US MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ Y or N?
- Anton
by Anton » Sat Mar 08, 2003 3:15 pm
Ralph....
You said it yourself.....Your reading of the (Outer Space) treaty is entirely 'legalistic'..
And I would argue that *of course* there is a 'spirit' to any treaty....No human document can lay down, once and for all, every future contingency that might arise to challenge it. ..And the idea that the weapons being 'researched or tested on Earth' somehow exempts them from the treaty is 'legalistic' in the extreme.
You reveal yourself at the end of you piece when you say that in terms of the US being "Masters of Space', "you wouldn't have it any other way" (also implying that you implicity accept the fact that THAT is precisely their intention)......
Well that's exactly the point under contention here, isn't it?
For a nation which now occupies an historically unparalled position of global hegemony - and is patently using that power to enrich itself at the expense of the rest of the planet (all under the guise of saving the world from itself) - the notion that it intends to extend that power (enormously, for that's what the 'ultimate highground' would give it) into the very heavens themselves.....is disturbing in the extreme. It's not something to rejoice in...
...unless you, as I say, actually 'buy' into the Empire's own transparent propaganda....i.e. that its not an empire...
...an empire presently on a major expansionary push to exploit the vacuum of power left by the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union...and to shore up its declining economic forturnes in inter-capitalist competition with both the European Union and a surging Chinese economy.
* * * *
As for those who criticize Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors' reports....
Again, clinically fascinating....
Let me see if I can get the argument right:
If we find 'Weapons of mass destruction'...
(totally ignoring that fact that the US produces and has more than virtually the entire world combined - funny, how not one of you found it worthwhile to respond to this obvious, irritating little fact)
...then Iraq is 'guilty'. If, on the other hand, we CAN'T find them....well, then they're clearly guilty too...since they must be 'hiding' them.
The perfect Catch 22.....Rather like the argument that was used in the late medieval witch trials.
The fact that Hans and the boys are more or less heavily biased already (i.e. picked for the job by the very powers intent on grabbing Iraq's oil)...and heavily coerced to come up with the 'right' findings....
...they're STILL unable to provide any 'smoking gun'..Indeed, the head man on the NUCLEAR weapons team as much as openly accused the US of *fabricating* evidence against the Iraqis...and who then went on to say there was simply NO evidence indicating Iraq had ANY SEMBLANCE of either nuclear capability or capacity to construct such weapons.
But who cares, eh?.....Instead, Powell and the gang (and I really do mean 'gang') simply keep upping the bar with ever more absurd demands....Pretty soon they'll be asking the Iraqi military to hand in all side arms.....claiming that's an exclusive privelege for the average American citizen alone.
* * * *
Next, a little quibble here.
Some of you have taken to listing websites and articles on this forum.....Well that's fine as far as it goes, IF you're intent is simply to point you're fellow sympathizers to new info...
..However, if these listings are by way of *responding* to arguments posted here....in other words if they are posted *in lieu of*actually summarizing the arguments and/or facts so the rest of us can see them upfront.....then give it a rest.
'Cause if we're gonna get into that game (i.e. "Oh yeh! Yeh!Well, well....just read THIS one!')...then it trivalizes the whole purpose of this forum...In any case, I could come up with 30 articles from 2 dozen websites a day to butttress my position...So what).
* * * *
Finally..
...though Ralph made a (legitimate) request for references regarding the Space Treaty....I can't help but noticing that no one bothered to question all the other treaty violations..except perhaps to say that, 'times change, and well, you know, we have to sort of 'adapt' to the changing demands....blah, blah'.....An argument of a kind, I suppose, ...though I would call it a blatant, self-serving rationalization.
The reason, no one asked for references to these is, I suspect, that, of course, much of it is part of the public domain...i.e. Has been and can be found in the mainstream corporate press.
Which brings up my final point...
Though much of the info., stats, facts etc. that I post here are a result of a quarter century of research....(much of which is simply NOT to be found in the pages of those stately vehicles of state propaganda)....there is, nonetheless, quite a surprising amount of 'truth' of a sorts which DOES filter through to the 'free press'...
(Indeed, even a few of *my* articles occassionaly slip - like the Scarlet Pimpernel - through enemy lines to infect the masses)
...Let me give you a few examples:
Some one of you questioned the figures surrounding the victims of the Gulf War..including the sanctions...
...But, of course, the then US Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, in an interview a few years ago with US journalist Lesley Stahl (I believe it was on '60 Minutes') responded to the, at the time, figure of 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of those sanctions (and the total destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure in the 'War') and whether the "price was worth it", with this stunning statement:
"I think that this is a very hard choice, but the price -
we think the price is worth it."
In other words, the US administration is on record of admitting to the fact that the figures (quoted by the UN and Red Cross...and thousands of 'conspiracy/pinko/leftist' activists....are true.
The slant she gives on it, naturally (insanely), is that it's okay.....(But then, Madeleine, they're not *our* children, are they?)
This admission of the facts, but the placement of those facts within either a dissociated, partialized reality (i.e. without historical context or links to 'our' own policys and intentions) or a childishly rationalized explanatory schema, is entirely commonplace in the mainstream media.
Another example (from, I assure you, literally dozens I can draw from off the top of my head)....
Prior to the Gulf War (1991) the famous 'incubator scandal' (inwhich Iraqi troops were to have reputedly dumped Kuwaiti babies on the floor so as to ship the incubators back to Iraq)was *instrumental* in providing the necessary support for a vote by the US Congress authorizing war on Iraq.
The small catch, however, (as later revealed, *while at the same time BURIED, in the back pages* of many mainstream print media)...was that it was entirely fabricated by the public relations firm of Hill and Knowleton and that the lone, 'anonymous' informant just happened to be the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US's daughter.....US medical personnel, post-conflict, found the incubators entirely intact where they should be, with their little Kuwaiti bundles of joy, similarly intact.
Or take Central America during the 1980's during the Reagan regime...
It was commonly reported in Canadian papers that the El Salvadorian military (and its roaming death squads) had killed over 80,000 (!) and displaced a million people in the so-called 'civil war'....
..And here's where the 'facts' get their special twist which render the 'truth' anything BUT the truth, if it's not the *whole truth*....
In this so-called 'civil war', the guerillas rarely numbered more than 5000 (and never more than 10,000) at any given time...Again, this could be found in routine press dispatches..
Moreover, of those killed (between 1979 and 1989 i.e.during Ronnie's massive surge in support for Central American regimes)....the vast majority of the 80,000 were...a) unarmed...b) a majority were women and children...and c) the guerrillas never suffered a massive defeat or any really significant casualties...
Indeed, given these often stated facts (all disbursed, and never connected) any Sherlock Holmes worth his or her salt led to the inescapable conclusion that the 'civil war' ....was, in fact, a *state pogrem* prosecuted against its civilian population with the (usual) aim of undercutting the material base of support (both human and logistical) of the guerrillas.
...All in aid of propping up a totally corrupt, police state 'business friendly' regime against the heartbreakingly moderate demands of the indigenous population for some sort of mild agrarian reform, or the right to form unions or self-help commnity organizations etc.
(Cenral and Latin America afford literally dozens of these examples.....i.e. over the last 30 years, under similar circumstances, US backed regimes (and outright proxy, terrorist forces - the Contras) have murdered 140,000 in Nicaragua, 200,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 in Argentina etc.)
And one last (brief) example: Prior to the NATO assault on Yugoslavia, the papers (here in Canada) consistently quoted figures running as high as 100,000 *civilian* deaths as a result of the (demonized) Serbian mililtary against its ethnic Albanian pop'n in Kosovo.
Trouble was, when seveal internatinal forensic teams investigated post-conflict ...they found only 2,000 bodies, almost entirely in military garb....for both sides! (i.e. the Serbian and KLA forces combined).
Now, I'm not going to get into the whole Yugsolavian conflict at this point - that deserves the full 'treatment' at a later date - but the foregoing blatant propaganda...
(again, the forensic team info. *was* published....in the back pages...with no commentary....with no linkage as to how large a part the original mis-info had played into the hands of pro-'war' forces, ...with no soul-searching about what this meant ..or means... to the notion of the so-called 'free press' etc.)
...as I say, the foregoing blatant propaganda is simply part of the common fare dished out to the 'public domain' on a daily basis.
Therefore, you don't *have* to be a scholar or some sort of pathological book-worm to come to an appreciation of the propaganda raining down about your heads 24/7.....
All you have to do is *listen* to the contradictions as they pour forth.....and then ask fundamental questions over a long enough period...whence come fundamental answers.
Answers that don't jive with the Alice-in-Wonderland fairytale (about 'our' own lily-white goodness...and 'their' diabolical evilness) that we've been plied with since day dot.
Anton
You said it yourself.....Your reading of the (Outer Space) treaty is entirely 'legalistic'..
And I would argue that *of course* there is a 'spirit' to any treaty....No human document can lay down, once and for all, every future contingency that might arise to challenge it. ..And the idea that the weapons being 'researched or tested on Earth' somehow exempts them from the treaty is 'legalistic' in the extreme.
You reveal yourself at the end of you piece when you say that in terms of the US being "Masters of Space', "you wouldn't have it any other way" (also implying that you implicity accept the fact that THAT is precisely their intention)......
Well that's exactly the point under contention here, isn't it?
For a nation which now occupies an historically unparalled position of global hegemony - and is patently using that power to enrich itself at the expense of the rest of the planet (all under the guise of saving the world from itself) - the notion that it intends to extend that power (enormously, for that's what the 'ultimate highground' would give it) into the very heavens themselves.....is disturbing in the extreme. It's not something to rejoice in...
...unless you, as I say, actually 'buy' into the Empire's own transparent propaganda....i.e. that its not an empire...
...an empire presently on a major expansionary push to exploit the vacuum of power left by the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union...and to shore up its declining economic forturnes in inter-capitalist competition with both the European Union and a surging Chinese economy.
* * * *
As for those who criticize Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors' reports....
Again, clinically fascinating....
Let me see if I can get the argument right:
If we find 'Weapons of mass destruction'...
(totally ignoring that fact that the US produces and has more than virtually the entire world combined - funny, how not one of you found it worthwhile to respond to this obvious, irritating little fact)
...then Iraq is 'guilty'. If, on the other hand, we CAN'T find them....well, then they're clearly guilty too...since they must be 'hiding' them.
The perfect Catch 22.....Rather like the argument that was used in the late medieval witch trials.
The fact that Hans and the boys are more or less heavily biased already (i.e. picked for the job by the very powers intent on grabbing Iraq's oil)...and heavily coerced to come up with the 'right' findings....
...they're STILL unable to provide any 'smoking gun'..Indeed, the head man on the NUCLEAR weapons team as much as openly accused the US of *fabricating* evidence against the Iraqis...and who then went on to say there was simply NO evidence indicating Iraq had ANY SEMBLANCE of either nuclear capability or capacity to construct such weapons.
But who cares, eh?.....Instead, Powell and the gang (and I really do mean 'gang') simply keep upping the bar with ever more absurd demands....Pretty soon they'll be asking the Iraqi military to hand in all side arms.....claiming that's an exclusive privelege for the average American citizen alone.
* * * *
Next, a little quibble here.
Some of you have taken to listing websites and articles on this forum.....Well that's fine as far as it goes, IF you're intent is simply to point you're fellow sympathizers to new info...
..However, if these listings are by way of *responding* to arguments posted here....in other words if they are posted *in lieu of*actually summarizing the arguments and/or facts so the rest of us can see them upfront.....then give it a rest.
'Cause if we're gonna get into that game (i.e. "Oh yeh! Yeh!Well, well....just read THIS one!')...then it trivalizes the whole purpose of this forum...In any case, I could come up with 30 articles from 2 dozen websites a day to butttress my position...So what).
* * * *
Finally..
...though Ralph made a (legitimate) request for references regarding the Space Treaty....I can't help but noticing that no one bothered to question all the other treaty violations..except perhaps to say that, 'times change, and well, you know, we have to sort of 'adapt' to the changing demands....blah, blah'.....An argument of a kind, I suppose, ...though I would call it a blatant, self-serving rationalization.
The reason, no one asked for references to these is, I suspect, that, of course, much of it is part of the public domain...i.e. Has been and can be found in the mainstream corporate press.
Which brings up my final point...
Though much of the info., stats, facts etc. that I post here are a result of a quarter century of research....(much of which is simply NOT to be found in the pages of those stately vehicles of state propaganda)....there is, nonetheless, quite a surprising amount of 'truth' of a sorts which DOES filter through to the 'free press'...
(Indeed, even a few of *my* articles occassionaly slip - like the Scarlet Pimpernel - through enemy lines to infect the masses)
...Let me give you a few examples:
Some one of you questioned the figures surrounding the victims of the Gulf War..including the sanctions...
...But, of course, the then US Ambassador to the UN, Madeleine Albright, in an interview a few years ago with US journalist Lesley Stahl (I believe it was on '60 Minutes') responded to the, at the time, figure of 500,000 Iraqi children killed as a result of those sanctions (and the total destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure in the 'War') and whether the "price was worth it", with this stunning statement:
"I think that this is a very hard choice, but the price -
we think the price is worth it."
In other words, the US administration is on record of admitting to the fact that the figures (quoted by the UN and Red Cross...and thousands of 'conspiracy/pinko/leftist' activists....are true.
The slant she gives on it, naturally (insanely), is that it's okay.....(But then, Madeleine, they're not *our* children, are they?)
This admission of the facts, but the placement of those facts within either a dissociated, partialized reality (i.e. without historical context or links to 'our' own policys and intentions) or a childishly rationalized explanatory schema, is entirely commonplace in the mainstream media.
Another example (from, I assure you, literally dozens I can draw from off the top of my head)....
Prior to the Gulf War (1991) the famous 'incubator scandal' (inwhich Iraqi troops were to have reputedly dumped Kuwaiti babies on the floor so as to ship the incubators back to Iraq)was *instrumental* in providing the necessary support for a vote by the US Congress authorizing war on Iraq.
The small catch, however, (as later revealed, *while at the same time BURIED, in the back pages* of many mainstream print media)...was that it was entirely fabricated by the public relations firm of Hill and Knowleton and that the lone, 'anonymous' informant just happened to be the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US's daughter.....US medical personnel, post-conflict, found the incubators entirely intact where they should be, with their little Kuwaiti bundles of joy, similarly intact.
Or take Central America during the 1980's during the Reagan regime...
It was commonly reported in Canadian papers that the El Salvadorian military (and its roaming death squads) had killed over 80,000 (!) and displaced a million people in the so-called 'civil war'....
..And here's where the 'facts' get their special twist which render the 'truth' anything BUT the truth, if it's not the *whole truth*....
In this so-called 'civil war', the guerillas rarely numbered more than 5000 (and never more than 10,000) at any given time...Again, this could be found in routine press dispatches..
Moreover, of those killed (between 1979 and 1989 i.e.during Ronnie's massive surge in support for Central American regimes)....the vast majority of the 80,000 were...a) unarmed...b) a majority were women and children...and c) the guerrillas never suffered a massive defeat or any really significant casualties...
Indeed, given these often stated facts (all disbursed, and never connected) any Sherlock Holmes worth his or her salt led to the inescapable conclusion that the 'civil war' ....was, in fact, a *state pogrem* prosecuted against its civilian population with the (usual) aim of undercutting the material base of support (both human and logistical) of the guerrillas.
...All in aid of propping up a totally corrupt, police state 'business friendly' regime against the heartbreakingly moderate demands of the indigenous population for some sort of mild agrarian reform, or the right to form unions or self-help commnity organizations etc.
(Cenral and Latin America afford literally dozens of these examples.....i.e. over the last 30 years, under similar circumstances, US backed regimes (and outright proxy, terrorist forces - the Contras) have murdered 140,000 in Nicaragua, 200,000 in Guatemala, 30,000 in Argentina etc.)
And one last (brief) example: Prior to the NATO assault on Yugoslavia, the papers (here in Canada) consistently quoted figures running as high as 100,000 *civilian* deaths as a result of the (demonized) Serbian mililtary against its ethnic Albanian pop'n in Kosovo.
Trouble was, when seveal internatinal forensic teams investigated post-conflict ...they found only 2,000 bodies, almost entirely in military garb....for both sides! (i.e. the Serbian and KLA forces combined).
Now, I'm not going to get into the whole Yugsolavian conflict at this point - that deserves the full 'treatment' at a later date - but the foregoing blatant propaganda...
(again, the forensic team info. *was* published....in the back pages...with no commentary....with no linkage as to how large a part the original mis-info had played into the hands of pro-'war' forces, ...with no soul-searching about what this meant ..or means... to the notion of the so-called 'free press' etc.)
...as I say, the foregoing blatant propaganda is simply part of the common fare dished out to the 'public domain' on a daily basis.
Therefore, you don't *have* to be a scholar or some sort of pathological book-worm to come to an appreciation of the propaganda raining down about your heads 24/7.....
All you have to do is *listen* to the contradictions as they pour forth.....and then ask fundamental questions over a long enough period...whence come fundamental answers.
Answers that don't jive with the Alice-in-Wonderland fairytale (about 'our' own lily-white goodness...and 'their' diabolical evilness) that we've been plied with since day dot.
Anton
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:03 pm
The point in contention, I thought, was your assertion that the U.S. had violated the Outer Space treaty. I am simply arguing that that assertion is not true. I do not think that the activities you have cited are violations of the treaty. I think that a treaty has to be considered as meaning what it says, and not containing unexpressed terms. A treaty (or convention, as the case may be) is a legal document. Such a document has to read legalisticly.
As for the other treaties, give me a chance to look them over; I do have a day job.
As for the other treaties, give me a chance to look them over; I do have a day job.
- Allister Fiend
-
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 9:39 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida USA
by Allister Fiend » Sat Mar 08, 2003 6:21 pm
Originally posted by Anton
Next, a little quibble here.
Some of you have taken to listing websites and articles on this forum.....Well that's fine as far as it goes, IF you're intent is simply to point you're fellow sympathizers to new info...
Anton
The reason I post links to articles is simply because I seem to have a life, unlike you, I do not have an hour or two to dig this stuff up to prove to you what I think.
My mind is made up on this particular issue of iraq, I think President Bush is doing the right thing, and you will not convince me otherwise...Just like I will not convince you.
As far as your other statements go, Their is some truth to some of them, I acknowledge the USA is not perfect, we have made many mistakes throughout our history, and we will make more, only history will let us know if they were the right things to do, or the wrong things to do.
But all and all, I think we still have the greatest country in the world.
When I start to wonder how the world would be if just one country instead of the USA had the power we have now, like a middle eastern country or maybe even Russia, I'm glad its the USA, because we would not be having this discussion right now. period.
I will state this about you Anton, I respect the fact that your statements do not seem to be politically motivated, you obviously do not like President Bush, but at least you have mentioned different instances throughout the last couple decades that involve both of our major political parties; which is refreshing since I believe most of the demonstrators out there are only out there because they do not like President Bush or the Republican party.
Well, that is enough of me talking now, after looking over this post, I have to take back what I said about Anton having no life, As I seem not to have one either
Allister Fiend
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sat Mar 08, 2003 7:46 pm
Going after Iraqi oil, blah, blah....it would be much cheaper to lift sanctions and simply buy the oil (oh no! Capitalism!).
Just one question...in 1990-91 the useful idiots said that the US was only going to Iraq to steal their oil. So why didn't we then? Iraq was soundly beaten (although Hussein believed he won - oh wait! He must have won since he's so trustworthy).
I will, to a point, agree with Allister. Anton, you give a good line about looking at info from both sides, and FINALLY, you're last post seemed to indicate that. You gain a bit of credibility for hating America, not just a Republican-led America.
Now all you need to do is tell us about the rest of the evils in the world. Or is America the only bad guy? I would love to read what you think of the cuddly, former Soviet Union.
Good day.
Just one question...in 1990-91 the useful idiots said that the US was only going to Iraq to steal their oil. So why didn't we then? Iraq was soundly beaten (although Hussein believed he won - oh wait! He must have won since he's so trustworthy).
I will, to a point, agree with Allister. Anton, you give a good line about looking at info from both sides, and FINALLY, you're last post seemed to indicate that. You gain a bit of credibility for hating America, not just a Republican-led America.
Now all you need to do is tell us about the rest of the evils in the world. Or is America the only bad guy? I would love to read what you think of the cuddly, former Soviet Union.
Good day.
- Ralph Wiggum
by Ralph Wiggum » Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:32 pm
Doug, that is the big flaw with the theory that the U.S. is just interested in Iraqi oil. It points out an inconsistency between Anton's arguments that the U.S. through globalization is trying to appropriate other countries' wealth and is also trying to steal it militarily. If we can do it so well without resorting to force of arms, why would we ever spend billions to accomplish the same thing? We could just follow the French model of dealing with Hussein, et al. as businessmen. I'm sure they'd take a bribe. We could help them "reform" their government peacefully, and then recreate all of the pro-business anti-little guy regulations we are alleged to have installed in other countries. After all, as Mario Puzo pointed out in the Godfather, "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sat Mar 08, 2003 8:46 pm
Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
Doug, that is the big flaw with the theory that the U.S. is just interested in Iraqi oil. It points out an inconsistency between Anton's arguments that the U.S. through globalization is trying to appropriate other countries' wealth and is also trying to steal it militarily. If we can do it so well without resorting to force of arms, why would we ever spend billions to accomplish the same thing? We could just follow the French model of dealing with Hussein, et al. as businessmen. I'm sure they'd take a bribe. We could help them "reform" their government peacefully, and then recreate all of the pro-business anti-little guy regulations we are alleged to have installed in other countries. After all, as Mario Puzo pointed out in the Godfather, "A lawyer with his briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."
Yet, the "oil mantra" is still out there strong, and is almost never challenged in the mainstream media, except maybe on FoxNews Channel. It gets old, like a CD stuck on the same 2 seconds of music. It will be interesting to see if the America-haters-no-matter-what ever change their playbook.
- Doug the Unforgiven
by Doug the Unforgiven » Sun Mar 09, 2003 2:21 am
Sorry, I had to post this. It's both funny and sad.
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694
http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/news/page.cfm?objectid=12715943&method=full&siteid=106694
by Kristov » Sun Mar 09, 2003 3:21 am
Hmm..guess they could call it practice..those Iraqi soldiers that is.
Anton..you want to use treaties and how they aren't followed..yet..you want to use the 'spirit' of the treaties and not the actual legal language of them. Obviously never spent any time in a court room have you. Legal documents have no 'spirit', they say exactly what they mean, as obtuse as the language may seem to most people, it's still very precise and clear on what is and isn't allowed. And if it's NOT covered by the treaty..then it's quite simply not covered by the treaty.
By the by..you seem to enjoy harping on America's vast stock of WMD...yet..you never mention the other countries who've stockpiled it. The former USSR stockpiled quite bit more then America did, a fact that's driven many security people around the globe damn near insane since the break up of the USSR and the loss of centralized control and tracking of those stockpiles.
You also fail to mention that America hasn't actually used any of those WMD since WW2...while other's have..repeatedly.
So...while you may have some intelligence, it's being greatly overshadowed by your outright loathing of America and all things American.
Oh, and by the by again..I've got friends from the Balkans...and I'll kindly tell you to get your head out of your ass and go count the dead yourself next time on their behalf. 2000 dead my ass...you let your hatred of this country influence your view of reality THAT fucking much?
Anton..you want to use treaties and how they aren't followed..yet..you want to use the 'spirit' of the treaties and not the actual legal language of them. Obviously never spent any time in a court room have you. Legal documents have no 'spirit', they say exactly what they mean, as obtuse as the language may seem to most people, it's still very precise and clear on what is and isn't allowed. And if it's NOT covered by the treaty..then it's quite simply not covered by the treaty.
By the by..you seem to enjoy harping on America's vast stock of WMD...yet..you never mention the other countries who've stockpiled it. The former USSR stockpiled quite bit more then America did, a fact that's driven many security people around the globe damn near insane since the break up of the USSR and the loss of centralized control and tracking of those stockpiles.
You also fail to mention that America hasn't actually used any of those WMD since WW2...while other's have..repeatedly.
So...while you may have some intelligence, it's being greatly overshadowed by your outright loathing of America and all things American.
Oh, and by the by again..I've got friends from the Balkans...and I'll kindly tell you to get your head out of your ass and go count the dead yourself next time on their behalf. 2000 dead my ass...you let your hatred of this country influence your view of reality THAT fucking much?
The enemy is attacking, let us prey.
- rust
by rust » Sun Mar 09, 2003 8:17 am
These Canadians need to be watched.Check out this site.
http://www.standonguard.com/index2.html
After we get done adjusting the Iraqi poulation count and
changing their landscape we need to look to our north:D
http://www.standonguard.com/index2.html
After we get done adjusting the Iraqi poulation count and
changing their landscape we need to look to our north:D
- Cpl. Bingham
by Cpl. Bingham » Sun Mar 09, 2003 9:46 am
Ahhhh, but is that site promoting my fellow Canadian's true plans for the world, or is it just a smoke screen to remove attention from our true purpose; the completion of Project Perseus, it's initial test-firing, and it's launch into low earth orbit!
Only time will tell, mwuHAHAhah AHAHHA, eh!
Only time will tell, mwuHAHAhah AHAHHA, eh!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 19 guests