|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted August 22, 2009 10:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh brother there are rules in war to protect our image from other countries & the United nation.
If there was no rules we probally would be at WW8 by now lol.
I'm not sure about the purpose of your post there, but that "lol" is on you, because it is exactly the other way round: If there WERE any rules (still), we'd be at WW8 now.
However, with the destruction of the whole planet being a possibility, all bets are off.
You see, AFTER the 2nd WW, the US made it their POLICY to make the Russians believe that they would NOT keep to the rules: an attack on any NATO country would be countered as deemed appropriate, and that explicitely included the use of nuclear weapons.
RULES would have made it necessary to counter a CONVENTIONAL assault with conventional means - but the NATO simply declared those rules invalid.
Whether it worked or not would depend on whether the Russians really wanted to invade Western Europe, but fact is that there was no WW3, and that was because rule were OFF
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 10:35 AM |
|
|
Well if the wars dont kill the planet, the Ozone will 
Every country has to protect them selves & what they believe in.
History comes into effect & sometimes things dont change on what they believe in.
Some countries hated other specific countries for many yrs.
That you can never change.
It's not just America but many other countries.
Why do you think people want to go to Canada
Even the Draft Dodgers went to Canada.
I believe that 90% of Canadians are really Americans
Pandasia with love of course
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 02:51 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 14:58, 22 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
Shyranis
Quote:
Why are you insulting me? First Elodin insults me and calls me a racist in the healthcare thread, now you do too?
Elodin
Quote:
Untrue. I said you made some racist statments and you did.
Shyranis
Quote:
Actually, I'm mistaken. NOW you're directly insulting me by saying I was racist.
Elodin
Quote:
Previously you had more sense and I apologize for accidentally mis-characterizing what you previously said.
Shyranis
Quote:
NOW you're breaking the COC.
No, I did what the COC says to do. I refered to your comments, not to you. I did not say "You are a racist." I said your comments were racist.
Shyranis
Quote:
He's also only talking to his audience of rich white people when he specifically mentions them fleeing Europe.
I showed that statement to be false from Beck's book sales, radio show audience share, and TV audience share. After that you modified your statement to the below.
Shyranis
Quote:
Beck was still only addressing the white portion of his audience by specifically mentioning Europe and not Asia and Africa as well. Also it's known that many poor white people tune into his shows as well as Fox is their only source of information.
That sure looks like a racist statment to me.
Shyranis
Quote:
If you have to personally attack people that disagree with you, it may not even be worth having a conversation with you at all.
Please stop falsely accusing me of things. You falsely accused me of insulting you and calling you a racist in your previous statments and now you are falsely accusing me of attacking you in this statment. I am addressing your statments, not calling you names. If I criticize your statments I am not attacking you.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 04:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
War means, that there is nothing left to talk about anymore, and starting a war is AGAINST ALL RULES, so why accept rules for a war at all? Note that this is true for both parties in a war: if there is a clear aggressor - why would he keep to any rules, he broke all important ones already by starting a war? And the defender? Why would they keep to any rule being attacked?
You have to understand that, just as LAW ENFORCEMENT doesn't "break the rules" by aggressing criminals (or at least stopping them) because they already broke at the rules! So can war in some cases.
And mind you, criminals don't need to kill or aggress anyone -- they can just steal and law enforcement would STILL be "just", at least to most people. It doesn't break the rules because the 'rules' have already been broken.
Even for aggressors in a war: if he is that way because of something that the target did, then I wouldn't necessarily call it breaking all rules.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 05:54 PM |
|
|
That's because within a state there IS a law and there IS a law inforcement, but if something like that isn't between states then there are no rules.
That's why I concluded what I concluded.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 08:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Please stop falsely accusing me of things. You falsely accused me of insulting you and calling you a racist in your previous statments and now you are falsely accusing me of attacking you in this statment.
It was more misguided than false, I have also apologized in the other thread. I could argue your statements sound like such and such, but I will simply respect your viewpoints.
BTW. Can a person be racist against their own blood?
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 09:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
BTW. Can a person be racist against their own blood?
Obama is part black and part white. He identifies himself as black and seems to have some racial attitudes towards whites.
He has said such things as "white folks greed runs a world in need" and "typical white person." If a white person had said similar things the media would decry them as racist.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 10:13 PM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 00:22, 23 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
He has said such things as "white folks greed runs a world in need" and "typical white person." If a white person had said similar things the media would decry them as racist.
Those statements certainly sound much stronger than anything I said.
What if the white person, who also identifies him/herself as white was saying things about white people?
Racism is a perceptual thing. Often the person accusing somebody of racism appears racist themselves. It's a double-edged sword.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted August 22, 2009 11:31 PM |
|
|
Well a Sista can say those things about white people
I think with Beck, it's hard not to get over opinionated.
Sometimes things may seem racist but with some of Becks comments.
I think you should look at the truth Elodin.
Speaking the truth does not make you a racist.
You should learn to choose your words wisely dude.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 23, 2009 03:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What if the white person, who also identifies him/herself as white was saying things about white people?
Racism is a perceptual thing. Often the person accusing somebody of racism appears racist themselves. It's a double-edged sword.
A person can make a racist statment and not be a racist. For example, one may say something in anger trying to goad someone. Or one may "mispeak" or say something they haven't clearly thought out.
Yes, things that are not racist can appear to be racist to someone. They misunderstnd the stament, not understand the context of the statement, or have a chip on thier shoulder, "looking to be offended."
We see in the media people being called a racist because they say Obama's policies are socialist. But saying Obama is a socialist or has socialist policies has nothing to do with race. It has to do with his political idealogies and actions.
There are certain people in politics who base their career on playing the race card. I would classify Jesee Jackson and Al Sharpton as being among those. Howard Dean is constantly calling everyone who opposes Obama's policies a racist.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
|
As I mentioned, calling people racist can cause people to also percieve the person making the accusation as such.
Calling policies socialist isn't racism, I definitely agree. There are better founded words to use to describe that (or most) criticism (or anything).
The only problem is that people will be able to get away with playing the "race card" as long as oppressionist groups like neo-nazis and the KKK exist. If we can find a way to wean more people away from those groups, the "race card" will lose its power.
Politics should be based more on a person's policy, rather than race, religion or class. Too bad politicians (on both sides) are too petty to stop flinging mud and provide talking points for the media and their more drastically loyal supporters to parrot. Sad world really.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
antipaladin
Promising
Legendary Hero
of Ooohs and Aaahs
|
|
posted August 23, 2009 03:47 PM |
|
|
a person can be racisst to hes own people if he finds it helpfull. i've seen it as working with arabic people that look down on other arabs,doesn't metter if they lie' about it they will say it if they thing it helps them in the long run. not that it does tough. and not that they live bad. infact many arabs in the villiages live much much better then israelites in the city. they build they're own houses which means they dont pay morgeg. at all.
they hold most of the market in the construction area.
____________
types in obscure english
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 23, 2009 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's because within a state there IS a law and there IS a law inforcement, but if something like that isn't between states then there are no rules.
That's why I concluded what I concluded.
I understand what you're saying but let me get an example (silly but anyway).
There are two nations, A and B, and A says that they should stop broadcasting cartoons on TVs (lol ). B agrees and signs it, saying that there will be consequences otherwise.
After some time B starts broadcasting it, and doesn't respond or doesn't care about A's objections. Then A declares war on B. So not all wars "break all rules".
(if you included this case in your post I seem to have missed it, sorry for that).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 23, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
n your example, if there was a law, a court and a law inforcement B would go to court and claim that A broke a treaty. Then the court would examinate the case and make a decision.
If there is nothing along those lines, then there are only those rules both (or all) parties agree upon and keep. In such a situation, no matter the actual trigger for the beginning of armed hostilities, either the attacker thinks that there can be no more peaceful settlement (or agreement) with the attacked, and if there is no agreement there is no rule either - or the attacked sees that the attacker starts invading their country and killing people which means the same.
In other words, with a war in effect, all agreements between the combattants are off, therefore there are no rules.
This was a bit different in earlier times, before armies were recruited from the people, when a little war was more game-like.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 12:29 AM |
|
|
As always I come late to the party
I've just about had enough of this far right gibberish of yours Elodin.
As Great Britain's Attorney General so eloquently said years ago in the Downing street memos, there are three legal justifications to invading another country.
1. Self-Defense.
2. Humanitarian.
3. United Nations Security Council Resolution.
Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any of the above 3. Hence, it was an illegal invasion.
Let's take a look at some of what you've written here.
Quote:
The US was not an agressor nation conquering Iraq. The US was taking war to terrorists. The US and Iraqi forces have been fighting side by side for some time.
Taking the war to the terrorists? That's funny. The terrorists we wanted were in Afghanistan, not in Iraq. Saddam couldn't care less for Bin Laden and his cronies. His government was a secular one and had no interest in dealing with jyhadists.
Quote:
The US had numerous reasons to invade Iraq. Iraq had invaded Kwait and been defeated by the US. Saddam was not living up to the terms of surrender. Also, Sadaam was telling eveyone he had WMS. He was alos a mass murderer. He also supported and financed terrorists. He also refused to abide by US resolutions and kicked inspectors out of the country.
Good lord. What did Iraq's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990 have to do with our invasion of it in 2003? Saddam wasn't living up to the terms of his surrender?
Scott Ritter, a former marine and a UN weapons inspector, will disagree with you there. The fact is that Iraq's WMDs were dismantled long before we invaded. None were found by David Kay and his successors. So please stop lying on this point. Iraq HAD NO WMDS. I watched the bozos at FOX News writhe around this point and swear that all of Saddam's weapons were buried in the deserts of Syria and that it would be only a matter of time before they were found.
Still waiting.
The truth is that Donald Rumsfeld always felt he had unfinished business in Iraq. That's why the day after 9/11 he was quoted as saying, "We have to find a way to tie Iraq to this."
That's why the Office of Special Planning was conceived. Their job was to data mine old intelligence and look for any and every possible link between Saddam and Al-Queda. And since there wasn't any, they lied.
Corribus, chiding this one to get his facts straight seems to be an exercise in futility. The truth is, his authorities don't get their facts straight. How the hell is he expected to when he's quoting them?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 01:27 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:30, 26 Aug 2009.
|
@ The_Gootch
Quote:
I've just about had enough of this far right gibberish of yours Elodin.
I will try to be more civil in my response that your post was to me.
My arguments are not far right or gibberish. My points are common sense and fact.
Quote:
Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any of the above 3. Hence, it was an illegal invasion.
I'm sorry, but you need to review the facts. Saddam had been refusing to abide by UN resolutions, so yes, he did violate point number three that you listed. Please try to do some research before you make claims.
Besides that, who is the British Attorney General to dictate when a war is justified or not?
Oh, points one and two were also valid reasons for the war in Iraq. The US was responding to a terrorist action. Saddam was a well known sponsor of terrorism. Please refer to links I have prreviously given that prove that fact. Also, Saddam was known as "the Butcher of Bagdad" and committed many atrocities including mass murder so there was also a humanitarian reason.
So all three points you listed were valid reasons for taking action in Iraq. So before calling someone else's arguments gibberish you should do some research.
Quote:
Taking the war to the terrorists? That's funny.
The US soldiers have been fighting side by side with Iraqi forces against terrorists. Again, your seeming lack of knowledge of the facts has lead you to a false conclusion.
Quote:
Good lord. What did Iraq's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990 have to do with our invasion of it in 2003? Saddam wasn't living up to the terms of his surrender?
Yes. You seem to be unaware that he constantly violated UN resolutions and refused to allow unrestricted inspections.
Quote:
The fact is that Iraq's WMDs were dismantled long before we invaded. None were found by David Kay and his successors. So please stop lying on this point.
Please don't accuse me of lying when I did not. I never said WMDs were found. I did say Saddam claimed to still have WMDs and linked to the 60 minute program that proves that. Saddam lied about still having WMDs to project an appearance of having more power than he had to intimidate other nations in the area.
Quote:
I watched the bozos at FOX News ....
It is sad that you insult those you disagree with.
Quote:
Corribus, chiding this one to get his facts straight seems to be an exercise in futility.
Please stop making negative comments about me. Address my comments and offer proof to back up your claims.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 01:49 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Besides that, who is the British Attorney General to dictate when a war is justified or not?
Who is America to dictate when a war is justified or not?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 02:02 AM |
|
|
|
When did I list a statment about American dictating when others can have a justifiable war? Gootch listed the British Attorney General's comments as though he is some sort of moral authority for the world about when a war can be conducted with justification. But it so happenst that America met all three of his points for justification in the war in Iraq.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 04:03 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 04:09, 26 Aug 2009.
|
Quote:
@ The_Gootch
Quote:
I've just about had enough of this far right gibberish of yours Elodin.
I will try to be more civil in my response that your post was to me.
My arguments are not far right or gibberish. My points are common sense and fact.
He was a little harsh, and i agree there was ever so slight aslight justification for the war, but it still was not even close to appropriate at that moment in time. There were other nations far more deserving and far more terrifying in power that have committed far worse and were overlooked simply for the purpose of a vendetta. Iraq should not have been a priority as it was relatively powerless, as most of the world knew, as the bureaucrats who lied to their people and (probably) their own President knew.
I mean, do you go after the madman with the network that has continually tried to chip away at America and drawn many innocent people's blood directly already, or do you go for the little man in the sandbox pretending his sharpened sticks are ICBMs? There are far worse abuses than the ones committed by Saddam, and having him in place even helped keep Iran in check. Saddam's whole reason for bluffing about WMDs was to keep Iran from invading again. (I've already linked a similar article)
Because a second war was started, because Iraq's secular but authoritarian government, Americans and British (and Japanese, Spanish, some other forces that chose to follow for a while) abandoned Afhganistan to topple a dictator and take his place fighting the same people he used to, only now they are "terrorists" and not merely insurgents or "freedom fighters". Other than the Al-Qaeda that has popped up in Iraq because of the increased interest in recruitment due to the occupation, the larger amount of "terrorists" are in fact, just people that want their country back.
Because of the distraction that was Iraq, because focus wasn't even put on Bin Laden right away, he got away and so many news organizations are saying that we are losing Afghanistan. (that's 6 out of many reputable sources)
All because some government bureaucrats decided it would be for their political gain to make America lose two wars rather than win one.
America and Britain ran off to play in the gulf and left Canada landlocked with a much smaller force and expected to win against a growing insurgency without even proper support. Good job Rumsfeld.
Quote:
Quote:
Our invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with any of the above 3. Hence, it was an illegal invasion.
I'm sorry, but you need to review the facts. Saddam had been refusing to abide by UN resolutions, so yes, he did violate point number three that you listed. Please try to do some research before you make claims.
Point number 3 is a UN resolution to invade, not him breaking UN resolutions. One was not made yet because he was considered small compared to so many other monsters with legitimate threat to the world at large.
Why kick a chihuahua puppy yipping at your heels when a full grown rottweiler (sp?) is coming back at you after tearing a chunk out of your left shoulder?
Quote:
Oh, points one and two were also valid reasons for the war in Iraq. The US was responding to a terrorist action. Saddam was a well known sponsor of terrorism. Please refer to links I have prreviously given that prove that fact. Also, Saddam was known as "the Butcher of Bagdad" and committed many atrocities including mass murder so there was also a humanitarian reason.
Iraq was not self defense. Saddam did not have the power to target Americans, which has been proven. Saddam was weak, losing control in his own country, and even most Congressional Republicans (under Dick Army) were against the invasion. So self defense is off the table.
I do agree that he was committing human rights violations. But Iraq doesn't do nearly the amount of terrorism and rights abuses as nations like North Korea, China, Laos, many african blood product countries, etc. Why not go after the big dogs? Right... they can fight back, and every President ever has been too afraid to actually make a real difference fighting a real enemy with real teeth since the Korean war.
So all three points you listed were valid reasons for taking action in Iraq. So before calling someone else's arguments gibberish you should do some research.
Quote:
Quote:
Taking the war to the terrorists? That's funny.
The US soldiers have been fighting side by side with Iraqi forces against terrorists. Again, your seeming lack of knowledge of the facts has lead you to a false conclusion.
As mentioned earlier, yes some of them are terrorists. But the rest are nationalists that want their own country free of foreign intervention. The numbers of actual terrorists in Iraq were comparitively low compared to for example, Saudi Arabia. Which is where the majority of the 9/11 Hijackers and the original Al Qaeda came from.
Quote:
Quote:
Good lord. What did Iraq's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990 have to do with our invasion of it in 2003? Saddam wasn't living up to the terms of his surrender?
Yes. You seem to be unaware that he constantly violated UN resolutions and refused to allow unrestricted inspections.
He violated a few, but went along with the majority of restrictions. Most of what he did was fearmongering, because he was afraid of an Islamist takeover from Iran. He actually followed the resolution that said weapons inspectors had to be allowed in, though he did place pointless restrictions on some. It's not like that Hans Blix scene from Team America. (that last link is NSFW) The inspectors and the UN in general based on the evidence that was gathered at the time, was convinced (correctly) that Saddam was only stalling to try to keep his illusion of strength up.
Sadly, the US and Britain broke UN resolutions by attacking Iraq also, making the war illegal. Therefore, unethical. Israel breaks tons of UN resolutions, and are they targetted? No, (and I'm not saying it should be mind you, not violently anyway. Violence leads to more violence and extremism.) because it's only convenient to pay attention to illegal actions of small countries that can't defend themselves, have some valuable commodity, and can win extra political clout temporarily. The bureaucrats guiding the Bush Whitehouse are not the only ones to do this mind you. I thought I read in another thread here about how only the Serbian slavs were targetted for committing genocide when it was fairly common in the rest of former Yugoslavia? That was Clinton's bureaucratic advisors' act of convenient ignorance.
Quote:
Quote:
The fact is that Iraq's WMDs were dismantled long before we invaded. None were found by David Kay and his successors. So please stop lying on this point.
Please don't accuse me of lying when I did not. I never said WMDs were found. I did say Saddam claimed to still have WMDs and linked to the 60 minute program that proves that. Saddam lied about still having WMDs to project an appearance of having more power than he had to intimidate other nations in the area.
It's true, you were not lying (perhaps slightly misinformed or lied to, but definitely not lying). You didn't say Iraq had WMDs, which is true, and I've already linked several times other articles through this thread showing Saddam was a paper tiger. So yes, we agree 100% on this point (as opposed to the other random percentages that pop up on various points. Afterall we live in free nations that let us have out own opinions and I salute you for at least saying yours. Even if some appear misguided to a good number of people I'm sure a lot of people disagree with some things I say too. Back to the point... yes, Democracy is good and you weren't lying.
Quote:
Quote:
I watched the bozos at FOX News ....
It is sad that you insult those you disagree with.
True, that is an immature attitude. Replace "bozos" with "people" and the point of newspeople who were mislead by power hungry bureaucrats gets across well enough. =D
Quote:
Quote:
Corribus, chiding this one to get his facts straight seems to be an exercise in futility.
Please stop making negative comments about me. Address my comments and offer proof to back up your claims.
Agreed again, he should have refuted your points with as many links as possible...
I looked so hard but it is neigh impossible to find a somewhat reputable website with any semblance of a list of resolutions Saddam had broken. I tried to agree with you on him breaking resolutions, but all I could find was stuff on him bending them by delaying weapons inspectors.
Anyway, I'm sure The Gootch didn't mean to be disrespectful in his tone. He wouldn't have so many stars I'm sure if he went around insulting people who disagreed with him, so he must have been rather tired or something... I'd hope at least. Let's all keep this civil ^_^
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted August 26, 2009 04:08 AM |
- penalty applied by Mytical on 26 Aug 2009. |
Edited by Mytical at 07:39, 26 Aug 2009.
|
Don't ever breathe the word facts with me. Facts are sacred. To you and your ilk that watch FOX News? They're punchlines.
Violating UN resolutions doesn't give other nations carte blanche to invade. Otherwise, Israel would have been wiped off the map by now. What I wrote, and clearly you didn't understand, was that a legal justification for war has to come from the United Nations Security Council. They didn't grant it.
Let's quote the Memos themselves.
"The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change."
You're asking me who the British Attorney General is to say who we can and cannot attack? It's simple. Our leaders were over in England looking for a legal justification for the war you <unkind noun deleted>.
Let's take another block from the Memos. This is the smoking gun.
"Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Let's take a look and reread the key sentence. Remember that the memo was dated July 23 2002.
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
So, self-defense? Iraq was no threat to us, directly or indirectly. Don't believe me? Here's another bit from the memo.
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
As far as the Humanitarian angle is concerned, your argument does not wash. There are much worse regimes in the world who do terrible things to their people. Also, we've always known he was a bad guy. Remember, he was once our best friend...our bastion against the mongrel horde of Iranians, or Persians as he disdainfully called them.* A legal Humanitarian claim would have been an invasion of Rawanda back in 1994.
No. It seems more like Saddam just wanted to retire in peace. And he was trying to tell us, "Hey look. Who else is going to keep these <expletive deleted> in line? That guy Moqtada Al-Sadr giving you problems? Let me handle him. I know what to do with that <expletive deleted>. Don't forget, I killed his <expletive deleted> father."
*Author's Note: I personally don't condone the calling of the Iranian people mongrels. I have seen their women. I now understand why they need to be veiled in public. They are that hot.
Gootch, I do respect you, and you are one of the best posters we have. Please remember to tone it down a tad?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
