pipelines and oil sources while at the same time being forced to drop prices to compete with the same enemy for money would basically turn the middle east into a complete cesspool.
  • carto0ncarto0n October 2007
    QUOTE (redbone @ Oct 26 2007, 10:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I would like to think a combination of attacking each others pipelines and oil sources while at the same time being forced to drop prices to compete with the same enemy for money would basically turn the middle east into a complete cesspool.


    <3
  • cutchinscutchins October 2007
    QUOTE (Jedd @ Oct 26 2007, 07:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    They'd sell it for less, so that we won't buy it from the other guys. That's the idea. If they are selling it for the same amount as their enemies, there is no specific reason to buy from them. If they sell the oil cheaper, now everyone would want to buy from them first and then they'd make more money.


    because the region is currently such a shining example of a great place.
  • BillBill October 2007
    I think the general idea behind the oil would get cheaper argument is it would be considerably more difficult for organizations such as opec to standardize prices and keep them high if three of the largest oil producing nations were fucking each other up. For anyone to assume that prices would go up or down is presumptuous at best.

    That being said, I think imagining the worst doomsday scenario you can and trying to make that the obvious outcome if we pull out is foolish. That being said, Turkey is already threatening to start invading northern Iraq, so we'll see what happens there.

    Also, as far as the British having given such wonderful advise, if memory serves Tony Blair was altogether assenting in every way to Bush's every whim as far as actual decision making goes. It's good for you guys he's out of office, etc, but that being said I don't think anyone involved from that early a stage in the poor decision making can really pretend to be a victim of simply not being listened to. There's more to it than that.
  • carto0ncarto0n October 2007
    QUOTE (Bill @ Oct 27 2007, 04:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I think the general idea behind the oil would get cheaper argument is it would be considerably more difficult for organizations such as opec to standardize prices and keep them high if three of the largest oil producing nations were fucking each other up. For anyone to assume that prices would go up or down is presumptuous at best.

    That being said, I think imagining the worst doomsday scenario you can and trying to make that the obvious outcome if we pull out is foolish. That being said, Turkey is already threatening to start invading northern Iraq, so we'll see what happens there.

    Also, as far as the British having given such wonderful advise, if memory serves Tony Blair was altogether assenting in every way to Bush's every whim as far as actual decision making goes. It's good for you guys he's out of office, etc, but that being said I don't think anyone involved from that early a stage in the poor decision making can really pretend to be a victim of simply not being listened to. There's more to it than that.



    hey! enough from the peanut gallery
  • redboneredbone November 2007
    I heard something today from someone and I wanted to know if you guys think it has any type of logical backing or not. They said that our economy is actually not as bad off as everyone is saying and that the war is actually supporting the economy because of all the money the companies that are making weapons etc to fuel the war are making. Complete bs?
  • I'd have to call BS on that one. Even though the companies are making money, the government is LITERALLY making money, contributing to inflation. Add that to Bernanke's interest rate cuts, and Gold will soon pass $1000.
  • JeddHamptonJeddHampton November 2007
    QUOTE (redbone @ Nov 1 2007, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I heard something today from someone and I wanted to know if you guys think it has any type of logical backing or not. They said that our economy is actually not as bad off as everyone is saying and that the war is actually supporting the economy because of all the money the companies that are making weapons etc to fuel the war are making. Complete bs?


    Initially, wars boost the economy, but when they go on for a longer period of time, they drain the economy.

    It's not as bad as some people will make it out to be, but it isn't too good.
  • waterxm04waterxm04 November 2007
    QUOTE (scrubble @ Oct 23 2007, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    how are we to come up with this money? do people understand that basically it is Japan and China that is keeping the US goverment from sinking in debt? can we really continue a war where it's costing us $2 billion a week. i understand that we need to protect American interests, but when do we say enough is enough.


    QFT

    I wonder if people know that it works for both parties, we may be in devistating debt, but china needs our economy to survive just as much as we need to use their credit.

    However, there is no excuse to be throwing away money at a war that, if ever solved (= Stability in iraq?) will be decades from now. It in my opinion it is a lost cause, we should have pulled out long before, someone early made a great point that by staying we only increase the hate toward ourselves. Which is very very true.

    I however cannot defend the topic of wether the "invasion" into iraq was a good idea so I will not be involved with that discussion.
  • BillBill November 2007
    QUOTE (cartoon. @ Oct 27 2007, 09:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    hey! enough from the peanut gallery


    Sorry, I was obviously making too much sense for this discussion, I'll bring my reason somewhere where it's more appreciated.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership