Dangerous Submersive Reporting For Lynching

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
I don't like George Bush, don't believe he was ever elected

---

George W. Bush/Richard Cheney - 271 electoral votes
Albert Gore/Joseph Lieberman - 266 electoral votes

These are the only votes that count in our system.

Also not the first time a President has lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote:

- In 1888 Grover Cleveland had 100,456 more votes than Benjamin Harrison but lost the electoral vote (and the Presidency) 233-168.

- In 1876 Samuel Tilden had 264,292 more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes, but Hayes won the electoral college 185-184. This was an interesting election because the electoral votes in 4 states were ruled invalid and the election was Constitutionally deferred to the Senate electoral commission. The commission was split 7-6 in favor of Hayes and the deciding vote came from a junior Senator who recieved thousands of death threats before the final vote. Talk about a controversial election!!!

- In 1824 John Quincy Adams (son of previous President John Adams) lost BOTH the popular vote (108,740 - 153,544) AND the electoral vote (84-99) but still won the Presidency on by a vote in the House of Representatives.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam I honestly believe he is doing it for oil and not for any other reason.

---

This argument is specious at best. The reality is that Iraq's reserves represent less than 3% of the world's estimated total reserves. Besides, what is wrong with having an ally in the petroleum world to help keep the OPEC nations in check when they try to pressure us by closing their spiggots? People can make all the arguments they want about the evils of fossil fuels and internal combustion engines, but the reality is that we are a nation that depends on oil to function and anything that threatens our access to oil threatens our economic stability and national security.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone2903
In this case (IRAK) the US invaded on the pretention Sadam was helping El-Quaida ( no real proof of that was ever submitted) AND he had WMD, including chems and nukes.
So far, I think the 101AB has found a can of Raid, but no nukes.

Grant you, Sadam is a nutcase.

---

proof

proof

The information that Colin Powell provided to the UN Security Council on 2 February has gone unrefuted. Even the Iraqis have been silent in response.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone2903
Ok lets take that 1 at the time:

In this case (IRAK) the US invaded on the pretention Sadam was helping El-Quaida ( no real proof of that was ever submitted) AND he had WMD, including chems and nukes.
So far, I think the 101AB has found a can of Raid, but no nukes.

Why ? Youre saying you have to impose your own values on a culturally, legally and spiritually different civilisation, wheter they want it or not ?

BTW, that is EXACTLY what the US was saying AGAINST the now deceased USSR.

They have been at war (one sort or the other) for more than 6000 years. The real problems started after 1945 when the UN (under pressure from the US) created the state of Israel.
As to who is right, does it really matter ?
When a mortar pierce trough you roof and explode on your baby's crib, do you really want to know why and how it started ? - Either you go for revenge (killing somebody else baby) or you start looking for peace. Problem is a lot of people want revenge before the peace, so....

So there is only 1 way, 1 god, 1 culture. let me guess: US

If you really believe that, I suggest you read back your constitution.

6- Sometimes you have to sacrifice for your freedoms…

Yep.

---

I actually have read the US Constitution twice in my life. If you think reading it is the best way to understand it, you are wrong. It is and will always be a living and breathing document, open to various interpretations and amendments. That is what democracy is all about. A governing body working for the better good of all of the people under its protection. Iraq’s government doesn't offer that, and we are there to put an end to it once and for all.

You wanted to pick apart my statement by dismantling a single contextualized thought. My idea was encompassed within the entire post, and not bits and pieces. My thoughts make perfect sense in their entirety, as they are aloud to breath together as one statement complements the other. Your ideas here are just tidbits of false conjecture, and nothing more. Is that how you interpret the Constitution? Have you ever actually read it yourself, and be honest with me..?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ya_know
I actually have read the US Constitution twice in my life. If you think reading it is the best way to understand it, you are wrong. It is and will always be a living and breathing document, open to various interpretations and amendments. That is what democracy is all about. A governing body working for the better good of all of the people under its protection. Iraq’s government doesn't offer that, and we are there to put an end to it once and for all.

You wanted to pick apart my statement by dismantling a single contextualized thought. My idea was encompassed within the entire post, and not bits and pieces. My thoughts make perfect sense in their entirety, as they are aloud to breath together as one statement complements the other. Your ideas here are just tidbits of false conjecture, and nothing more. Is that how you interpret the Constitution? Have you ever actually read it yourself, and be honest with me..?

---

Yes I've read the US constitution, and more thant twice in my life. I fact, we did a very interesting study of different state document used by some country, back in my U days. (ok, that was a few scores ago...)

As to pick apart your statement, that was not the objective. I took the time to read and understand what you said and I'm voicing my objection to war in general and for this particular case, I would like you to understand that the US (or should I say Bush jr ) went to war on very thin "proofs".

As to your opinion on my ideas, well, you are entitle to. just as I am about yours.

Dan

;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone2903
I would like you to understand that the US (or should I say Bush jr ) went to war on very thin "proofs".

As to your opinion on my ideas, well, you are entitle to. just as I am about yours.

Dan

;)

---

See I can't help but find fault in your statement here. What the F- makes you think George Bush is a bully, and went to war on his own accord? This entire conflict has been brewing for so many months (actually years since 91), and for many real reasons. It is ridiculous to assume that Bush woke up one day and said, honey, I am going to invade Iraq. But to make a statement like yours, or the one where protesters claim that this war has something to do with oil, presents this simple-minded belief.

This war is the product of careful calculation and determinations of so many thousands of men and women in the governments we elected. The go ahead plans have been foolproofed to produce a fast, unquestionable victory, with minimal civilian and coalition casualties. This isn’t a weekend card game…

Do you see what I so contradict your statements, they really seem poorly thought out?

Oh, and more to that: you say thin proofs, thin is in the eye of the beholder. What do you need, Saddam to admit and present his own proof that the terrorist attacks were planned and funded by his hand? If he were alive, he would never publicly state that. Everything else we have is undisputed evidence. That along with the dictatorship atrocities that have been blanketing the news, I think you should open your eyes to that as well. We have an opportunity to help the people of Iraq, and fulfill the demolition of terrorist funding and weapons source. It is a win-win situation in the end...which hopefully will be soon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone 2903
I would like you to understand that the US (or should I say Bush jr ) went to war on very thin "proofs".
---------

Originally posted by Ya_know

See I can't help but find fault in your statement here. What the F- makes you think George Bush is a bully, and went to war on his own accord? This entire conflict has been brewing for so many months (actually years since 91), and for many real reasons. It is ridiculous to assume that Bush woke up one day and said, honey, I am going to invade Iraq. But to make a statement like yours, or the one where protesters claim that this war has something to do with oil, presents this simple-minded belief.

This war is the product of careful calculation and determinations of so many thousands of men and women in the governments we elected. The go ahead plans have been foolproofed to produce a fast, unquestionable victory, with minimal civilian and coalition casualties. This isn’t a weekend card game…

Do you see what I so contradict your statements, they really seem poorly thought out?

---

I have no doubt about the planning, calculation and determination by the thousands involved, once Bush said "lets go".

what I said was : I would like you to understand that the US (or should I say Bush jr ) went to war on very thin "proofs".

As to Bush going on his own, I think it is also the UN's opinion.

But it is all academic now, I just wish for a quick end whit the minimum casualtys on all sides, as opposed to the "open season" suggested before.
:(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
What about the Klingons?

---

LIES!!! The Klingon people are a peaceful race, unlike you warlike humans!!!

* looks around *

Put the Genesis device away before someone sees it, Lt. Kook!!

* runs off camera, knife drawn *

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone2903
I have no doubt about the planning, calculation and determination by the thousands involved, once Bush said "lets go".
(

---

You did it again; the decision was based on the calculations and determinations of many good men and women. Bush was just the last man in the chain to make the final decision, but it was made based on the evidence presented.

This is not one man's battle, despite the way this gets depicted in the press...realize that, and you will understand what this is all about…

Can I just say that the whole 'Bush Jr.' thing is getting a little annoying. It is not 'Bush Jr.' First of all, he's not even a Junior. His father is George H. W. Bush, he is George W. Bush. No Jr. Second of all, this is not a Bush decision, it is a US decision. No matter how many protestors b**** about "Not in our name!", the fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Americans support the action, not to mention all of our allies.

And I'd also like to say that I have no plans to ever say a Polish joke again in my life knowing that the Polish Army has risked their brave soldiers along side the American, British and Austrailian troops. Please feel free to let me know of any other countries that have their men and women in their too, I support ALL of them, not just ours. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ilovetheusers
Hey - here's a neet question. If starfleet had to fight a war against the klingons, would people protest that?

---

Only the people who believed that the Klingons were a quite race of monks never doing harm and didn't have a Genesis machine. :knife:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Only the people who believed that the Klingons were a quite race of monks never doing harm and didn't have a Genesis machine. :knife:

---

And you believe that? Well, you're obviously a racist and misinformed about them. They are a noble race and all of the races under them we slaves, well it's a part of their culture and who are we to want to change them? Oh, and WE MADE THE GENESIS DEVICE!!!! Not them!!! I hope they us it and teach us a lesson. :mad: :mad: :mad:








:rolleyes: ;)

And what about those Romulans?!? Huh?!? You think the political system is so bad over here... you should try living on the Romulan Homeworld for a while!! Let me tell you.. it ain't no fun!! No Sir!! I'll never go back there again! :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ilovetheusers
And you believe that? Well, you're obviously a racist and misinformed about them. They are a noble race and all of the races under them we slaves, well it's a part of their culture and who are we to want to change them? Oh, and WE MADE THE GENESIS DEVICE!!!! Not them!!! I hope they us it and teach us a lesson. :mad: :mad: :mad:








:rolleyes: ;)

---

/me is LMAO :D

Don't forget the Cardassians, them members of the Obsidian Order are lunies! And lest we forget those Psychlo's were a crazy lot! Thank goodness for Jonnie Goodboy Tyler taking the initiative! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Okay, I'm gonna save a bunch of you a lot of time by turning myself in and going quietly. That's right, I am a human being who is opposed to the war,...

---

Hey Clam,... I do understand that you're opposed to the war, and I've read most of the posts in this topic. Can somebody please explain to me what the alternative to war would be? I always hear people saying they oppose the war, but never offer an alternative choice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatwad
Second of all, this is not a Bush decision, it is a US decision. No matter how many protestors b**** about "Not in our name!", the fact of the matter is that an overwhelming majority of Americans support the action, not to mention all of our allies.

---

Also don't forget that Congress authorized the "use of force" against Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Diver01
And what about those Romulans?!? Huh?!? You think the political system is so bad over here... you should try living on the Romulan Homeworld for a while!! Let me tell you.. it ain't no fun!! No Sir!! I'll never go back there again! :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

---

Lieutenant!!! Bring the Decapitator about and set course for Romulus!!! I have a perfect place to put this Genesis device!!!

:flames: :flames: :flames:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ya_know
I actually have read the US Constitution twice in my life. If you think reading it is the best way to understand it, you are wrong. It is and will always be a living and breathing document, open to various interpretations and amendments. That is what democracy is all about. A governing body working for the better good of all of the people under its protection. Iraq’s government doesn't offer that, and we are there to put an end to it once and for all.

---

Unfortuantely, the US was intended as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Read the Federalist Papers, you'll find that the Founders had a strong opinion of how democracy (rule by the majority rather than by law) doesn't work.

And don't get me started ont hte "governing body" part...I have yet to see any government comprised of politicians that's NOT looking out for their own self-interests. The concept of Government by Representation goes out the door as soon as they step into office, to be replaced by Government by Greed.

And perhaps everything after the Bill of Rights was intended to be "living and breathing"; but it's MY opinion that the first ten Amendments should have been etched in stone; I want no part of a "democracy" where the majority can deem any of my rights null-and-void.

Rant mode off, let the flames begin! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by paraflyer
Unfortuantely, the US was intended as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Read the Federalist Papers, you'll find that the Founders had a strong opinion of how democracy (rule by the majority rather than by law) doesn't work.

And don't get me started ont hte "governing body" part...I have yet to see any government comprised of politicians that's NOT looking out for their own self-interests. The concept of Government by Representation goes out the door as soon as they step into office, to be replaced by Government by Greed.

And perhaps everything after the Bill of Rights was intended to be "living and breathing"; but it's MY opinion that the first ten Amendments should have been etched in stone; I want no part of a "democracy" where the majority can deem any of my rights null-and-void.

Rant mode off, let the flames begin! :D

---

Hey, you are absolutely right, I agree with everything you said! But, our government still beats what they had over in Iraq. What they will be able to build over the course of the next decade will be worlds apart from the life they live now. Yes, there is corruption in government, but more and more whistle blowers are being noticed here in the USA, and corruption is being shutdown some. That is not to say that all corruption will go away when one person gets busted, but it will have an impact. Until something better comes along, I will take the Republic United States of America any day!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by paraflyer
Unfortuantely, the US was intended as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Read the Federalist Papers, you'll find that the Founders had a strong opinion of how democracy (rule by the majority rather than by law) doesn't work.

And don't get me started ont hte "governing body" part...I have yet to see any government comprised of politicians that's NOT looking out for their own self-interests. The concept of Government by Representation goes out the door as soon as they step into office, to be replaced by Government by Greed.

And perhaps everything after the Bill of Rights was intended to be "living and breathing"; but it's MY opinion that the first ten Amendments should have been etched in stone; I want no part of a "democracy" where the majority can deem any of my rights null-and-void.

Rant mode off, let the flames begin! :D

---

I completely agree also. How do you fix it though? You can't force someone to be ethical.

Hey when things get tough......remember this.....


Jeff Spicoli: All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cleetus
Hey when things get tough......remember this.....


Jeff Spicoli: All I need are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and I'm fine

---

Ahhh, few people undertand the wisdom of apathy.

..and yes, that is sarcasm.

Wow. Did I ever stir up a lot of hornets here. Some people might even accuse me of being a sensationalist... :D

For anybody not clear on the meaning of my post, perhaps I should have been more direct and less sarcastic. The original post was inspired by my feeling offended by some of the more gung-ho superpatriot types in favor of the war. PLEASE NOTICE I SAID "SOME OF" in there.

You Americans get weird when you get collectively patriotic. Recently some friends of a friend of mine were down in Grand Marais, Minnesota, visiting the casino there... they went into a restaurant, and the staff there refused to serve them. Why? Because they are Canadian. When they went outside, they discovered someone had keyed their car. It's this sort of thing that bothers me, the fact that France is now reviled and mocked throughout America, the entire "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality... that's the same thing that is destroying organized religion these days, there is no concept of tolerance for other viewpoints. Recently American politicians have been saying that it's time for Canada to start trying to repair our damaged relations with our southern neighbor. My gut response is, why? We never sent any troops with you to the Gulf... but we didn't throw anybody in front of your tanks either; we've simply sat aside and disagreed. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about?

On the subject of democracy, I am very glad to see that many Americans have noticed they aren't actually living in one. I think that the USA is proof that Western style democracy does not work in practice... that gerrymandering exists as a valid political tactic is proof enough for me... and that's the reason why I think it is wrong for the USA to impose democracy on Iraq.

To those who say, Bush is better than Saddam, you are certainly right in the short term, but I'm not sure you are right in the long term. Fatal lung cancer is better than a sucking chest wound, but in the end, why would you want either? Bush and his like will be the destruction of the United States, and probably the world too, I fear; it will just take longer to do it Bush's way than Saddam's, and it will look prettier in the meantime.

To those who ask, do I have an alternative? As a matter of fact, I have a number of ideas, primarily involving identifying and removing corrupt people from power and preventing other corrupt people from getting there in the first place. I think if those aims could be accomplished, pretty much ANY system of government would work just fine, from democracy to the republic to communism to fundamentalism, even to dictatorship. The trouble is, ALL of these systems fail when the people in charge are corrupt.

The trouble is, and always has been, that many of the people who seek leadership are the ones least suited to the task, and many of the best potential leaders don't want the job.

A couple more points:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by meatwad
Why lynch you when we can just shuck you?:confused:

---

LMAO!!!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drone2903
Ok Clammy, there is just 1 thing I dont agree with in all your statement here.

Shoudnt that title be "subVersive" and not "SubMersive" ???

:D

Other than that, what you said....

---

No, that's no spelling mistake. :D

And again on the subject of alternatives:

It is too late for any alternative now, the situation is a fait accompli, you can't go back and "un-invade" Iraq. I would have preferred to see the US work within the UN, it's not like you don't have the political pull to eventually get your way there.

Still all such talk is academic and pointless. What happens now that Iraq is more or less conquered? Anybody want to argue about that? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
.. We never sent any troops with you to the Gulf... but we didn't throw anybody in front of your tanks either.

---

As a matter of facts, we do have troops in the gulf, (Ok, s'not much, but still, HMCS Iroquois and HMCS Montréal) but they are there in the anti-terrorists effort.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
...identifying and removing corrupt people from power and preventing other corrupt people from getting there in the first place...

---

Um, Clam,.. that's exactly what the US is in the process of doing. The US declared a war and then went in there and removed a corrupt and powerful individual with precision bombing, and a powerful air campaign. Without a war, how would you expect to remove a powerful and/or corrupt leader like Hussein? Asking him nicely to leave isn't going to do it.

I dont feel that a country should say "With us or against us" in regard to France, I just think what goes around comes around.

Imagine a day when the French really really need our help. That would be the day to show OUR support of them. :)

Quite simple really. You dont agree, swell, your intitled to it. But in turn we are also entitled to choose who we help, who we give work contracts to, etc.

I personally dont like bush, but I do like what he is doing in Iraq. BTW, this doesn't mean that I will vote for him in the next term either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
What happens now that Iraq is more or less conquered? Anybody want to argue about that? :D

---

The corrupt Iraqi government has been conquered, not Iraq. The Iraqi's will have to begin rebuilding a free Iraq now. I wish them nothing but the best on their new freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
It's this sort of thing that bothers me, the fact that France is now reviled and mocked throughout America, the entire "If you're not with us, you're against us" mentality... that's the same thing that is destroying organized religion these days, there is no concept of tolerance for other viewpoints.

---

Voicing opposition is one thing. Actively lobbying other countries to vote against us when we believe that we are fighting to preserve our own security falls on the "against us" side of my line in the sand. Providing our enemy with weapons clearly puts France on the other side of the line. And lets remember the only reason that France is on the side of Saddam Hussien, oil contracts. LOL, isn't that some amazing irony? France doesn't give two ****s about the people of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WebHawg
Asking him nicely to leave isn't going to do it.

---

Well put yourself in Saddam's shoes Webhawg. I mean your people are suffering, isn't that enough? I mean come on, he only lived in lavish palaces covered in gold and jewels, woman, wealth, a huge army, and 99.9 percent of the popular vote. Why wouldn't he step down :D

Let's face it people there are only thee ways to get someone to do something for you. Out of respect, Out of fear of the consequences, or money. Saddam had no respect for the UN, did not fear the UN, and he was already one of the wealthiest guys on the planet. And then after that he had France and Russia practically behind him threatening to veto any military action against him.

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Thunderwind
Imagine a day when the French really really need our help. That would be the day to show OUR support of them. :)

---

I think that day has passed a couple times which has made Americans so angry with France. But then again, judging by the smiley I would guess you already knew that :) It doesn't hurt to emphasize the fact though ;)

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
To those who say, Bush is better than Saddam, you are certainly right in the short term, but I'm not sure you are right in the long term. Fatal lung cancer is better than a sucking chest wound, but in the end, why would you want either? Bush and his like will be the destruction of the United States, and probably the world too, I fear; it will just take longer to do it Bush's way than Saddam's, and it will look prettier in the meantime.

---

I'm interested to know why you think it may actually be that bad? I know everyone has opinions about each president we've had and many have been much less than total respect and agreeance but why so bad in this case?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Voicing opposition is one thing. Actively lobbying other countries to vote against us when we believe that we are fighting to preserve our own security falls on the "against us" side of my line in the sand. Providing our enemy with weapons clearly puts France on the other side of the line. And lets remember the only reason that France is on the side of Saddam Hussien, oil contracts. LOL, isn't that some amazing irony? France doesn't give two ****s about the people of Iraq.

---

Let me address this sentence by sentence:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Actively lobbying other countries to vote against us when we believe that we are fighting to preserve our own security falls on the "against us" side of my line in the sand.

---

I can see this I suppose, but I don't believe for one second that America is fighting to preserve it's own security. Otherwise, you would have invaded North Korea, Iran, Syria, maybe China as well, and a few dozen banana republics ahead of or simultaneously with the war on Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
Providing our enemy with weapons clearly puts France on the other side of the line.

---

I guess that puts the USA on the other side of the line too. Hmm... Dubya was directly responsible for that too, wasn't he?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by silencio
And lets remember the only reason that France is on the side of Saddam Hussien, oil contracts. LOL, isn't that some amazing irony? France doesn't give two ****s about the people of Iraq.

---

Sorry, but did you just say that France's motivation IS oil-not-human-rights, and Bush's motivation ISN'T?

I just don't buy it. Once again, why haven't the other countries on the list with NO oil and with WORSE human rights violations been invaded yet?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WebHawg
Without a war, how would you expect to remove a powerful and/or corrupt leader like Hussein? Asking him nicely to leave isn't going to do it.

---

Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should go to war with the USA to liberate its peoples from a leader who is perceived internationally as powerful and corrupt? After all, asking him nicely to leave didn't do it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should go to war with the USA to liberate its peoples from a leader who is perceived internationally as powerful and corrupt? After all, asking him nicely to leave didn't do it.

---

ROTFL! That's funny. The rest of the world going to war with us. That's pretty good. Man, you should do stand up. That was awesome. :grin:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...undercover.jpg

Or is it this ....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...es_iraqoil.jpg

Much as it turns my guts, I'd rather they did this ....
https://forums.windrivers.com/

Surley you can't let a man this smart ....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...upsidedown.jpg

Believe he rules the world ....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...h_grinchmp.jpg

Here he is a month ago ....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...ush_warhuh.jpg

Please stop believing ....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...bush_warad.jpg

Need I go on ? ... this thread does! You see it as either a triumph or a disaster, possibly both, but getting somebody who believes its a triumph to see what a disaster it is needs to remember that the guy who got you into all this is....http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...ntributors.jpg

Somebody teach him to read quick ....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...sh_dummies.jpg

Remember though .....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr..._be_afraid.jpg
especially if you live in the good ol' US of A.

:bor: Man, this thread had been dead for three days, I say we invade Wayward and take all his matches so can't start any more fires up again.
:flame:

Everyone has gotten to say their piece?peace? and no one seems to be changing each others' mind. This keeps up and I'm gonna start a protesting people that keep posting their opinion on the war
http://216.40.249.192/s/contrib/edoom/iamwithstupid.gif

Tony

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thirdfey
:bor: Man, this thread had been dead for three days, I say we invade Wayward and take all his matches so can't start any more fires up again.
:flame:

---

Hey... I am allowed to take three days to answer comments, dude. Unless you want to mail me a computer so I can answer them right away. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thirdfey
:Man, this thread had been dead for three daysy

---

was, WAS! :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wayward Clam
Are you suggesting that the rest of the world should go to war with the USA to liberate its peoples from a leader who is perceived internationally as powerful and corrupt? After all, asking him nicely to leave didn't do it.

---

C'mon Clam, you gotta have a better response than that. Are you comparing Hussein to Dubya? First of all, Dubya doesn't put his people in torture chambers. Second, Dubya doesn't chill in his palace, and live the good life while his people live in poverty. Third, we don't need to ask Dubya nicely to leave because in 2004 we're gonna VOTE for him to leave. Iraq never had that option with Hussein.