Let's move onto the next conflict

[Almighty Colin]

Saddam probably dead. Iraqi military reduced to a handful of tanks. Waiting on chemical weapons tests. Time to move on ...

For all those that said "Why is the US doing something about Iraq and not North Korea", you will now have your wish.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=2526024

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea said on Tuesday, the eve of a key U.N. review of Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons program, that the United States wanted to "perpetrate military terrorism" against the North because of its atomic ambitions.

[dantheman]

while we have them over there, might as well take a left and sweep though syria(sp)

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by dantheman@Apr 8 2003, 11:29 AM
while we have them over there, might as well take a left and sweep though syria(sp)

Do Syrians need to be liberated too?

Syria is a democracy. Assad is very popular. He won the last election with 97% of the popular vote - only 3% less than Saddam had in Iraq.



Last edited by Colin at Apr 8 2003, 11:45 AM

[Menace]

I was kind of hoping that while we were in the neighborhood some troops would hop over to Afghanistan and help put Osama's head on a stick.

[Trev]

Originally posted by Menace@Apr 8 2003, 05:37 PM
I was kind of hoping that while we were in the neighborhood some troops would hop over to Afghanistan and help put Osama's head on a stick.

There's still troops in Afghanistan....

if there is ANY government in the world right now walking around with "shoot me" tatooed on their foreheads... this one is it.

[Menace]

Originally posted by Trev@Apr 8 2003, 12:47 PM
There's still troops in Afghanistan....

hehe.. that's why I said "help"

I figured with SO many troops over there we could take like 1/8 of them and silence his ass once and for all.

That is of course only if we're as close to being done as the media wants to believe.

[Trev]

I've got my fingers crossed that the tanks just roll around the Middle East for a couple of months knocking some heads together....


but it aint gonna happen <_<

[PornoDoggy]

Uhhhh ... do you think it's just a coincidence that the folks in Washington are taking a far more traditional diplomatic approach to the North Korean dispute than they are to Saddam? I for one am glad as hell they are.

This whole scenario is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Events in Iraq have likely made it more difficult, and not just because of its effect on the North Koreans. Hopefully a diplomatic solution is found soon, because it's causing all kinds of tensions and will likely lead to an arms race in the region, particularly if Japan decides to rearm to a greater extent than they already are.

We don't have enough troops in the theater to defend South Korea against an attack from the North, and probably haven't since the mid 1960s. Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, since Johnson diverted troops to 'Nam, have turned down DOD requests to strengthen the forces. Just about every war scenario that's been gamed out has involved the loss of Seoul and a million or so South Koreans, and most of the 30-40K U.S. troops that are stationed there. They are there as much as a deterent as they are a military force.

So I just wonder what razzle-dazzle plan people have for "taking care of the North Koreans." See, we did kick their ass the last time we were there. However, another power was concerned that OUR presence on their border represented a threat to THEIR national security intervened and damn near kicked our asses, after the "defeatists" in Washington were warned it would never happen.

You think, in view of the events in the Middle East, they're likely to think any different?

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 8 2003, 10:18 PM
Uhhhh ... do you think it's just a coincidence that the folks in Washington are taking a far more traditional diplomatic approach to the North Korean dispute than they are to Saddam? I for one am glad as hell they are.

This whole scenario is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Events in Iraq have likely made it more difficult, and not just because of its effect on the North Koreans. Hopefully a diplomatic solution is found soon, because it's causing all kinds of tensions and will likely lead to an arms race in the region, particularly if Japan decides to rearm to a greater extent than they already are.

We don't have enough troops in the theater to defend South Korea against an attack from the North, and probably haven't since the mid 1960s. Presidents, Democrats and Republicans, since Johnson diverted troops to 'Nam, have turned down DOD requests to strengthen the forces. Just about every war scenario that's been gamed out has involved the loss of Seoul and a million or so South Koreans, and most of the 30-40K U.S. troops that are stationed there. They are there as much as a deterent as they are a military force.

So I just wonder what razzle-dazzle plan people have for "taking care of the North Koreans." See, we did kick their ass the last time we were there. However, another power was concerned that OUR presence on their border represented a threat to THEIR national security intervened and damn near kicked our asses, after the "defeatists" in Washington were warned it would never happen.

You think, in view of the events in the Middle East, they're likely to think any different?

I think its a different situation in North Korea than Iraq. With Iraq, diplomacy has failed time and time again and has not even deterred the Iraqi government from brutally torturing and slaughtering their own people. Its a different situation. Why does anyone need diplomacy to deal with Iraq, when all they can say is "fuck you" in return?

I think that we also know far less about North Korea than we do about Iraq. Events in Iraq have played out pretty much exactly as they were expected to. Iraqis neighbors want Saddam and his inner circle dead as well and no one is lamenting the loss of that government. The Iraqi governmnet has significant internal and external opposition - North Korea does not seem to. Iraq has no real military capability (as was recently proven). North Korea certainly does.

What would you suggest PD? Did you notice that "diplomacy" has been a complete and abject failure since the 1994 agreement where the North Koreas blatently lied and continued to pursue a nuclear weapons program?

Sure its a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Are you willing to wait for the UN to debate this issue into eternity while North Korea tries to arm itself so it can threaten the region and blackmail everyone?

The UN just passed a resolution condemning North Korea restarting their nuclear program.

North Korea is threatening the world with Nuclear war. Not because something changed on the Korean Peninsula - but because they want more aid. Thats completely insane. They dont want to talk to anyone but the US because thats where the money is. They are not offering compromise... they are making death threats to everyone.

They have withdrawn from all their international obligations. Their neighbors (China, Russia, Japan, Korea) are all 100% against the North Koreans actions and all accept the threat they present to the region.

They have already stated their intentions already to develop nuclear weapons. T

Its a Stalinist government that again, is causing millions an millions of deaths of its own people through starvation. Its a government who is losing its grip on power and is in serious decay. There is no diplomacy with these people.

What should be done?

Do the fears of "what if" or "Bush is an idiot" in the event of a military action weigh proportionately to "what if they are a fully nuclear power"? Is that a government that could be trusted NOT to push the button?

i personally dont think so.

What happens when they finally start developing rockets and nuclear warheads? all countries in the region will have no choice but to start arming themselves to counter that threat... correct? then what? its Cold War ll and 2 minutes to midnight all over again. What do you think they will act like once all neighbors are pointing nuclear missiles at them to counter the threat of their weapons? will things be better? The bigger question is what can be done to avoid that situation? if dimplomacy is and has been a failure... what options are left?

call me conservative, but i think these guys are positioning themselves for being the most likely candidates in the world for a pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs.

[slavdogg]

we should not move anywhere else in the Middle East until we build some klind of a government in Iraq. Winning the war is the easy part, building the peace is the hardest part. And this is not something that should be left upto to UN again to fuck it up. We should only celebrate and congratulate ourselves when there is some kind of a stable Iraqi government in place and this wont be easily done considering Iran, Syria and the Saudies dont want a pro western democracy in the region.

This is not Afghanistan, a country that no one really cares about in the region or the world and wont ever have influence over anything other than its own zoo and heroin. Iraq will eventually have major influences in the middle east and oil supplies. We need to make sure we build it up the right way or we'll forever have unfinished business there.

[slavdogg]

The reason N Korean situation has gone to UN is everyone in Washington knows no one in the region will or can do anything about it. Chinease wont lift more than one finger to help us. Why ? so we can threaten them over the Taiwan situation ? The last thing China wants is more US military influences in its backyard. I dont know what the deal with the russians in.

call me conservative, but i think these guys are positioning themselves for being the most likely candidates in the world for a pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs.

JR that all sounds nice, but what if it fails to take out all the important targets ?? And than Kim thows some nukes at Tokyo and Soul and the next thinkg you know the whole region has gone up in flames.

[Trev]

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 9 2003, 07:41 AM
JR that all sounds nice, but what if it fails to take out all the important targets ?? And than Kim thows some nukes at Tokyo and Soul and the next thinkg you know the whole region has gone up in flames.

And this is a bad thing for what reason?

[PornoDoggy]

I realize it's a lot easier for you to discuss things with people who's sole response is "Bush is an idiot" (an entirely different discussion), but the least you could do is let me say that before you assume it.

Thank you for reminding me that they have a Stalinist-style dictatorship, too ... I'm glad to know that the regime we've been opposing for 53 years hasn't changed in the last 24 hours.

Shit-fire, why the hell do you think I have such a poor opinion of force reductions that eliminate "heavy" divisions and focus exclusively on the razzle-dazzle high tech "sexy" stuff - because I think the world is a nice place? The world is a mean, nasty place, and there are people we may have to confront that have a lot more bite than the mighty Iraqi army.

And there will be an arms race in Asia no matter WHAT the N. Koreans do. Japan is working toward rearming - in response to CHINA as much as to North Korea. If Japan rearms, South Korea and China will feel the need to counter it.

If you think I would shed a tear or spare a thought for the demise of the North Korean government then you are a lot dumber than I thought. If you think I'm opposed to the use of military force just because it's mean, nasty, and unpleasant you are really a complete moron who needs to ask friends to take up a collection to buy yourself a clue. See, in spite of my humble public school educatoin I not only am aware of the nature of the North Korean government, I am also slightly aware of the geography of Korea.

Remember them pesky, annoying South Koreans? They're our ... whattya call it? ... ALLIES!! that's the word I'm looking for.

How the fuck do you propose to conduct a "pre-emptive strike against their military, reactors and nuclear programs" without killing off a whole bunch of South Koreans in the inevitable war? I'm not talking about the "possibility" of nuking Tokyo, either. Do you realize how few options we've for defending South Korea for the past 30 years? Do you realize that most of those options are of the nature that "it is the policy of the Department of Defense to neither confirm nor deny?"

See, the kind of attack that would be necessary in order to make that first strike effective will require a little more than some sexy "bunker busters" and high-tech wiz-bang shit. It's old technology, really ... and it's technology that we have avoided using for just about 60 years.

And even Arlie Fleisher would have a hard time explaining that one.

Originally posted by slavdogg@Apr 9 2003, 02:41 AM

JR that all sounds nice, but what if it fails to take out all the important targets ?? And than Kim thows some nukes at Tokyo and Soul and the next thinkg you know the whole region has gone up in flames.

how is he going to nuke Tokyo or Seoul? it has yet to be proven that he has that capability. but it is definately fact that they are actively working to have that capability. this is the problem in my eyes... time. each day lost is critical.

wow PD, you sound really defensive at times. i dont know why you would start making personal attacks. i did not say "you said bush was an idiot" i was referring to a world view that seems to be quite popular. i was not aware that you thought i was dumb or a moron.

maybe its just how i read things or how i write them. i understand hostility considering that i am really a smart ass sometimes. I think you are one of the best people at defending a position that often seems to be in a minority around here. i have a tremendous amount of respect for you for being able to do that well.... and for not backing down.

in my opinion the problem is time. tick-tock tick-tock. every second lost is another second gained in there race to achieve their stated purpose of becoming a bigger threat. They are actively working to build multi-stage rockets capable of delivering a nuclear warhead. they are actively working towards making nuclear bombs.

i would not say that Bush has tried diplomacy at all after thinking about it. basically he put them on notice... people went to Korea to confront them about their nuclear program... after that, there has not been any real communication between the two governments that i am aware of besides Richard Butler meeting some Korean officials.

i think that diplomacy has failed and has proven to be a failure with them on this issue. they are painting themselves into a corner with all the "die america, die" rhetoric which makes even dialog impossible and makes it clear that they are definately intent on becomming a bigger and better threat.

They dont want to talk to China
They dont want to talk to S. Korea
The dont want to talk to Russia

they only want to talk to the US. Bush has insisted that it is an issue that needs to be solved collectively between the US and the concerned parties in the region and N. Korea has spit on that suggestion repeatedly as well.

i did not propose to strike them. i said that it looks like they are forcing that possibility to become reality. The US did not put 24 B-2's in Guam with Nuclear payloads "just because" - i would imagine that is the preferred option in dealing the problem effectively in a military sense. of course, it would be one of the greatest human tragedies ever. Of course its not something anyone wants to do.

my point is simply - what are the options? to make the argument for "Diplomacy" the argument has to be made that "diplomacy" has or can work. so far there has been every indication to the contrary.

[Almighty Colin]

Whoever says "Asian Hitler" first loses.

[slavdogg]

Originally posted by -= JR =-@Apr 9 2003, 03:45 AM
how is he going to nuke Tokyo or Seoul? it has yet to be proven that he has that capability. but it is definately fact that they are actively working to have that capability. this is the problem in my eyes... time. each day lost is critical.

JR, i believe its estimated N Koreans already have 2-4 nukes.

[Almighty Colin]

Communist totalitarian terrorists with WMD's. It's like the best political hits of the past half century all rolled into one.

This has Bush's name all over it.

i know they are "suspected" to have 2 and possibly more. but i cant see a logical argument for waiting until they are "confirmed" to have 100.

[PornoDoggy]

Well, since you apparently don't think I would shed a tear or spare a thought for the demise of the North Korean government then you are obvioulsy not dumb at all. Since you don't think I'm opposed to the use of military force just because it's mean, nasty, and unpleasant you are probably a rich capitalist pig that doesn't need to ask friends to take up a collection to buy yourself a clue.

And I did misunderstand you insofar as the "first strike" goes. I hear a lot of that tossed about from armchair warriors without a clue about what they are talking about.

The bombers on Guam loaded with nukes are additional nukes aimed at North Korea. We decided on a nuclear option for that country years and years ago. I've known a lot of people who've served there, and some folks (at least used to) refer to themselves as being part of BaitCorps. It's been an Achilles Heel for a long time.

The Bush Administration has gone out of its way to be hostile to the North Koreans from the moment they took office. Lumping them into the "axis of evil" (particlularly since Syria would have been a more logical candidate) was an extremely short-sighted idea, IMHO, unless Kim has secretly hidden the large number of fundamentist Islamic Koreans from the world for a long time. I'm not defending the North Korean deceptions, or saying that shouldn't be dealt with - but we just don't have a whole lot of viable options.

The Chinese approach to the N. Koreans is extremely quiet. They have realized, after 50 years of "friendship," that publicly chastizing them NEVER works. And they are a problem in and of themselves. They can't feel a whole lot more secure about a nuclear North Korea than we are; at the same time, they don't want to increase our influence in the region in any way, shape or form. And the folks that do advocate some form of military action against NK run the same risk that McArthur did - and I personally don't think they would react much differently this time.

You asked me what I'd do - I'd talk to them without preconditions, one on one if that's what they want. I'd do at least that much to get them willing to participate in a genuine regional solution. I wouldn't capitulate - they would have to jump through a lot more hoops than last time to get what they want, and I'm not sure that it would be any more successful than it was last time.

But the simple fact of the matter is, there has been no diplomacy conducted between the U.S. and North Korea since January, 2001. That has to change. And making the first gesture would be the sort of big, bold move that could REALLY fuck up his critics, both domestic and foreign, in the same way that Roosevelt's gesture toward the Soviets or Nixon's gesture toward China was.

And then we can build the military that we need for a possible confrontation with China. And no matter how many times Rummy sees "Star Wars" and "The Green Berets," that's gonna have a lot more heavy divisions than the sexy spec-ops folks he seems to favor.

[Almighty Colin]

There's no obvious move here.

Face to face talks? Didn't work last time. NK backed out of those agreements.
Unilateral talks? NK doesn't want them.
Sanctions? NK considers that an act of war [not effective anyway I think we've learned]
Get UN consensus? Ha!



Last edited by Colin at Apr 9 2003, 05:05 AM

PD, i agree that the "axis of evil" remark may have been unneccessary. possibly. The USSR was labeled an "Evil Empire" by Reagan and i think we all know what followed.... and the world was a better place for it.

Iraq was labeled as being part of the Axis of Evil and Iraqis are now rejoicing at the collapse of Saddams government today.

you are saying that diplomacy should be tried. I agree that is a logical course. but i also think that diplomacy has failed. Richard Butler had meeting with them just a couple months ago. How do you have a diplomatic relationship who is saying "you will all die in a sea of fire"?

Clinton wanted to bomb the same reactor for the same reasons... diplomacy was a waste of time and they knew that N. Korea would not honor any agreement - which proved to be 100% correct.

I am not sure its fair to characterize Chinas reaction or non-reaction. I could also say its because their economy is more dependent on their Most Favored Nation Trading status and WTO membership and they have no intention of rocking that boat.

i think this is a flawed idea:

You asked me what I'd do - I'd talk to them without preconditions, one on one if that's what they want. I'd do at least that much to get them willing to participate in a genuine regional solution. I wouldn't capitulate - they would have to jump through a lot more hoops than last time to get what they want, and I'm not sure that it would be any more successful than it was last time.

talking to them is fine i think. without preconditions even.

BUT how could you base a strategy in dealing with them on making demands and enforcing them when they have been pretty clear that even so much as reduce aid, it will be a declaration of war against them? these are people saying they are going to kill all of us and you are going to make demands.

what information has suggested that we have any leverage over them whatsoever to modify their behavior?

My opinion is that their tactics are pretty straight forward and consistent with everything they have done in the past. they are using threats to get attention, create the "problem" and are hoping that in the end, the world will give in and meet their demands.

[Rolo]

I was going to say France

North Korea is a very bad place... I think they will collapse on their own in time, but can we sit by as they kill and starve their own people?

[PornoDoggy]

I don't care much for your comparison of Reagan's "Evil Empire" to the Axis of Evil. First of all, while I don't dispute that Reagan's administration contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union, I think he gets a lot of credit for that in the same way that Clinton got credit for the economy - right place, right time.

Iraqis are rejoicing over the demise of Saddam - but in mosques around the world the calls for jihad are increasing. Mubarak told his military recently that our actions will likely create 100 bin Ladens - and he may very well be right. Every action creates a reaction - and it will take a while to see what all the reactions to our course of action turn out to be.

At the risk of committing the currenly politically incorrect act of "questioning the ability of the [so-called] Iraqi people" to govern themselves, recent experiences by artifical nations freed from oppressive regimes seems to suggest a long and difficult path ahead. I know that the people of the former Yugoslavia celebrated their freedom from an oppressive regime too - but horrible, unspeakable things came later.

Am I prediciting that future for Iraq? No, not at all; but you've got to be naive or selling something to deny that it's a very real possibility. I'm glad Saddam is gone; but now the hard work begins, and it won't be accomplished by flying in a bunch of ex-pats who haven't lived there since before Reagan single-handedly brought down the Soviet Union by spending them into oblivion.

China values most favored nation status. But if Mubarak is right, and our actions hasten the spread of radical Islam, then China will be affected both internally and on its borders. And if there are plans to confront Iran or Syria - or both - then China will probably not be the only nation to begin to view us with even more distrust than they already do. Making a move that would bring us closer to their borders could just be the push they need to make them think they are forced to confront us. An awful lot of people an awful lot smarter than me have been wrong about China before.

I'm not going to deny that my idea is flawed. I have to agree with Colin that "There's no obvious move here." ALL the methods of dealing with the situation are flawed.

But nuclear war has to be the last option. War in Korea would almost have to be nuclear, and it would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of civilians - not collateral damage to enemy civilians, but those of our ally.

And I think even the (former?) Iraqi Information Minister would have difficulty putting a positive spin on that one.

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 9 2003, 06:50 AM

And I think even the (former?) Iraqi Information Minister would have difficulty putting a positive spin on that one.

i agree pretty much with everything you say. there is no good answer. i think we all agree with that.

but i cannot accept the above.

that boys got mad skillz

[Almighty Colin]

Diplomacy requires willing participants.

Is China a willing participant?
Is France?
Is Russia?
Is US?
Is UK?
Is NK?

Did the failure of the UN to reach a consensus on Iraq decrease the possibility of diplomacy through the UN? Has Blair spent his political capital? Has Bush?

Can we AFFORD another war if it came down to it? [I personally think no. Certainly not with tax cuts and increasing deficit spending]

[Almighty Colin]

'ROME, April 9 (Reuters) - The United States on Wednesday warned countries it has accused of pursuing weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Syria and North Korea, to "draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq".

John R. Bolton, U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, also appealed to Syria and other countries in the Middle East to open themselves up to "new possibilities" for peace in the region.

"With respect to the issue of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the post-conflict period, we are hopeful that a number of regimes will draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq that the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction is not in their national interest," Bolton told a news conference.'

[Almighty Colin]

April 09, 2003

This week's North Korean meal:

"Japan should behave with discretion, clearly mindful that it is also within the striking range of the DPRK (North Korea),"

"Japan is turning to the right and is getting militarised at such a rapid tempo that the call for destroying the DPRK, a legitimate sovereign state, is heard in the Diet (Japanese parliament). This is a clear indication of the gravity of the situation."

"The Japanese reactionaries seem to have lost their reason under the impact of the Iraqi war launched by their master,"

[Winetalk.com]

PD,
unlike you, I have COMPLETE trust in our military.
voices all over the p[laces were predicting how USA will have it's ass kicked in Iraq, never happened.

I have no problems with our military not discussing their plansd with you and the rest.

Actions are louder than words,
and so far, my trust in our military hasn't been violated.

[Mike AI]

Serge I think you are right. Our Military is fantastic, our Military Leadership is amazing - goes all the way to the top with Rumsfield.

I think he has to be the most competent leaders I have ever seen. I love his briefings, he is a genuis, and has a very good sense of humor!

I agree 100%. A tough call was made about how to deal with that guy... The UN faught it tooth and nail for 12 years, continuing to seek to appease a murderer at the expense of Iraqi people.

people are now dancing and singing in the streets of Bagdad. wonder why?

too bad... i guess i was really really really wrong about one thing... it looks like Bush may actually get that second term after all. Short war, complete political victory, objectives achieved. I really thought the odds were against him on that one.

As i have said many times now during these arguments about all the "what if's" and fears and concerns...

The reality never lives up to the hype and the fears expressed beforehand.

Afghanistan WAS the most recent and relevent example of that. All the same concerns were heard. None of them happened. Now Iraq is the most recent and relevent example of that. They are dancing in the streets just like Kabul.

It was just proven to the world that such a threat can be dealt with, a government and its military can be destroyed and its country can be controlled in 21 days. Tough shit for Iran and Syria. hope they get their shit together. not for the Wests sake... but for theirs.

PD said that Mubarak said there would be 100 Osama Bin Ladens. What would he be expected to say? What similar things did he say before Afghanistan? How many times has that been said in the past? That type of leadership cannot simultaneously appear in 100 places in 100 people. Osama Bin Laden took decades to create himself. It did not happen overnight. It happened fighting against Soviet Forces. It happened because he had several hundred million dollars. There will not be another Osama Bin Laden. There certainly will not be 100. NO country is going to tolerate them as certain African nations and lastly, Afghanistan/Taliban did. There will be no more training bases. how will they be financed? How can they move money around now? how will they move around? They are finished.

- its just not gonna happen in todays world. Prior to 9/11 had its eyes closed to that threat and that now is dealing with that threat with extreme predudice. i would never say its not possible, but i would say that it is far beyond unlikely.

[Almighty Colin]

I have no idea if Bush will get re-relected. Too early to tell.

Bush I lost an election after winning Gulf War I and that had a lot more support.

Originally posted by Colin@Apr 9 2003, 01:29 PM
I have no idea if Bush will get re-relected. Too early to tell.

Bush I lost an election after winning Gulf War I and that had a lot more support.

there is definately a case that his popularity can plunge much faster than it rose. its clearly too early to say anything conclusively. i thought that this would be a key turning point. with Bush 1, Desert Storm was a distraction. With Bush 2, its a crusade.

i base what i said on a few factors:

1) fast, clean Iraqi victory

2) economy recovering.

3) democrats already threw everything but the kitchen sink at him (Enron, stock scandals, failing economy etc) they will have to get really creative to find a way to discredit him.

4) more bad guys on the chopping block - North Korea, Iran, Syria. to quote Clinton "in a time of crisis, people would have someone lead that is strong and wrong, than weak and right"

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Apr 9 2003, 12:58 PM
PD,
unlike you, I have COMPLETE trust in our military.
voices all over the p[laces were predicting how USA will have it's ass kicked in Iraq, never happened.

I have no problems with our military not discussing their plansd with you and the rest.

Actions are louder than words,
and so far, my trust in our military hasn't been violated.

I see that Generals Westmoreland and Gromov have arrived. All we need now is McArthur, and we could have a real party.

[Winetalk.com]

Quote:

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+Apr 9 2003, 02:39 PM-->

Thread Tools

Show Printable Version

Email this Page

Display Modes

Linear Mode

Switch to Hybrid Mode

Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is On

Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main Board Rebooted The Business Of Porn - Closed For Posting     Legacy Archived Main Board     Vesuvio

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:39 PM..