The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Iraq.
Don't groan, it's the start of a new week and more Middle-Eastern based hilarity (Belldandy, unless you can post under 80 words without using the words "justified" "Evil Hitler" "Stupid leftie peaceniks" and "Sept 11" then you are forbidden from replying purely on the basis that you lack the humour gene and will turn this into another dull "I like Bush" "I dont" thread and we've got plenty of those) shall ensue.
To be honest, I've stopped giving a hoot what happens between Iraq & America because let's face it - the notion that Iraq poses any threat to any nation that has access to more than pointy sticks is laughable (your "terrorist scum" mantra not withstanding, because I'd like to point out that 7 of the Sept 11th hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq).
If you take a step back from the hyperbole, media-brainwashing and bulldog rhetoric that has grown men, leaders of countries, calling each other names like playground tyrants - then you'll see the utter idiocy of the situation.
So I shall post, with no thought to politics or who's right and wrong (because there *anybody* willing to send people to their death over a territory dispute is retarded and evil) what I've seen since Bush Jr and his little oil-company puppet-masters suddenly thought "Hey, let's start some trouble with a country that's never acted aggressively towards us and poses absolutely no threat whatsoever if we kick our ball over their fence"
Remember, if you disagree or think I've got the facts wrong?
www.givea****.com
---
Bush decides to hunt down and kill Bin Laden and Al Queda for retaliation of one of the stupidest, most pointless acts of barbarism seen in the Western World.
Except he can't find him.
Because he hides in caves.
So the US sends in Seal Teams & Delta Force hardnuts. And they say "Ooo, it's a bit cold and they might have guns. We'd best just shout 'Coo-ee, Bin Laden, we've got some nice burkhas for you' and see if he comes out to play".
Nothing happens and the Seal Teams are so well-trained they dont realise it's winter.
So a well-trained, well-armed lethal killing wing of the armed forces fail to flush out and destroy a poorly armed rag-tag bunch of terrorists hiding in caves.
Saddam laughs and carries on his Evil-Hitler stuff (as he has done since he was installed with help from MI5 and The CIA in an attempt to stave off hardline Muslim rule in an already anti-western region).
Bush promises this will be "the very definition of swift justice, any country and has links to or contains cells of Al Queda will be considered an enemy of ours".
England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, The Sudan and Egypt panic because they realise they actually harbour Al Queda sympathisers, activists and receipts for weapons sold to the Bin Laden family.
Bush's advisors point out that his 1st company was set-up with the Bin Laden family back in the early 80s and that Bush Sr hosted several meetings at his Texan ranch where the Bin Ladens were documented and photographed as attending.
Bush almost chokes on pretzel and declares war on Salty-Snack, a believed terrorist sympathising conglomerate posing as food company.
This definition of swift justice is renamed "Operation Guiding Light".
Bush's bosses decide that sounds too churchy and rename it "Operation Come-Out Come-Out Wherever You Are".
This is rejected in favour of "Operation Gonna-Smash-Your-Ass" and several billions dollars is allocated to the "Massive goddamn weapons" section of The Pentagon.
This definition of swift-justice goes on for another year with zero results and a year of Colin Powell saying "No he's dead. I know it. I can feel it in ma bones", before Al Jezeer releasing tapes of Bin Laden in a cave sticking his fingers up and blowing raspberries at the camera, with several lackeys behind him on pogo-sticks and Stars and Stripes flags jammed up their butts.
Bush finally loses his temper and declares war.
On Iraq.
Saddam Hussein spits his tea out and phones his clone-a-like ministers
"What the fu-?"
"No idea boss. Perhaps it's a joke? Phone him and ask"
Hussein phones Bush "George, baby, what's the deal here? We had an agreement, I'll not invade anyone at all and you continue to bomb my country in a no-fly zone for 11 years without it even making headlines anymore. What the hell is this about?"
"Saddy, I've got to attack someone dude. I need to justify tripling the defence budget expenditure since Clinton's days."
"...bring it on Dopey"
Bush announces Evil Hitler 2 is a threat to the entire planet and is also thinking about attacking The Moon.
Slobodan Milsovec sues America, claiming he was originally Evil Hitler and that waving dude with the moustache is infringing his copyright.
Bush frequently appears in press-conferences pointing at a picture of Saddam Hussein and going "Whoooooo-oooooo" like a 3rd-rate circus ghost-train in an attempt to whip up fear and hatred for a guy that's been quietly doing his dictator thing since we last went over and killed 175,000 Iraqis before promptly buggering off and leaving the peasants to be massacred having promised to support them in an uprising.
Bush decides to launch 11,000 "newk-lee-ar" missiles at Hussein, but is wrestled to the ground by Colin Powell who sits on his chest and says "Wait, just wait. We'll get The UK to help us."
Bush sulks and refuses to come out of his bunker for a week.
Blair announces the UK will support the United States in their "war against terrorism. Except Iraq has no links to terrorism...er...but he's evil. Look at his eyes! Woooooo-ooooooo"
Saddam Hussein's miltary advisors point out that if war is inevitable, perhaps it's not wise to dispose of their weapons? Besides, they dont have an air-force and have to rely on old US weapons like The Scud.
The world's worst missile that lacks any steering capability and can be shot down by a Mujhadeen with a catapult and some grain.
The rest of the world says "Nope" when Bush tries to whip up support against "The goat-eyed dude".
The UK has the largest peaceful protest march in recorded history, despite tanks at airports (swiftly removed after the demo) and a man arrested with a hand-grenade (from Venezuala. Where 2 days previously a US spy plane had "crashed", conveniently right next to a guerilla camp).
The media would have you believe we are teetering on the brink of war, when it actual fact we are teetering on the brink of the only two English speaking nations of rich white men demanding their old ally Saddam Hussein removes all his weapons so they wont get hurt when they move in and throw him out.
--------
A massive post, sorry and I dont expect anyone to read this far.
It's just for my sake, I've been holding back on any Iraq/Al Queda/Howdy Doody President stuff for ages and I just blew my war-wad in one massive jetting stream of electric confetti.
I'm spent.
Don't groan, it's the start of a new week and more Middle-Eastern based hilarity (Belldandy, unless you can post under 80 words without using the words "justified" "Evil Hitler" "Stupid leftie peaceniks" and "Sept 11" then you are forbidden from replying purely on the basis that you lack the humour gene and will turn this into another dull "I like Bush" "I dont" thread and we've got plenty of those) shall ensue.
To be honest, I've stopped giving a hoot what happens between Iraq & America because let's face it - the notion that Iraq poses any threat to any nation that has access to more than pointy sticks is laughable (your "terrorist scum" mantra not withstanding, because I'd like to point out that 7 of the Sept 11th hijackers hailed from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan or Iraq).
If you take a step back from the hyperbole, media-brainwashing and bulldog rhetoric that has grown men, leaders of countries, calling each other names like playground tyrants - then you'll see the utter idiocy of the situation.
So I shall post, with no thought to politics or who's right and wrong (because there *anybody* willing to send people to their death over a territory dispute is retarded and evil) what I've seen since Bush Jr and his little oil-company puppet-masters suddenly thought "Hey, let's start some trouble with a country that's never acted aggressively towards us and poses absolutely no threat whatsoever if we kick our ball over their fence"
Remember, if you disagree or think I've got the facts wrong?
www.givea****.com
---
Bush decides to hunt down and kill Bin Laden and Al Queda for retaliation of one of the stupidest, most pointless acts of barbarism seen in the Western World.
Except he can't find him.
Because he hides in caves.
So the US sends in Seal Teams & Delta Force hardnuts. And they say "Ooo, it's a bit cold and they might have guns. We'd best just shout 'Coo-ee, Bin Laden, we've got some nice burkhas for you' and see if he comes out to play".
Nothing happens and the Seal Teams are so well-trained they dont realise it's winter.
So a well-trained, well-armed lethal killing wing of the armed forces fail to flush out and destroy a poorly armed rag-tag bunch of terrorists hiding in caves.
Saddam laughs and carries on his Evil-Hitler stuff (as he has done since he was installed with help from MI5 and The CIA in an attempt to stave off hardline Muslim rule in an already anti-western region).
Bush promises this will be "the very definition of swift justice, any country and has links to or contains cells of Al Queda will be considered an enemy of ours".
England, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, The Sudan and Egypt panic because they realise they actually harbour Al Queda sympathisers, activists and receipts for weapons sold to the Bin Laden family.
Bush's advisors point out that his 1st company was set-up with the Bin Laden family back in the early 80s and that Bush Sr hosted several meetings at his Texan ranch where the Bin Ladens were documented and photographed as attending.
Bush almost chokes on pretzel and declares war on Salty-Snack, a believed terrorist sympathising conglomerate posing as food company.
This definition of swift justice is renamed "Operation Guiding Light".
Bush's bosses decide that sounds too churchy and rename it "Operation Come-Out Come-Out Wherever You Are".
This is rejected in favour of "Operation Gonna-Smash-Your-Ass" and several billions dollars is allocated to the "Massive goddamn weapons" section of The Pentagon.
This definition of swift-justice goes on for another year with zero results and a year of Colin Powell saying "No he's dead. I know it. I can feel it in ma bones", before Al Jezeer releasing tapes of Bin Laden in a cave sticking his fingers up and blowing raspberries at the camera, with several lackeys behind him on pogo-sticks and Stars and Stripes flags jammed up their butts.
Bush finally loses his temper and declares war.
On Iraq.
Saddam Hussein spits his tea out and phones his clone-a-like ministers
"What the fu-?"
"No idea boss. Perhaps it's a joke? Phone him and ask"
Hussein phones Bush "George, baby, what's the deal here? We had an agreement, I'll not invade anyone at all and you continue to bomb my country in a no-fly zone for 11 years without it even making headlines anymore. What the hell is this about?"
"Saddy, I've got to attack someone dude. I need to justify tripling the defence budget expenditure since Clinton's days."
"...bring it on Dopey"
Bush announces Evil Hitler 2 is a threat to the entire planet and is also thinking about attacking The Moon.
Slobodan Milsovec sues America, claiming he was originally Evil Hitler and that waving dude with the moustache is infringing his copyright.
Bush frequently appears in press-conferences pointing at a picture of Saddam Hussein and going "Whoooooo-oooooo" like a 3rd-rate circus ghost-train in an attempt to whip up fear and hatred for a guy that's been quietly doing his dictator thing since we last went over and killed 175,000 Iraqis before promptly buggering off and leaving the peasants to be massacred having promised to support them in an uprising.
Bush decides to launch 11,000 "newk-lee-ar" missiles at Hussein, but is wrestled to the ground by Colin Powell who sits on his chest and says "Wait, just wait. We'll get The UK to help us."
Bush sulks and refuses to come out of his bunker for a week.
Blair announces the UK will support the United States in their "war against terrorism. Except Iraq has no links to terrorism...er...but he's evil. Look at his eyes! Woooooo-ooooooo"
Saddam Hussein's miltary advisors point out that if war is inevitable, perhaps it's not wise to dispose of their weapons? Besides, they dont have an air-force and have to rely on old US weapons like The Scud.
The world's worst missile that lacks any steering capability and can be shot down by a Mujhadeen with a catapult and some grain.
The rest of the world says "Nope" when Bush tries to whip up support against "The goat-eyed dude".
The UK has the largest peaceful protest march in recorded history, despite tanks at airports (swiftly removed after the demo) and a man arrested with a hand-grenade (from Venezuala. Where 2 days previously a US spy plane had "crashed", conveniently right next to a guerilla camp).
The media would have you believe we are teetering on the brink of war, when it actual fact we are teetering on the brink of the only two English speaking nations of rich white men demanding their old ally Saddam Hussein removes all his weapons so they wont get hurt when they move in and throw him out.
--------
A massive post, sorry and I dont expect anyone to read this far.
It's just for my sake, I've been holding back on any Iraq/Al Queda/Howdy Doody President stuff for ages and I just blew my war-wad in one massive jetting stream of electric confetti.
I'm spent.
Page:
I reckon Belldandy and Goaty have got the hots for each other. It's so obvious.
Star Fury wrote:
> Er go read the news properly, he's allegedly the guy who PLANNED it,
> Bin Laden financed it and was involved in planning, but this guy was
> the brains, Bin Laden's the money and the inspiration.
'Scuse me? So what you're saying is this:
New guy (Hamed bin Mohamed or something) = planner
bin Laden = financier and "involved in planning"
New guy also = the brains
bin Laden also = the money and the inspiration.
Sorry for getting that confused, you've obviously got it down. Come on, at least make sure your own wires aren't crossed before attempting to dismiss anyone else's arguments.
> Er go read the news properly, he's allegedly the guy who PLANNED it,
> Bin Laden financed it and was involved in planning, but this guy was
> the brains, Bin Laden's the money and the inspiration.
'Scuse me? So what you're saying is this:
New guy (Hamed bin Mohamed or something) = planner
bin Laden = financier and "involved in planning"
New guy also = the brains
bin Laden also = the money and the inspiration.
Sorry for getting that confused, you've obviously got it down. Come on, at least make sure your own wires aren't crossed before attempting to dismiss anyone else's arguments.
I'm not sure if we should or shouldn't go to war. I neither know a lot about the situation, nor express a huge interest, influenced by the fact that the whole population is cynical agreement that we're going to war whether we like it or not. Fact is, we probably are (Slightly hypocritical there, I know).
What I do find shocking is that the march and votes from Blair's labour party have been entirely ignored by Blair, despite making front pages and talking points around the country. Yet still, many people have been heavily influenced by the media's opinion, in both ways.
And another thing that irritates me:
"If we don't go to war then there will be a lot more terrorist attacks!"
Ooh look! We didn't go to war! Ooh look! There were just 50 attacks at once!
Before this whole war with Ira1 recently began, there wasn't a high amount of terrorism. Yes, terrorist attacks might decrease if we bomb Iraq, but Iraq have friends. And its not as if all terrorism comes from the same place (as mentioned by someone else earlier).
War is bad. People die (dur...). But things would be, truth be told, a bit easier if Saddamm was ridden of. Yet war on Iraq won't necessarily rid Saddamm. The question is: How else can we get him successfully?
What I do find shocking is that the march and votes from Blair's labour party have been entirely ignored by Blair, despite making front pages and talking points around the country. Yet still, many people have been heavily influenced by the media's opinion, in both ways.
And another thing that irritates me:
"If we don't go to war then there will be a lot more terrorist attacks!"
Ooh look! We didn't go to war! Ooh look! There were just 50 attacks at once!
Before this whole war with Ira1 recently began, there wasn't a high amount of terrorism. Yes, terrorist attacks might decrease if we bomb Iraq, but Iraq have friends. And its not as if all terrorism comes from the same place (as mentioned by someone else earlier).
War is bad. People die (dur...). But things would be, truth be told, a bit easier if Saddamm was ridden of. Yet war on Iraq won't necessarily rid Saddamm. The question is: How else can we get him successfully?
It's up to the security council to approve an attack. There are 5 permanent members (UK, US, France, Russia, China), all of whom have the power of veto. The remaining members are elected yearly (I seem to recall that there are another 4, so 9 in total). Basically, if the US and UK could get a majority, AND persuade France, Russia, and China not to veto the second resolution, then an attack will have UN backing.
And history teaches us that it IS important to have the UN in place; if they are ignored for the "best" reasons, who has the moral authority to tell a powerful dictator that they should obey the mandate of the UN? The League of Nations (UN precursor) collapsed due to America having nothing to do with it. That led to WWII. I'd prefer not to have WWIII happening for exactly the same reasons.
And history teaches us that it IS important to have the UN in place; if they are ignored for the "best" reasons, who has the moral authority to tell a powerful dictator that they should obey the mandate of the UN? The League of Nations (UN precursor) collapsed due to America having nothing to do with it. That led to WWII. I'd prefer not to have WWIII happening for exactly the same reasons.
Unbeliever wrote:
> And to ignore the UN and "go it alone" is contrary to the
> manifesto of the UN. It was established to set up a series of
> procedures and regulations in the event of justifiable action. If one
> country is prepared to bypass this in a blatant case of double
> standards (see my Hypocrisy In War post in this forum) then how can it
> be a truly democratic process?
You can't argue with that, but there are always going to be double standards. After all, I haven't had any nice chap in a blue beret knock on my door to ask about my hall of nukes.
To be honest, I don't know enough about how the UN works to comment, but it seems a little easy for people to make a joke out of the whole system and waste a lot of time.
I always thought the point of the United Nations is that the Nations would be United in their decisions. Everyone would vote, and then everyone would back the decision and the outcomes of that vote regardless of how the voted originally.
It's a little hard to see Iraq backing a motion to declare war on Iraq, isn't it.
Or have I gotten something wrong there?
> And to ignore the UN and "go it alone" is contrary to the
> manifesto of the UN. It was established to set up a series of
> procedures and regulations in the event of justifiable action. If one
> country is prepared to bypass this in a blatant case of double
> standards (see my Hypocrisy In War post in this forum) then how can it
> be a truly democratic process?
You can't argue with that, but there are always going to be double standards. After all, I haven't had any nice chap in a blue beret knock on my door to ask about my hall of nukes.
To be honest, I don't know enough about how the UN works to comment, but it seems a little easy for people to make a joke out of the whole system and waste a lot of time.
I always thought the point of the United Nations is that the Nations would be United in their decisions. Everyone would vote, and then everyone would back the decision and the outcomes of that vote regardless of how the voted originally.
It's a little hard to see Iraq backing a motion to declare war on Iraq, isn't it.
Or have I gotten something wrong there?
Goatboy wrote:
> My own personal belief is that the Iraq situation may be necessary,
> but the reasons offered and the proof does not at this time merit the
> course of action.
Agreed
> To link Iraq with Sept 11th is wrong, as no mention was even made of
> any connection until Bush got a hardon for Iraq.
Agreed
> I feel this situation is unavoidable and that the actions of America
> will only serve to destabilise the region further and cause
> generations of future anti-western hate.
Agreed, possibly, depending on whether Saddam is overthrown and what sort of a hand the west has in installing a new regieme.
The way I see it until 9/11 America was pretty much impregnable and screw anyone outside of the land of the free. Suddenly everything changes.
Now perhaps firmer action should have been taken when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, but then no one with enough power to do anything was interested, so Saddam got away scot free.
Now that America is gunning for war it seems like maybe we can use there new interest to get some thing done that should've been done a long time ago.
That's pretty much how I see it. I guess I'm saying I agree our premis for war, and not America's, but without America there is no war at all.
> My own personal belief is that the Iraq situation may be necessary,
> but the reasons offered and the proof does not at this time merit the
> course of action.
Agreed
> To link Iraq with Sept 11th is wrong, as no mention was even made of
> any connection until Bush got a hardon for Iraq.
Agreed
> I feel this situation is unavoidable and that the actions of America
> will only serve to destabilise the region further and cause
> generations of future anti-western hate.
Agreed, possibly, depending on whether Saddam is overthrown and what sort of a hand the west has in installing a new regieme.
The way I see it until 9/11 America was pretty much impregnable and screw anyone outside of the land of the free. Suddenly everything changes.
Now perhaps firmer action should have been taken when Saddam threw the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, but then no one with enough power to do anything was interested, so Saddam got away scot free.
Now that America is gunning for war it seems like maybe we can use there new interest to get some thing done that should've been done a long time ago.
That's pretty much how I see it. I guess I'm saying I agree our premis for war, and not America's, but without America there is no war at all.
Yep. That's true. I can understand people wanting to go to war but first they have to have justifiable reasons for doing so.
And to ignore the UN and "go it alone" is contrary to the manifesto of the UN. It was established to set up a series of procedures and regulations in the event of justifiable action. If one country is prepared to bypass this in a blatant case of double standards (see my Hypocrisy In War post in this forum) then how can it be a truly democratic process?
And to ignore the UN and "go it alone" is contrary to the manifesto of the UN. It was established to set up a series of procedures and regulations in the event of justifiable action. If one country is prepared to bypass this in a blatant case of double standards (see my Hypocrisy In War post in this forum) then how can it be a truly democratic process?
I dont personally agree with 100% of your points, but I can see why you feel like that and that's cool.
My own personal belief is that the Iraq situation may be necessary, but the reasons offered and the proof does not at this time merit the course of action.
To link Iraq with Sept 11th is wrong, as no mention was even made of any connection until Bush got a hardon for Iraq.
I feel this situation is unavoidable and that the actions of America will only serve to destabilise the region further and cause generations of future anti-western hate.
My own personal belief is that the Iraq situation may be necessary, but the reasons offered and the proof does not at this time merit the course of action.
To link Iraq with Sept 11th is wrong, as no mention was even made of any connection until Bush got a hardon for Iraq.
I feel this situation is unavoidable and that the actions of America will only serve to destabilise the region further and cause generations of future anti-western hate.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before I felt the need to add a post about the current situation with Iraq.
Now, I'm not a politician. I know that my knowledge of the situation is limited to say the very least, but I do think that there should be a war, and the sooner the better.
The problem I have is that the war that the americans want, and when I say americans I really mean the likes of George Dub-ya and Colin Powell, seems to be for all the wrong reasons.
This war seems to just be an extension of the war on terror, but I haven't seen any tangible evidence of a link between the two. The war on terror was war that america was never going to win. As far as I can see this is a war that Iraq can only lose, and America need to kick somebodys butt, why not Saddam's.
9/11 was a terrible thing. America had no choice but to retaliate in some way, but as with most acts of revenge, overturning the Taliban in Afghanistan seemed like a fairly empty act. Especially with the possibility that Bin Laden is still alive and well.
Now he's finished with that rather unsuccessfully he's gunning for Saddam, but he doesn't really have any great reason to do so, apart from the fact that they don't particularly get on, so he's looking for allies and for excuses to go to war. I don't think that you should have to look so hard for an excuse for war.
The reasons for this war should have been addressed when Iraq was disarming under the supervision of UN weapons inspectors, and when those inspectors were thrown out of Iraq.
I guess what I am saying is that if Saddam doesn't do more to comply with the UN resolutions that have been imposed then we do have 'cause for war, but that I don't believe that that is why the Americans want to wage war on Iraq. Meanwhile, as we prepare for war the economy is getting screwed. Stocks are down, public spending is dropping and employers are reluctant to take people on.
I know I'm in a minority of the public, actually feeling that we should go to war, but I know enough to know that I don't know all the fact. I know that war is a terrible thing. I know innocent people most probably will be killed in the name of war, but I know that sometimes these things cannot be avoided.
I know this post seems a bit of a muddle, and I'm sure people with have things to say about what I have said. To sum it up I guess I could say that while war is a terrible thing, it seems inevitable. If we are going to go to war it should be sooner rather than later. I agree with the war with Iraq, but I do not agree with America's motives for war.
Comments?
Now, I'm not a politician. I know that my knowledge of the situation is limited to say the very least, but I do think that there should be a war, and the sooner the better.
The problem I have is that the war that the americans want, and when I say americans I really mean the likes of George Dub-ya and Colin Powell, seems to be for all the wrong reasons.
This war seems to just be an extension of the war on terror, but I haven't seen any tangible evidence of a link between the two. The war on terror was war that america was never going to win. As far as I can see this is a war that Iraq can only lose, and America need to kick somebodys butt, why not Saddam's.
9/11 was a terrible thing. America had no choice but to retaliate in some way, but as with most acts of revenge, overturning the Taliban in Afghanistan seemed like a fairly empty act. Especially with the possibility that Bin Laden is still alive and well.
Now he's finished with that rather unsuccessfully he's gunning for Saddam, but he doesn't really have any great reason to do so, apart from the fact that they don't particularly get on, so he's looking for allies and for excuses to go to war. I don't think that you should have to look so hard for an excuse for war.
The reasons for this war should have been addressed when Iraq was disarming under the supervision of UN weapons inspectors, and when those inspectors were thrown out of Iraq.
I guess what I am saying is that if Saddam doesn't do more to comply with the UN resolutions that have been imposed then we do have 'cause for war, but that I don't believe that that is why the Americans want to wage war on Iraq. Meanwhile, as we prepare for war the economy is getting screwed. Stocks are down, public spending is dropping and employers are reluctant to take people on.
I know I'm in a minority of the public, actually feeling that we should go to war, but I know enough to know that I don't know all the fact. I know that war is a terrible thing. I know innocent people most probably will be killed in the name of war, but I know that sometimes these things cannot be avoided.
I know this post seems a bit of a muddle, and I'm sure people with have things to say about what I have said. To sum it up I guess I could say that while war is a terrible thing, it seems inevitable. If we are going to go to war it should be sooner rather than later. I agree with the war with Iraq, but I do not agree with America's motives for war.
Comments?
I don't think I need to add anything more to what Goatboy said. I'm fairly sure he's aware of the stance I take on this pathetic excuse of a war and, as such, disagree with whatever Belldandy says unless he can back up his arguments with lucid thoughts.
Page: