President

[HerGhostInTheFog]

well, that's very positive thinking on your part, batterypoison :roll:
just kidding

[ChUnKy_CaRaMeL]

Moronic? Hahaha. I would just say misinformed. We all can not be correct all the time, but thanks for informing me.

[Jane13]

Originally Posted by gingerbreadwench

Kerry, because he looks like Guy Smiley... and we need a Muppet in the White House.

That should be in an ad campaign... "We need a muppet, not an oil company puppet!" That also reminds me of a local blues band here, The Guy Smiley Blues Exchange.

[AlKilyu]

McCarthyism is misnamed. McCarthy was trying to point out (AS HAS NOW BEEN PROVEN SINCE THE COLD WAR ENDED) that there were in fact, communists planted in our goverment, as we now know the head of the tresurary dept. He never named names, someone got a hold of his list and leaked those out. And those named in Hollywood (where there was most certainly cases of communism, "You scratch my back I'll scratch yours") he wasn't even behind that. Granted the guy was no saint, but he wasn't as bad as they say.

I am not voting for Kerry, for if I wanted fucking waffles I'd go to Denny's.

Love or hate the Iraq victory, now if Bush says "Hey Iran, stop your nuclear program or else." those motherfuckers know that he will take action.

And Kerry's face looks like a nutsac.

Thank you.

[Loy]

.battery.-(I appologise for taking so long to answer. I have had a LOT of shit come up, so my 'puter time is limited)

1.Iraq-It's a country in transition....hate to point out the obvious, but ALL countries are countries in transition. Culture and society is constantly breaking down and rearranging itself anywhere and everywhere you can look at. However, I think what you meant to say was "it's in transition, and we're trying to make sure that the direction it goes is in one that's favorable to our interests", since that's really the only way to complete this sentance in regards to what the fuck we're doing there.

As far as your comparison to the Soviets in Afghanistan....you're forgetting the fact that we supplied weapons and training and transported outside radicals into Afghanistan to create a Vietnam-type situation for the Soviets. Say that another country (such as China, for example) did the same thing here, I'm sure the resistance would be much more destructive on our side. As far as the radical clerics....it's the same situation anywhere we've stuck our fingers in. We start trying to help a "country in transition go to a direction that's beneficial for our interests", sooner or later somebody's going to get pissed off at us for doing so. Eventually, people become radicalised, and the radicals gain popularity because they're seen as a bit of hope against (what me and my Filipino brothers called) "Yanqui Imperialism".

Now why would people get mad at us if all we're trying to do is "help Iraq become a better place"? Simple-history has NEVER shown US actions such as this have ever been benificial for the local populace whenever the country in question has been a third-world country. It didn't work in Cuba, in South America, or in the Phillipines (these are just off the top of my head. I'm sure I could pull up more examples, but I don't have enough time to pull out my history book, since I've gotta head soon). Now, with this kind of historical precedent, you'd expect us to be a little bit more sensitive before we try conquering another country, but as Bush and his "Bite Me" foreign policy has shown, we try to find every way to justify our actions (as the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse exemplifies).

Now see, if Bush would've just said at the beginning "this is a war for conquest. Fuck you if you don't agree", I might've had at least a LITTLE bit of respect for him. However, he's in such a state of philosophical limbo that I'm unsure whether HE believes half the crap he spews out (I love watching him hem and hew whenever he's asked simple questions. I think it's fucking hilarious!). And this is the President that we're talking about! Clinton was almost impeached for lying about a fucking blowjob, and people try minimizing Bush's screw-ups left and right. I'm sorry, but as a US citizen, as a World citizen, and as a human being who's hoping to be around for the next evolutionary leap, I HAVE to stand up against him.

Saddam-Hate to point this out to you, but doesn't reverting to the type of cruelty Saddam was infamous for put us on the same exact level that he's on? Answer-yes it does. If we cannot rise above personal feelings in the case of trials, then our idea of justice is utterly useless. As far as allowing Iraqis to try him....again, one simple conceit from our concept of the justice system is that he is to be tried by his PEERS. As far as us "having to give pointers" about how to run trials...are you aware that there are hundreds of other countries around the world, many of whom have justice systems of their own? Granted quite a few of them are very similar to ours, I'm sure Germany, for example, would be just as adept at giving pointers as we would. And hell, if the Germans did it, wouldn't it be a good thing? I mean, here was a country that was run by a nutcase, decimated by us, and afterwards, we helped finance reconstruction, but left the actual day-to-day running of the country in the hands of the locals, and Germany seems to be doing pretty well for itself these days. Again, this is the "Saddam is a bad man" excuse for conquest...err, our "continued presence", and I'm seeing through it.

Afghanistan-So, if Clinton came to that same conclusion (which I'm not arguing), and we were after Bin Laden, why didn't we take up the Taliban's offer to hand him over? With a deal like that, I'm sure noises had to have been made long before the offer was ever thrown out to us. It reeks of Zbigniew Brzezinski (he's the political scientist that worked for Bush Sr. defense department, who pointed out back in the 80's that future wars were going to be fought over natural resources such as oil, in areas such as the 'Stans and Iraq, and that in order for America to keep it's top dog position after the fall of the Soviet Union, we were going to have to keep coming up with boogeymen to keep our citizens in fear, which would then help the military expand and keep getting funding, and felt that the only thing the US government should fight for is "more power over its citizens" by any means neccesary) and his belief in finding ways to "raise tensions".

Narion-Building-As far as "dying in vain", didn't a lot of these soldiers believe that there WMDs? Or that Hussein was in cahoots with Bin Laden? Or that Iraq posed an imminent threat?

As far as helping a fledgling governement....this "government" is nothing more than a puppet (and every fact points to this). How long do you think it'll be before they get voted out (that is if voting isn't suspended again)? Answer-really fucking quickly. Again, why would this happen? Please refer back to paragraph # 3 above. If we follow our history (which we have been so far), we'll piss the people off there so much that they'll latch onto any hope to get us the fuck out of there. And maybe I'm a bit more sensitive to such things than most US citizens here, but then again, I've seen the end result of Manifest Destiny....poverty, hopelessness, and desperation, with growing anti-Yanquiness. While I'm sure some people right now are thinking "what the fuck can a bunch of starving Iraqis do to me?", all I can say is "the Ayatollah was nothing more than a fringe freak until the CIA helped the Shah jail him".

I'm not saying that all Iraqis hate all Americans, but unless WE (as in the US) stop doing this kind of shit, it'll end up in the kind of "endless combat" that Brzezinski gets wet dreams over. And I'm sorry, but I always believed in leaving this world better off than when I found it, which "endless combat" certainly isn't.

Alkilyou-I think it was called "McArthyism" because he was the most visible of the opportunists who used the Red Scare to further themselves. Murrow was the first person (at least as far as I know. If I'm wrong, somebody please let me know) to use the term.

As far as Hollywood, we could call it "Reaganism" since he was the one that made the big push for blacklisting and naming names.

As far as Bush saying "stop your nuclear program NOW", it hasn't worked for the past 3 years, and it certainly isn't working now. It's not working in India, Pakistan, or North Korea either. Hmmm.......

As far as Kerry....read my drunken rants from last week.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Iraq - We can get into semantics and inner-relate just about anything to the Iraqi argument here. "In transition" is the popular phrase being used by the media to describe the situation.... and that's all I'm gonna say cause I don't want to stray off topic too far.

As far as the Soviet-Afghan war is concerned; we supplied weapons... period. The Pakistani ISI trained and transported all the weapons inside. The CIA was never directly involved in the conflict there (though there were 'unoffical' agents planted in some of the Mujadeen groups as well as the ISI, so that's debatable but the argument isn't winable - as it's an issue of speculation).

There's no easy way to take over any country in the middle east. First of all, those nations are predominantly muslim. They don't take very kindly to Jews or Christians. In many of these countries, however, kids are taught since birth to hate America. I actually witnessed a children's show in... either Iran or Pakistan where there was a Barney knock-off who taught children that strapping a bomb to your chest and killing infidels was the greatest honor in the world. With this kind of stuff, there are people who are trampling over each other trying to get into Iraq and join the cause by killing Americans. Most radical muslims are like radical Nazis back int he 30s and 40s. It's more about what they're killing rather than why.

Also, what's going on in Iraq can't all be blamed on Bush. Everyone loves to use him as a scape-goat, while in reality he's not the one over there running the show. Bush doesn't just address congress with, "This is how we're going to do it... it's my way or the highway." MANY officals were involved in the decisions, though none of them will ever be named in an argument, because it would nullify the popular argument that everything that goes wrong is "ALL Bush's fault."

Saddam - How are we reverting to Saddam's cruelty?

As for getting Germans in to advise Iraqis. Sure. If Germany had a reason to send in advisors, I'm sure they would. But right now it's the US who made all this happen, and I'm sure our officals want this to be done by US-guided Iraqis - as any major fault will be entirely ours'. It honestly doesn't matter though. Either way Saddam is a marked man. Iraqi justice will provide a longer life for the former-dictator than freedom will.

Afghanistan - The Taliban offered to hand him over, if we gave them sufficient evidence linking him to the major terrorist attacks. I considerably doubt the terrorist/problematic government situation is all an elaborate facade. The entire Middle East (anti-American groups galore) would have to be the result of the CIA's work, which it is not and never could be (otherwise we'd control those countries if we influenced them that greatly).

Nation Building - I don't think many people who joined the military were prepared to die for any of those. In fact, alot of soldiers probably aren't really prepared to die at all when they enlist. The military was there to accomplish a mission (which has changed), and if that mission failed, then suddenly there was no purpose (reguardless of what it was) at all for their deaths to have any meaning at all in the war.

No doubt the government is a puppet. But it's not the kind of puppet that the world is used to. When the Soviet's invaded and set up democratic elections, the communist party would win everytime, even though many citizens died or were sent to make-shift Gulags for trying to flee the country. If democracy and our favored president are elected time and time again, then it's a total puppet government. Until then, we're only pulling the strings as long as our military continues to have a strong presence there. We're not as strong-handed with this stuff as other countries have been either. The President of Afghanistan had absolutely no problem telling our troops in there to ease up or back the hell off. May very well have been a facade set up by a Psy-Ops group to make it look that way in order to win over the people. Who knows...

And onto the mention of Pakastan in your list of countries that we have told not to make nuclear weapons; I don't believe they tried or we have. Considering their relationship with us, it would be on a very, very rare occassion that we ever take a strong stance of opposition on anything that they do.

[CptSternn]

For those who have never lived in a country that was occupied, I can tell you from first hand experince, that it doesn't matter what the intentions of the occupying country are. It doesn't matter what they are trying to 'bring' to your country - the are an outside force and will always be viewed as an imperial force until they leave. One of the many things I learned growing up in Belfast.

And to answer a few points people posted:

-Sadams lawyers consist of a half dozen private firms, mostly from Jordan, but a few from France.

-Pakistan has nuclear weapons. They test fire missles about once every two years. They did underground nuke tests (which almost got them sanctioned) in the late 90's - right before India did the same.

-Afghanistan and the Taliban were both products of the CIA. Bin Laden is what they refer to as 'blow back'. The main reason we bombed them because they began beliving what the US was were telling them - that they were a powerful nation that needed indepence (tis what they told the Taliban and Bin Laden as the CIA trained and funed their troops to fight Soviet forces for Freedom).

-"You can NOT just hand over a government to the people of Iraq at the cost of thousands of American and Iraqi lives." One word: Vietnam. They will be celebrating their indepence day this week (the day they united under communism).

For those who want to see what the situations are really like, I say visit there, meet the people, then make a decision. Once you get to know the people, your views on what is happening may change completely.

Slan

[Sandmanhero]

I had an interesing conversation with my Dad the other day. it started off complaining that my Super Christian sister is planning on voting for Bush simply because he's a christian. She doesn't care about the things he did, or rather, didn't do.

Anyhow, my father brought up a very good point. He said that we are no better then Al Quida, or the Taliban. Those people seek to rule there people based on religious doctrine and are forcing this doctrine on the masses of that country, whether they agree with it or not. To a certain extent, we are doing the same thing.

We are a country dominated by Christians. We vote based on a persons religious points of veiw. The other countries in Europe laugh at us here. They don't really take religion into consideration when it comes to politics, and we still do. A lot of Our laws are set up due to the bible (gay marriage and polygamy, etc). The people running for office are appealing to the religious aspect of the country. We start wars with other countries because we don't like their religious or political(which is religious) beliefs.

Our tactics may not be as extreme as Al Quida, but we are strikingly similar. We hold fast to our old Puritan philosophies and anyone who tries to show the error of this is shouted down as a lunitic by the religious conservatives.

The founding fathers made it so that we can't mix church and state, but somany people do anyways. they take their religious veiws on things and put them into law, or try to change the constitution to fit those religious veiws, or try to take freedom of choice away just because of their religious veiws.

Here's the thing that struck me about Kerry. Now, Kerry is pro-life, but he is not going to try to reform the law when he gets in office. You want to know why?

Because Kerry respects the fact that his PERSONAL and RELIGIOUS opinions have nothing to do with running an entire country. call him undecided, call him what you will. At least he knows how to follow the constitution, unlike Bush, who tries to alter it to get his way.

I don't care how you personally feel about something. You have no right to take away someone elses rights just because YOU don't like it. As far as polygamy goes, if all three or fifteen or however many are okay with it, then leave them the fuck alone about it. Same with gay people. It doesn't hurt anyone! But your denying them rights does. Leave them alone! They are just as human as anyone and deserve the same rights that everyone else does.

My sister brought up a point on gay marriges. She's obviously anti gay marriage. I said, "Cristina,less then 100 years ago, you were considered half a human being and not given the same treatment under the law just because you were black. We realized this is wrong. Fixed it. Now they are trying to do the same thing to gay people."

Her reply?

"Yes, but black people can't help being black."

I lost almost all respect for my sister when she said that. I never realized just how much Christianity brainwashes a person. My sister used to be liberal, accepting and smart. trying not to offend anyone here, but apparently one of the qualifications of becoming a christian is the willing relinqueshment of your brain. They have the Pastors think for them.I'm seriously depressed about my sister.

Do what thou wilt, but harm none.

Once you start hurting someone, then it should be questioned...


The End....?

[WolfMoon]

I'll vote Bush.No,I'm not conservative or christian.But he gets things done.How many cocksuckers ignored the middle east as if it didn't exist before Bush?He doesn't always hink before he speaks,but neither do I.Finally we have an admin. putting restrictions on abortion!

[Disfunction]

So wait... the Persian Gulf war DIDN'T happen?

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by Disfunction

So wait... the Persian Gulf war DIDN'T happen?

It happened,but unfortunately we didn't aquire Saddam at the time.Maybe we shoulda been lookin' in holes back then,lol.

[Disfunction]

Anyway, I'm a Canadian citizen, raised in the US during the most influential years of my life. Voting for someone because he "gets things done" isn't exactly the best voting strategy.

"Vote Hitler in '45! He gets things done!"

As for Bush being a Christian, here is the supreme irony: The very most basic teaching of Christianity, the entire basis for the religion is to live and love as Jesus did.

As I recall, it was Jesus the invaded the Arabic nations, as well as North Africa. He also instigated rebellion. He killed Jews by the thousands during the Inquisition... And he FERVENTLY supported the discrmination of anyone of the Islamic faith. He also supported all forms of war fought in his name, and NEVER did he dare attempt to find a means to peace that didn't involve bombing runs and military action!

Hell yeah! That's why I'M a Christian!


Now, in all seriousness, the trait of a man that carries Christian principles is not to attack anyone that MAY attack you, but rather, to defend oneself from those that already did. People died in Afghanistan that were not guilty of any crimes. People died there, and the irony is that the death toll of innocents in Afghanistan by the end of the war greatly exceded the lives lost during 9/11... Yet I still supported that war because there was a good reason. A valid reason. I supported the war in Afghanistan.

When the time rolled around and it came time for them to invade Iraq, the American government went right on ahead when their only support came from England. Bush's actions greatly injured the world's view of the United States, and support dropped drastically, even among traditional allies.

"If you aren't with us, then you're against us."

He is an individual that sees the political environment in terms that are far too black and white, and far too naive. Thanks to him, and his party, the military budget of the US is now more than that of the rest of the world as a WHOLE. A lot of that money could have gone into the American educational system which is stagnant and satisfactory at best... or perhaps it could have been invested into a moderately socialistic healthcare plan to help people who can't afford medical necessities LIVE.

No, if I were capable of casting a vote, I would do it for Kerry. I wouldn't be doing it because I know what he will do, but I am aware of everything that Bush has done for the United States, and frankly, it saddens me. It's been said "Better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't." but the way I look at it is that it's better to go with someone that hasn't proven themselves a devil than someone that has proven themselves to be the antichrist. I'm not calling actually calling him the antichrist, but he claims to be one thing, when he doesn't even fit the most BASIC characteristics of what it is to be a Christian.

It pisses me off that he's in a position of power, and that it just proves to the world how the limited perspective stereotyped to the United States has actually been valid under his reign.

I'm sorry to anyone that supports Bush, but from what I know he's done nothing but completely destructuralize the nation, funnel vast amounts of money into a new, and failed, branch of the government, disbanded the Capital Gains Tax, which took a nice whopping chunk out of the amount the government would be taking while CEOs get off with a lot more, and the average Joe that can actually be bothered to buy stocks gets a couple hundred extra.

If I could, my vote would go to Kerry; not much worse could happen that hasn't already happened with Bush at the helm.

[Disfunction]

And the abortion issue shouldn't be up to the administration. If you think about it, what about ****? A lot of people I know are against abortion in the case of ****, but I mean, what does it matter? If it's people being irresponsible, then they deserve to have to have the baby...

It's not right to force your own morals on someone else though, unless it's affecting someone that can speak for themselves.

[AlKilyu]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

I'll vote Bush.No,I'm not conservative or christian.But he gets things done.How many cocksuckers ignored the middle east as if it didn't exist before Bush?He doesn't always hink before he speaks,but neither do I.Finally we have an admin. putting restrictions on abortion!

That's pretty much how I feel, cept I'm a Christian and am basically pro-choice.

Don't vote for Kerry because you hate Bush or because you are against us winning the war, because he waffles so much he'll probably do whatever it is you hated about Bush.

[Disfunction]

That's using probabilities rather than certainties; also, if he waffles so much, odds are he'd do what you liked about Bush :P

[WolfMoon]

Originally Posted by AlKilyu

That's pretty much how I feel, cept I'm a Christian and am basically pro-choice.

Don't vote for Kerry because you hate Bush or because you are against us winning the war, because he waffles so much he'll probably do whatever it is you hated about Bush.

It's kinda like....Do you want shit smeared on the right side of your face or the left?I wish there was someone better than Bush to vote for,but there isn't.One of my beefs with Kerry are his stances when Vietnam was going on.Fucking hippy.

As far as the pro-life/choice thing,I'm a mother and couldn't imagine killing something after willingly creating it.I damn sure couldn't kill a part of myself.We all know the consequences of sex.

I was gonna say something about Michael Moore,but Battery said it better than I.I've see his movie.I know it's completely one-sided.

[Disfunction]

...and what about ****?

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Disfunction

As for Bush being a Christian, here is the supreme irony: The very most basic teaching of Christianity, the entire basis for the religion is to live and love as Jesus did.

Actually Bush is a protestant. Us Catholics are against him and his policies. Lets not group us all in the same boat with that bastard.

He does have a funny way of thinking. When he was govenor of Texas, the state executed more people than any other state in the history of the US. Since taking office, he has expanded the death penalty to include less crimes, and had the justice department speed up the death row process to have even more people executed.

I guess 'right to life' and 'pro-life' only means the people the republicans feel are worthy.

After you turn 12, make a mistake and end up with a needle in your arm. If you remember, right now, there is a 14 year old on death row for killing his sister while wrestling in the living room. Jeb Bush, with help from his brother have helped keep this child there instead of opting for treatment.

Jebs daughter on the other hand, has been arrested on felony charges 6 times in the last 8 years, and has yet to do one day in jail. Her most recent charge came after she was put in an out patient re-hab and was busted sneaking crack in to other addicts. Charges were filed, but quickly went away, with no penalties.

John Ashcroft's Nephew was found to be the head of an international drug ring, growing marijuana in his home. The men under him agreed to testify aginst him for plea deals, but Ashcroft stepped in, and his nephew walked. The other men who were werking for him got between 20 years to life - he served less than a day in jail.

Multiple citizens from Mexico or with hispanic nationality on the other hand have been put to death under legislation that makes drug traffiking a crime which you can be executed for.

Go figure.

Slan

[MrMaelstrom]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

One of my beefs with Kerry are his stances when Vietnam was going on.Fucking hippy.

Setting aside the point that I truly believe the U.S., Australian and New Zealand armed forces had no business in Vietnam, I'll say that if 'Nam is still so important to U.S. citizens on their view on what a president should be, at least one of the candidates was there. If the fact that he went to Nam and later opposed the war when back in U.S. soil makes him hesitant,
I'd say that only an idiot doesn't change his/her mind.

Once again, for those who haven't been here long enough to have read threads that have long been deleted, please don't confuse a country's government with it's people, don't confuse the church with christianism, and muslims with extremist fanatics.

And for the U.S. citizens who get touchy when U.S. policies are criticized, remember that you're only under fire (both literally and retorically) because your nation is a lot more consistent, advanced and under the spotlight than Europe, who would be under threat a lot more than it has been (remember Madrid?) if the U.S.A. didn't attract attention so much.

There has to be a better way than this for us to solve our differences. Humanity advances in giant leaps technologically, but we still don't know enough about ourselves not to behave in a troglodite fashion to solve present day complexities.

[.BatteryPoison.]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

-Afghanistan and the Taliban were both products of the CIA.

We didn't have that much influence on either to take that much credit. We bought weapons for them and gave them intellegence indirectly. They didn't believe what we did. They didn't cooperate with what we wanted them to do (we supported them because of what *they* wanted - to an extent).

The main reason we bombed them because they began beliving what the US was were telling them - that they were a powerful nation that needed indepence (tis what they told the Taliban and Bin Laden as the CIA trained and funed their troops to fight Soviet forces for Freedom).

Mmmm... I, and the former President, still think seeking justice for the bombing of the Cole was our main drive. We could give a shit less what these militans think of themselves. The US and the CIA are more focused on capabilities and actions. What they're doing, who they're harboring, all that good stuff. Not what they believe.

As for the Mujahideen back in the 80s, we bought weapons for them and took pictures with our spy satalites. That's it. We didn't train them ourselves. We didn't even deliver the weapons ourselves. That was all handled by the Pakistani ISI, as a direct link that showed the US aiding forces against the Soviets could have emense repercussions. Bin Laden set himself and his terrorist-base up. We never supplied weapons for him. We never funded him. We never trained him. He came from a billionare family in Saudi Arabia and set up 'The Base' on his own in Afghanistan. He fought the Soviets as his own force, not as part of the Mujahideen.

-"You can NOT just hand over a government to the people of Iraq at the cost of thousands of American and Iraqi lives." One word: Vietnam. They will be celebrating their indepence day this week (the day they united under communism).

We didn't hand it over as much as we just gave up. There's that, and the fact that we didn't even get that far (as Iraq) with Vietnam. The communst regime in the north was never entirely toppled at any point in time for us to have even installed a replacement government. If we were just there to hand over the government when we were done, we would have left in '64 and the communists would have easily come back and crushed the democratic government in the South (which it immediately did when we withdrew in the 70s). We knew that would happen, but at that point we didn't have any choice. The US couldn't occupy it any longer. Not with the mounting price-tag, enormous death toll, continual funding and supplying by larger Communist nations, and the tremendous anti-war sentiment that was running through all Americans at the time.

[AlKilyu]

I heart .BatteryPoison.

[Sandmanhero]

Originally Posted by WolfMoon

I'll vote Bush.He doesn't always hink before he speaks,but neither do I.

But, you're not running a country, Wolfmoon. Bush is. And i would much rather have someone like kerry in office then someone who obviuosly has no concept of self control. if you're the president of an entire nation, you should think before you speak. you should think, period.

No one ignored the middle east. the middle est has been a point of contention for decades. We tried being nice to them and making them uor allies in the 70's and early eighties. It's only when they stopped listning to us that we decided to start shit with them. For their oil. That is the bottom line. It's all for oil. And it is certainly not surprising that the two presidents that we have had that started wars with the middle east just happen to be oil tycoons. that is not a coincidence.

And as for Kerry, at least he fought in Vietnam. You go up to anyone who fought in Vietnam and 9 out of ten of them will say the exact same thing Kerry said. Does that mean that they are all hippies? No. they just had to sit and watch their brotheres and friends die at there feet. That alone would make anyone rethink there stance on war. you think the soldiers that are in irag right now want to be there? Not many do. If bush wasn't being a self serving person with this war, there would be a lot more men and women alive right now.

[Jane13]

All of this stuff about Iraq has got me thinking.... has anyone heard from The Gypsy lately?

[ice]

Nope...
I wonder whats up with him?

[Jane13]

*WAAAAA!* :cry: now I'm worried. Gypsy? Can you hear me? SAY SOMETHING!!