OT, (like it matters) How long will the war last.



Status
Not open for further replies.
Martees wrote:

>>Let's just say I'd feel a damn sight more comfortable if Dubya wasn't in control of them.
>
>
> Please don't tell me this has all boiled down to a "hate Dubya" thang........................

You've snipped the rest of my post and then come out with this? That's a little short-sighted.

As it goes, I am deeply suspicious of Dubya and I don't like his policies or his attitude.

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
 
Dave wrote:

>>Secondly, what is this thing about training terrorists in Iraq? I keep fairly well informed about
>>these sorts of things and have heard nothing of the sort (at least, not from reputable sources).
>>Is this some kind of 'news' that's broadcast repeatedly on CNN? Have any of you Yanks actually
>>investigated this?
>
>
> I haven't personally, you?

Yes.

Run a google search, there's plenty of
> links too all the articles written on the subject of training camps in Saddams world...

No there's not. I'm asking you to back up your argument, and you're not.

>>>>>And blowing the **** out of Iraq will help prevent that how?
>>>>
>>>It won't. The order to attack th US will come from somewhere else. But it won't be coming from
>>>Bagdad will it?
>>
>>It was never going to come from Baghdad...
>
>
> riiiiggggghhhhhtttt,
>
> whatever you say....

After 9/11, the CIA, FBI and further intelligence was pressured to come up with positive links
between Iraq and the attrocity. They couldn't find any. Nor could they find any decent links between
Iraq and terrorism.

>>>Al Qaeda training camps is a close enough connection to me.
>>
>>See above. Some proof of this link rather than regurgitating propoganda would be nice.
>
>
> Are you French?

Great argument Dave. Can't have a proper debate, bring in racist overtones.

> Do a search yourself.

So you don't have any proof to back up your argument. You're just making it up, or regurgitating
some rumour.

I'm convinced. My presidents convinced. We could
> care less if you are or not.

Your president isn't convinced. This is the point. He dropped the link between Iraq and terrorism as
a central argument for war.

>>You should go and read resolution 1441. It pertains to increased inspections - it most certainly
>>isn't a warrant for the US/UK to invade.
>
>
> I knew it was one of those cool numbers, regardless they say to inspect, but he originally refused
> to let inspectors in, did he not? He was in violation of that resolution for the first 3 mths or
> so after it was established.

Resolution 1441 still doesn't give the US/UK authority to invade.

>>>believe that if any terrorist actions are going to take place, it won't be because of our actions
>>>in the Gulf. I think those types of plans are, and have been, already in motion.
>>
>>Then you are naive.
>
>
> No see, I think you are for thinking our toppiling of the sadistic regime is somehow wrong.

You're not arguing on the same point. I don't see that the 'toppling of the saddistic regime is
wrong'. I just think that it's being done in the wrong way and is likely to lead to further
consequences.

> O.K so I got the number wrong, big freaking deal. All member nations signed it, including your
> beloved French, Germans, and Russians. It's time to enforce it Bomba, get over it.

No section of 1441 authorised the use of force. That is why the second resolution was required.

It's happening as we speak.
> Nothing you or I can do about it.

Indeed.

> Dave (hoping no WMD stray your way brother)

I'm sure I'll be fine - I live in a country that opposed this war. Let's just hope that they don't
stray to the UK or US. Although I'm not entirely convinced...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

>>I think you and the others on the board should contact your authorities. You obviously have
>>information that they don't. Both the CIA and FBI have filed reports to congress stating that
>>there is little or no link between Iraq and terrorism, and your government dropped it as a central
>>argument for justifying war.
>
>
> Probably the best synopsis of the information was in Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. The
> text is available many places, and the comments about Iraq's links to teorrist support are just
> before his closing comments.

Powell's speech was very weak, IMO. I could disect it, but suffice to say that there was no
substantiative evidence regarding an Iraqi-Al-Qaeda link. His main argument hinged on him vaguely
alluding to terrorists operating in Northern Iraq - a section that is not even controlled by Saddam
any more, and is in fact patrolled by US forces...

> Bottom line to me - I hope and pray that the loss of life on both sides will be minimal, and that
> this all results in a better life for the long-suffering people of Iraq.

We'll see in the aftermath. The US are reknowned for causing carnage somewhere and then leaving the
clear up to somebody else. Wouldn't it be ironic if the UN had to clean up.

Let's see if the US choses a better dictator than Saddam this time...

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
 
> I respect your opinion, but we (as a civilized world society) need to decide how we're going to
> deal with the very real threat that WMD pose in the post-9/11 world. What happens if we give Iraq
> more years, and they DO manage to develop a nuclear weapon? Next time they take Kuwait, they keep
> it unless you don't mind seeing Tel Aviv melted. Oops.
>
> History has shown that appeasing brutal, aggressive dictators is NOT a good idea. History will
> show soon enough whether Bush, Blair (and your leaders) are right or wrong about Iraq.
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame

I'd be more inclined to accept this argument

If the US and the UK had a history free of appeasing butal agressive dictators including the one it
is now targeting.

If Iraq wasn't sitting on a massive reserve of a substance that the rest of the world slides
around on.

If the US and the UK weren't the largest manufacturers and suppliers of arms in the world.

If I had seen the merest shreds of convincing evidence of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass
destruction provided by governments that claim to have them and have every interest in showing them
to the conveniently terrified masses of the "civilzed world".

and

If I believed that the post war situation will be one in which acts of terrorism will be less likely
to occur than they are now.

As none of the above seem to be the case ,pardon my sceptisism about the reasons behind this "war"

On the other hand it will probably turn out just fine, with some pliable mug in charge of Iraq, oil
flowing nicely, all that old ammo stock used up, a manageable amount of "collateral damage" and
plenty of entertaining bombs eye footage. We will of course have to accept a tightening of personal
freedoms, in the interests of security, those crazy ragheads are gonna be ****** off.

gaz
 
Mark Hickey wrote:

> Heh heh heh... sorry about that. Forgot for a moment.
>
> I'm hoping there won't be any backlash against the Germans for their reluctance to back the Iraq
> war. I don't mind giving up French cheese (too smelly) and wine (too dry for my tastes), but I'd
> really hate to give up my BMW K100RS! ;-)

It's been quite amusing to watch the US' reaction to this. Over a disagreement in the UN, all of the
old wounds and stereotypes have been dug up, products are being boycotted and the canteen of the
Senate now has 'freedom fries'!

I imagine US tv has been highly entertaining to watch over the last few weeks :)

--
a.m-b FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/ambfaq.htm

b.bmx FAQ: http://www.t-online.de/~jharris/bmx_faq.htm
 
bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Martees wrote:
>
> >>Let's just say I'd feel a damn sight more comfortable if Dubya wasn't in control of them.
> >
> >
> > Please don't tell me this has all boiled down to a "hate Dubya" thang........................
>
> You've snipped the rest of my post and then come out with this? That's a little short-sighted.
>
> As it goes, I am deeply suspicious of Dubya and I don't like his policies or his attitude.

in my case.

Shaun aRe - Dubya really is a complete ***.
 
G.T.:

> Paladin wrote:

> > Liberal, American hating peaceniks, don't even start in on me. You won't change me, and I won't
> > change you. Better men and women than you fought and died for your right to air your opinion. So
> > enjoy your freedom. You have the right to be wrong.
> >
>
> I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today. I'm not sure how Iraq's missiles which can't even
> reach Israel effected OUR freedom before. But now with the whole world at best barely tolerating
> us and at worst hating us those fascists in the cabinet will continue to erode civil liberty in
> the name of security. All so Mr Cheney's Halliburton can make a few billion dollars rebuilding
> Iraq this year. All so Bush Jr can redeem Bush Sr. All so hypocritical Kristians can feel good
> about killing the infidels. All so W doesn't have to drill for oil in Arctic. No wonder W let
> 9-11 happen.
>
> "...you can kill some of the people all the time and you can kill all of the people some of the
> time but you can't kill all of the people all of
the
> time. When a whole population hates you fanatically, it's difficult to rule." - Margaret
> Atwood. We will never see freedom in this country again as long as there is an Iraqi, Muslim,
> or Arab alive.
>
> Goodby peace, goodby freedom, hello Armageddon, Greg

*********** Greg - something we can agree on at last, eh?

Shaun aRe
 
G.T.:

> Paladin wrote:

> > Liberal, American hating peaceniks, don't even start in on me. You won't change me, and I won't
> > change you. Better men and women than you fought and died for your right to air your opinion. So
> > enjoy your freedom. You have the right to be wrong.
> >
>
> I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today. I'm not sure how Iraq's missiles which can't even
> reach Israel effected OUR freedom before. But now with the whole world at best barely tolerating
> us and at worst hating us those fascists in the cabinet will continue to erode civil liberty in
> the name of security. All so Mr Cheney's Halliburton can make a few billion dollars rebuilding
> Iraq this year. All so Bush Jr can redeem Bush Sr. All so hypocritical Kristians can feel good
> about killing the infidels. All so W doesn't have to drill for oil in Arctic. No wonder W let
> 9-11 happen.
>
> "...you can kill some of the people all the time and you can kill all of the people some of the
> time but you can't kill all of the people all of
the
> time. When a whole population hates you fanatically, it's difficult to rule." - Margaret
> Atwood. We will never see freedom in this country again as long as there is an Iraqi, Muslim,
> or Arab alive.
>
> Goodby peace, goodby freedom, hello Armageddon, Greg

*********** Greg - something we can agree on at last, eh?

Shaun aRe
 
[email protected] (gazzer) wrote:

>I'd be more inclined to accept this argument

<snip>

>If I had seen the merest shreds of convincing evidence of Iraqi possession of weapons of mass
>destruction provided by governments that claim to have them and have every interest in showing them
>to the conveniently terrified masses of the "civilzed world".

I think I can help with that one... Would you accept the word of the UN weapons inspectors? Here's a
link to a summary of the findings:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/03031018.htm

You really can't read it and still believe that there are no chemical and biological weapons in
Iraq. So if you really want to be able to use the "there's no proof Saddam has WMD" argument you
probably shouldn't hit that link.

>If I believed that the post war situation will be one in which acts of terrorism will be less
>likely to occur than they are now.

We can either deal with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons proliferation and do our best to
keep them out of the hands of terrorists, or we can simply sit back and wait to see what happens. I
vote for the first option.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today.

If by "freedom" you mean the administration not carrying out the will of over 70% of the
citizens, sure.

> I'm not sure how Iraq's missiles which can't even reach Israel effected OUR freedom before.

Greg, you gotta spend more time studying the issue. You saw what a couple ounces of anthrax did to
the country. Imagine 8,500 liters sold to the highest bidder as one example of the threat.

> But now with the whole world at best barely tolerating us and at worst hating us those fascists in
> the cabinet will continue to erode civil liberty in the name of security.

Liberty is defined differently by different people. You may believe it includes freedom from airport
security inspections (for example) while others would argue it means freedom from those who would
carry weapons onto airplanes. Abraham Lincoln summed it up best I think: "The shepherd drives the
wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf
denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."

> All so Mr Cheney's Halliburton can make a few billion dollars rebuilding Iraq this year.

When that happens, you let us know so we can help you gloat. I find it curious that there would be
any question about those being sent in to get Iraq back on it's feet having oil backgrounds. Let's
see, what is Iraq's economy based on? Oil, maybe?

> All so Bush Jr can redeem Bush Sr.

So you feel that the first gulf war failed because we didn't continue into Baghdad and take out
Saddam? I know it's tempting to reduce this very complicate issue to a sandbox fight in the school
yard, but it's also naive to do so.

> All so hypocritical Kristians can feel good about killing the infidels.

That's disgusting, Greg. It shows you have NO grasp on the reality of the situation. By the way, you
might want to read a little history that doesn't come from sources that draw horns on GWB's photo.
You might find that just about every military effort the US has made over the last 20 years has been
to AID Muslims. We helped the Afghan mujahadin during the Soviet invasion (one in particular doesn't
seem to be too thankful) we liberated Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990, we helped the Somali
Muslims in Mogadishu, helped the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against the Serbs. We also liberated
Afghanistan from the Taliban and Al Qaeda thugs.

Every Christian I know is praying that loss of life on both sides will be minimal.

> All so W doesn't have to drill for oil in Arctic. No wonder W let 9-11 happen.

In a war situation, you have hawks and doves, and then you have what I'll call gulls. That's short
for "gullible". ;-)

>We will never see freedom in this country again as long as there is an Iraqi, Muslim, or
>Arab alive.

I'm sorry you think so (or think anyone else thinks so - it's not clear what you're trying to say).

>Goodby peace, goodby freedom, hello Armageddon,

Hey, deja vu. Wasn't that the lament before the first gulf war? Wasn't that the lament before we
went into Afghanistan? Did I miss "Armageddon" the first time (or was it just the goofy Bruce Willis
space movie)?

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
"Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> G.T.:
>
> > Paladin wrote:
>
> > > Liberal, American hating peaceniks, don't even start in on me. You won't change me, and I
> > > won't change you. Better men and women than you fought and died for your right to air your
> > > opinion. So enjoy your freedom. You have the right to be wrong.
> > >
> >
> > I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today. I'm not sure how Iraq's missiles which can't even
> > reach Israel effected OUR freedom before. But now with the whole world at best barely tolerating
> > us and at worst hating us those fascists in the cabinet will continue to erode civil liberty in
> > the name of security. All so Mr Cheney's Halliburton can make a few billion dollars rebuilding
> > Iraq this year. All so Bush Jr can redeem Bush Sr. All so hypocritical Kristians can feel good
> > about killing the infidels. All so W doesn't have to drill for oil in Arctic. No wonder W let
> > 9-11 happen.
> >
> > "...you can kill some of the people all the time and you can kill all of the people some of the
> > time but you can't kill all of the people all of
> the
> > time. When a whole population hates you fanatically, it's difficult to rule." - Margaret Atwood.
> > We will never see freedom in this country again as long as there is an Iraqi, Muslim, or Arab
> > alive.
> >
> > Goodby peace, goodby freedom, hello Armageddon, Greg
>
> *********** Greg - something we can agree on at last, eh?
>
>
> Shaun aRe

You can thank me for that, Shaun! 8~)

Paladin
 
Paladin <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> "Shaun Rimmer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > G.T.:
> >
> > > Paladin wrote:
> >
> > > > Liberal, American hating peaceniks, don't even start in on me. You won't change me, and I
> > > > won't change you. Better men and women than you fought and died for your right to air your
> > > > opinion. So enjoy
your
> > > > freedom. You have the right to be wrong.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today. I'm not sure how Iraq's missiles which can't even
> > > reach Israel effected OUR freedom before.
But
> > > now with the whole world at best barely tolerating us and at worst
hating
> > > us those fascists in the cabinet will continue to erode civil liberty
in
> > > the name of security. All so Mr Cheney's Halliburton can make a few billion dollars rebuilding
> > > Iraq this year. All so Bush Jr can redeem
Bush
> > > Sr. All so hypocritical Kristians can feel good about killing the infidels. All so W doesn't
> > > have to drill for oil in Arctic. No
wonder W
> > > let 9-11 happen.
> > >
> > > "...you can kill some of the people all the time and you can kill all
of
> > > the people some of the time but you can't kill all of the people all
of
> > the
> > > time. When a whole population hates you fanatically, it's difficult
to
> > > rule." - Margaret Atwood. We will never see freedom in this country
again
> > > as long as there is an Iraqi, Muslim, or Arab alive.
> > >
> > > Goodby peace, goodby freedom, hello Armageddon, Greg
> >
> > *********** Greg - something we can agree on at last, eh?
> >
> >
> > Shaun aRe
>
>
> You can thank me for that, Shaun! 8~)

Or blame you, eh? ',;~}

Shaun aRe
 
bomba <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Spider wrote:
>
> >>>>How many times have CBR weapons been used by terrorists? I can think of one incident in a
> >>>>Japanese subway where chemical agents were used, but that was committed by a loony cult, IIRC.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have to agree with TJ on this. We don't live in the same world we used to. I'd love to
> >>>believe that teorrists would avoid using WMD, but have no reason to believe it. I'm willing to
> >>>listen to reason though if you do.
> >>
> >>Oh, I hope I'm open-minded enough :) My point was that there has never been a chemical terrorist
> >>attack, as was implied by TJ. That's not to say there won't be in the future...
> >
> >
> > Not true. Aum Shinryko, Tokyo subway. VX was used, IIRC.
>
> Did you bother to read the material you quoted? Look at the top.

I saw it, but was responding to the "never been a chemical terrorist attack." There *has* been one.
Dismissing it as the act of a "loony cult" doesn't change the fact that it happened.

It *has* happened, others have been planned, and caught ahead of time (I can't remember the details
right now, but do remember them,) and saying "never" is a dangerous proposition.

Clear now?

Spider
 
Spider wrote:

> I saw it, but was responding to the "never been a chemical terrorist attack." There *has* been
> one. Dismissing it as the act of a "loony cult" doesn't change the fact that it happened.

I agree. My point was that there wasn't any political motivation behind the use of the chemicals
in the case of the Tokyo underground, and as such, I'm not sure they really classify as
terrorists. Whatever.
 
On 20/3/03 2:44 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark Hickey"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Those who opposed the action in the UN Security Council had lots of economic reasons to do so, but
> no moral reasons to do so IMHO. Saddam had failed miserably to live up to any of the 14 UN
> resolutions, and 12 years had gone by without any progress. Just how ineffective DOES the UN have
> to become before it relegates itself to irrelevance?

How many UN resolutions has Israel respected? How many has the US vetoed?

J
 
On 20/3/03 2:44 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark Hickey"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today.
>
> If by "freedom" you mean the administration not carrying out the will of over 70% of the
> citizens, sure.
>
>> I'm not sure how Iraq's missiles which can't even reach Israel effected OUR freedom before.
>
> Greg, you gotta spend more time studying the issue. You saw what a couple ounces of anthrax did to
> the country. Imagine 8,500 liters sold to the highest bidder as one example of the threat.

And where did that anthrax come from? Afghanistan? Iraq?? .... If you thought about the issue you'd
realise that Saddam isn't going to be selling anything to people who see him as an "infidel".

>> But now with the whole world at best barely tolerating us and at worst hating us those fascists
>> in the cabinet will continue to erode civil liberty in the name of security.
>
> Liberty is defined differently by different people. You may believe it includes freedom from
> airport security inspections (for example) while others would argue it means freedom from those
> who would carry weapons onto airplanes. Abraham Lincoln summed it up best I think: "The shepherd
> drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator,
> while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."
>
>> All so Mr Cheney's Halliburton can make a few billion dollars rebuilding Iraq this year.
>
> When that happens, you let us know so we can help you gloat. I find it curious that there would be
> any question about those being sent in to get Iraq back on it's feet having oil backgrounds. Let's
> see, what is Iraq's economy based on? Oil, maybe?

Well obviously - there'd be no point in attacking somewhere that grows bananas if your pals aren't
fruit executives, would there? Iraq is in the firing line precisely BECAUSE Dubya and cronies will
fill their boots in the "reconstruction".

>> All so Bush Jr can redeem Bush Sr.
>
> So you feel that the first gulf war failed because we didn't continue into Baghdad and take out
> Saddam? I know it's tempting to reduce this very complicate issue to a sandbox fight in the school
> yard, but it's also naive to do so.
>
>> All so hypocritical Kristians can feel good about killing the infidels.
>
> That's disgusting, Greg. It shows you have NO grasp on the reality of the situation. By the way,
> you might want to read a little history that doesn't come from sources that draw horns on GWB's
> photo. You might find that just about every military effort the US has made over the last 20 years
> has been to AID Muslims. We helped the Afghan mujahadin during the Soviet invasion (one in
> particular doesn't seem to be too thankful) we liberated Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion in 1990,
> we helped the Somali Muslims in Mogadishu, helped the Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against the
> Serbs. We also liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban and Al Qaeda thugs.

How absurd can you get? "Helping the mujihadeen" is a pro-Muslim act? Pull the other one! For what
it's worth, girls were being educated during the Soviet occupation. Helping the mujihadeen was just
a way to oppose the Soviets. In case you've forgotten, the Taliban were seen by the Afghans as the
least bad of a set of poor choices, and a way to end the civil war. Now the Taliban have gone, what
is happening in Afghanistan? Turning into Switzerland? I don't think so! Doesn't make the news that
much, does it? Any idea what's happening in Kosovo lately? Well, to give you a clue there's a KLA
leader on trial in The Hague just now - and it's not on traffic violations. But if course you
conveniently forget the biggest military effort made by the US which is the arming and support of
Israel - oppressor of Muslims par excellence. (Though I have to admit that they are also quite busy
oppressing Christians.)
>
> Every Christian I know is praying that loss of life on both sides will be minimal.
>
>> All so W doesn't have to drill for oil in Arctic. No wonder W let 9-11 happen.
>
> In a war situation, you have hawks and doves, and then you have what I'll call gulls. That's short
> for "gullible". ;-)
>
>> We will never see freedom in this country again as long as there is an Iraqi, Muslim, or
>> Arab alive.
>
> I'm sorry you think so (or think anyone else thinks so - it's not clear what you're trying
> to say).
>
>> Goodby peace, goodby freedom, hello Armageddon,
>
> Hey, deja vu. Wasn't that the lament before the first gulf war? Wasn't that the lament before we
> went into Afghanistan? Did I miss "Armageddon" the first time (or was it just the goofy Bruce
> Willis space movie)?

I guess it's a local thing - if you get on the wrong end of a bomb that's pretty much like
Armageddon.

J.
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today.
>
> If by "freedom" you mean the administration not carrying out the will of over 70% of the
> citizens, sure.

LOL! When you get your opinions from someone other than Rush, come back.

[remainder of Bush-ass-kissing apology snipped]

Spider
 
Jeremy Henderson <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 20/3/03 2:44 pm, in article [email protected], "Mark Hickey"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Those who opposed the action in the UN Security Council had lots of economic reasons to do so,
>> but no moral reasons to do so IMHO. Saddam had failed miserably to live up to any of the 14 UN
>> resolutions, and 12 years had gone by without any progress. Just how ineffective DOES the UN have
>> to become before it relegates itself to irrelevance?
>
>How many UN resolutions has Israel respected? How many has the US vetoed?

Sorry, I didn't realize Israel was in Iraq.

You know the issues in Israel, and you know it's an entirely different problem than the one in Iraq.
You also know if they didn't have WMD they'd last about three minutes.

The real bottom line is that there are lots of Arab states that would like to retroactively veto one
UN resolution - the one that created the Israeli homeland.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
[email protected] (Spider) wrote:

>Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >I did enjoy my freedom until it ended today.
>>
>> If by "freedom" you mean the administration not carrying out the will of over 70% of the
>> citizens, sure.
>
>LOL! When you get your opinions from someone other than Rush, come back.
>
>[remainder of Bush-ass-kissing apology snipped]

Couldn't refute it, huh? ;-)

Sorry to break it to you, but as of a few days ago, 71% of Americans supported using force to disarm
and remove Saddam from power.

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
Replies
0
Views
503
Recumbent bicycles
Curtis L. Russell
C