Let me make something CRYSTAL CLEAR

Question:

o We all know your super intellect will allow for no outcome save that which you fancy. You use words and more words and your against war and against Saddam but you post your hate of the US and you care nothing for those Iraqi’s who have suffered and died at the hand of Saddam, or to those he threatens with WMDs. You shreek with glee any item you can twist to be Anti American and pro Evil, while champion a Saddam victory! Yes we know what you are. And that is total bullshit packed in your self delsuioned world.

We know what you are. Because people like me are always opposed by people like you, and we will always be slandered and libeled and spit upon and demonized by people like you. But in the end, it will be people like me who will win out, because the world simply can no continue to exist in a healthy, sustanable manner so long as people like you are running things. s.w. "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind…" — John F. Kennedy

Response:

[....] 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. [JD] If you actually opposed Saddam and his rule, why are you repeating his lie on this matter? Saddam has issued two contradictory accounts of the meeting, only one of which gives the green light They cannot both be true, and we have no reason to suppose that either one is true.

Apparently she denies it too. http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie Carleton Cole Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America’s ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war. GLASPIE: In March 1991, she told a Senate committee that ‘we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.’ MARCY NIGHSWANDER/AP/FILE From a translation of Iraq’s transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade. "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction … that Kuwait is not associated with America." The Persian Gulf War began Jan. 17, 1991. But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate. The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations. In November 1992, Iraq’s former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." Glaspie is now US consul general in Cape Town, South Africa.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [....] 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. [JD] If you actually opposed Saddam and his rule, why are you repeating his lie on this matter? Saddam has issued two contradictory accounts of the meeting, only one of which gives the green light They cannot both be true, and we have no reason to suppose that either one is true. Apparently she denies it too. http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm US Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie Carleton Cole Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America’s ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war. GLASPIE: In March 1991, she told a Senate committee that ‘we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.’ MARCY NIGHSWANDER/AP/FILE From a translation of Iraq’s transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade. "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction … that Kuwait is not associated with America." The Persian Gulf War began Jan. 17, 1991. But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate. The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations. In November 1992, Iraq’s former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." Glaspie is now US consul general in Cape Town, South Africa.

Gee, a political official denies any wrongdoing. What a shock. s.w.

Response:

This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.

Ho Ho Ho We all know your super intellect will allow for no outcome save that which you fancy. You use words and more words and your against war and against Saddam but you post your hate of the US and you care nothing for those Iraqi’s who have suffered and died at the hand of Saddam, or to those he threatens with WMDs. You shreek with glee any item you can twist to be Anti American and pro Evil, while champion a Saddam victory! Yes we know what you are. And that is total bullshit packed in your self delsuioned world. People like you never change the world for the better, because your too small, to work with others for the common good. You share traits with Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky and Chomsky and Saddam, like them, its your way, or no way! Eat shit and die! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast majority of the world’s nations. Because of the credibility factor, presented above, few if any countries would want to be seen as non participatory. Each country would like to have

Response:

Actually, Russia, France, and China supplied Saddam with more than 80% of his arsenal. USA accounted for around 2%.

Don’t forget to include the UK in the 80% there. And the percentages you give are what are ‘over the top’, ‘direct’ or ‘official’ sales and gifts to Saddam…much of the supplies Iraq got from America were ‘pass along’ operations, where a ‘middle man’ country obscured the ‘aid’ given. The US was also a major supplier of chemical and biological weapons technology<<…the science behind the stuff. The 80% you quote above refers not to ‘intelligence’, but to hardware and physical weopons themselves. We gave Saddam the ability to make lots more of the worst stuff he had. Besides, since we made the mistake of helping him once, doesn;t that make it our responsibility to bring about his end. It’s not hypocracy to clean up a mess you made, is it?

Yes, if the mess you made involved the devastation of countless people’s lives. You shouldn’t get the privilage of ‘cleaning up’ and making it all better. You should be locked up in prison, eating stale bread and drinking dirty water for the rest of your life. The men that were behind helping Saddam before are ruling the US before, and laughing all the way to the undisclosed, ultra-anonymous Swiss bank. s.w.

Response:

Your position was that the US was attacking the Iraqis, seeking to harm them, steal their oil, impose capitalism upon them. Now, confronted by scenes of jubilation, you suddenly forget the position you formerly held.

I’m for Saddam being taken out, even if I don’t support the methods used, or the actors who decided to utilize those methods. I think so many who doubt that I have always opposed the Saddam regime, do so willingly, because that is the only method they have to try and dismiss, or marginalize me. It is a tried and often true tactic. Most people simply don’t want to believe that they’ve been being lied to for so many years. If people could only know, how outraged they would become at all the time and energy that was wasted by believing in and spending life fretting over the ruler’s bugaboo of the day. Frankly, Iraq and Saddam Hussein weren’t that great a concern to me before the Bush family and all their oil baron buddies got involved. I wish I NEVER had to know or listen to or be inundated with the constant subject of Iraq in one on thousandth of the dose I’ve been getting. There are a lot of other, far more important things in the world, but the Bushes have to shove Iraq, and TERROR TERROR TERROR down our throats without cease. And yes, I do consider 9-11 was blowback against the US for our underhanded involvement throughout the region in the 80s and 90s. The way I look at it is this. If a mad scientist is constantly creating monsters and letting them loose on the community, I don’t set up a permanent army to deal with the monsters. I go after the monster maker himself. This is why we say we go after Hussein…because he will give weapons to terrorists…he will turn fanatics into monsters… But that’s exactly what we did for our own gain. We took Saddam Hussein, a very bad man and a fanatic, and we turned him into a terrible monster. s.w. "Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear — kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor — with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it…" –General Douglas MacArthur "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" –H. L. Mencken "He who lives by fighting with an enemy has an interest in the preservation of the enemy’s life". –Friedrich Nietzsche

Response:

sorry you are a lying sack of shit. NOT one time have you EVER posted anything where you called for SH removal. Not ONE time. EVER!!!

Calm down there bucko. First of all, I have. Do you claim you have read every one of my posts? Are you certain< that I have never shown opposition to Saddam in my posts? so stop lying asshole. The rest of what you post is utter left wing stinking bullshit and half truths

Stinking bullshit because you have been pre-programmed to believe its evil, half truths because you are incapable of believing that perhaps your trusted leaders themselves may have been lying to you. Take the US support for SH in the early 80s. How does that terrible decision 20 years ago affect things NOW?

I thought that my post already covered that in brief. Do the research yourself. Doesn’t the US involvement mean that the US is far MORE responsible for SH than Most other nations?

That is a large part of my point, yes. Next the April Glaspie event is as always completely mis represented by you idiots…

It is not. I didn’t even present it, I told people to look up their own sources on it, and for them to make up thier own mind. Here response "The US has no interest in a BORDER DISPUTE". was made regarding the Iraqi claim about Kuwait slant drilling into the northern half of the Oilfield. In that regard the Iraqi claim was legit. That does NOT give SH the right to take over the whole fucking nation.

Oh, I never thought that it did, but Saddam Hussein DID have every reason to believe that was what the US’s position was on Kuwait. That is the exact point I’m trying to make regarding the deceptive tactic the US used in that instance. s.w.

Response:

1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time.

Actually, Russia, France, and China supplied Saddam with more than 80% of his arsenal. USA accounted for around 2%. Besides, since we made the mistake of helping him once, doesn;t that make it our responsibility to bring about his end. It’s not hypocracy to clean up a mess you made, is it?

Response:

— This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.

liar. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition.

If you actually opposed Saddam and his rule, why are you repeating his lie on this matter? Saddam has issued two contradictory accounts of the meeting, only one of which gives the green light They cannot both be true, and we have no reason to suppose that either one is true. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq.

Was then, is now. The matter was hotly discussed at the time — same story then as now — you supposedly cannot invade without the UN etc. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did

And they got support — but support well short of armed invasion. Had they received that kind of support, you would have responded with the same indignation and outrage as you just did respond in the last three weeks. I opposed the war also, but my opposition was that the US should not be using my tax dollars to help the Iraqis and reform the middle east — we should let those damned arabs stew in their own juices until they themselves come to realize the virtues of capitalism and democracy. Your position was that the US was attacking the Iraqis, seeking to harm them, steal their oil, impose capitalism upon them. Now, confronted by scenes of jubilation, you suddenly forget the position you formerly held. –digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG XJfAgRGVmNVjqJ8ES5O7gwFgbvoqTSUwULxZUam9 4DVOC7mArLsNUk9SSKxwEPtFgBlwtJofIxXeXyi6H

Response:

This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.

And now let’s hear what you have to say about Castro’s repression of dissention his iw "worker’s paradise." Quick before it’s too late.

Response:

This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.

And now let’s hear what you have to say about Castro’s repression of dissention in his "worker’s paradise." Quick before it’s too late.

Response:

This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. What would I have done differently? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin

Translation: Have the UN check it out. Any questions?

Just one. How can somebody with no brains make such a long post? Ave Imperator Bush! Ave Imperator Bush! Ave Imperator Bush! Sic Semper Tyrannus. Magnum est rex esse.

Response:

This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.

Bullshit. Everything you have said, including the part of this post I’ve snipped has been designed to accomplish the exact opposite. — Mike Russell http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr http://geigy.2y.net

Response:

More nonsense. We did help arm him with some weapons, but we weren’t even the frontrunners. Between 1972 and 1990 when Saddam was in his weapons buying frenzy mode Iraq listed 40 billion dollars worth of arms sales. Russia (Soviet Union) was the largest supplier with 25 billion. The US was the smallest on that list with 200,000 dollars. European nations sold Iraq virtually all it’s equipment to make poison gas. The US sold Iraq samples of Anthrax, which Iraq said was going to be used for medical research. and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time.

Because it was kind of hard to oppose him at a time Iran was taking US citizens hostage. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission —

No he didn’t, but you can spin it any way you want. we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition.

Conspiracy theory nonsense. From the first day of the war the US condemned Iraq and warned them to leave. Saddam had months to comply. He didn’t. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do?

The uprisings began right at the end of the war, not after it. Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam.

We never could have done that. The coalition we formed would have completely shattered. Our UN mandate did not call for removing Saddam, and we assured our arab allies that we would not try to overthrow him. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present),

No they weren’t. and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this.

He had clearance to use Helicopters. Schwartkopf made a mistake in doing this. He didn’t think about the Iraqi’s using them as weapons against the uprising. As for Tanks we had already signed a ceasefire. Are we supposed to violate that ceasefire by blowing up their tanks? We then created the no fly zones in response to this Iraqi aggression, which you conveniently don’t mention. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil.

Then blame the UN. The oil revenue was controlled by them. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people.

The oil for food program worked. Saddam was sabotaging it in order to use it as a political tool. That said, Saddam refused to sell oil to the US anyway. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people.

And then it somehow benefitted Saddam when we bombed him two times during the Clinton Administration? Snipped the rest of the conspiracy theory babble. Jeremy Olson

Response:

I have tupper ware and dead animals that are better informed than you asshole

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade.

Response:

sorry you are a lying sack of shit. NOT one time have you EVER posted anything where you called for SH removal. Not ONE time. EVER!!! so stop lying asshole. The rest of what you post is utter left wing stinking bullshit and half truths Take the US support for SH in the early 80s. How does that terrible decision 20 years ago affect things NOW? Doesn’t the US involvement mean that the US is far MORE responsible for SH than Most other nations? Next the April Glaspie event is as always completely mis represented by you idiots… Here response "The US has no interest in a BORDER DISPUTE". was made regarding the Iraqi claim about Kuwait slant drilling into the northern half of the Oilfield. In that regard the Iraqi claim was legit. That does NOT give SH the right to take over the whole fucking nation.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast

Response:

I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED.

<snip This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have,

<snip Any questions?

Yes. One wonders how the people dancing in Baghdad would receive your wonderful argumentation. — Eduardo Suastegui "Test everything; Hold on to the good." (Remove 701 when replying via e-mail)

Response:

I agree with most of what you have said here. The sanctions were horrible, although I agreed with them at the time. They did keep Saddam from building another powerful army and kept him from other WMD….but it also destroyed a people. For that I regret my support of the sanctions. Bush should have encouraged the Shiites and the Kurds to finish what he started rather than betraying them. I’ll take some blame for that too. I always deplored that betrayal…but I wanted to stop the killing. I didn’t know about the promises he made until too late. So I supported him stopping the war when he did. I didn’t know about the standing by and letting Saddam killing those who had responded to our call. For that Bush earns the title SCUM. For all the good that this new freedom may be, it can not erase the evil of that betrayal….and George Jr. was as supportive of his father as any one else. You didn’t see him up on the talk shows condemning the betrayal. He and his father betrayed those people…..period. NOW! I am afraid the UN will never be able to do these democratic missions. The UN is not a democratic institution. Perhaps we should pressure it to become a democratic institution…probably not. I would be for scrapping it altogether…but if we started a new democratic international body of the willing…..well….the result would be obvious—-a brand new world war III. Today was a good day for Bush, and it looks good for all that love democracy and freedom. This war has had its ups and downs. Tomorrow is another day! There were reasons why thinking people were skeptical about this war. I hope not….but tomorrow may bring repercussions that we saw when we first formulated our position but seem to have disappeared today. It looks good now, but it has only started. Beneath the joy there is already apparent anger at Bush. He has promised things that he may not be able to deliver. He has done that before to these people so I suspect patience will be thin. Bush has built a campfire on a grassy prairie, but we still have to cook our dinner, roast the marshmallows, make the coffee, and put the fire out without burning down the prairie. Sandstorms and high winds can come up anytime in this region of the world. Randy R. Cox

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. <snip This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, <snip Any questions? Yes. One wonders how the people dancing in Baghdad would receive your wonderful argumentation. — Eduardo Suastegui "Test everything; Hold on to the good." (Remove 701 when replying via e-mail)

Response:

"You’re an idiot".

BlackWater Dave Zero Brain Death Captain Compassion Each of you has presented yourself as a conservative, with whom I have many disagreements. I don’t expect any of you will agree with me now, but I do expect that each of you is at least in large degree an independent thinker, interested in objective debate and discussion. We have held strongly opposing opinions, but I respect each of you and consider my time spent here to be more instructive through your involvement. Now that I have finished ‘massaging your egos’ (to put it in PC terms), I have a request for you. I am interested in reading your takes on my post, as I have come to expect from you a respectable and intelligent response. You are welcome to simply respond as the above poster has responded, by calling me an idiot, and have done with it. Well? What do you say? s.w.

Response:

Response:

This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition. 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration. 4. Believe it or not, but I consider Clinton as another part of the problem of American duplicity and hegemony. During his administration we saw a continuation of policy towards Iraq that supposedly was hurting Saddam Hussein, but indeed it was not, it was helping him. During this period we saw the imposition of the "Oil for Food" program — a horribly misnamed program that was supposed to allow food and medicine into Iraq, in exchange for dirt cheap oil. What was really happening here? It was an arrangement between the West and Saddam. Here’s how it worked. Saddam, and his ultra right elite continued to do business with the West. They in turn took the profits of this business, and used it for their own benefit, and did not uphold their side of the bargain to aid the suffering Iraqi people. Because of our attacks in the first Gulf War, the infrastructure of Iraq was devastated. Clean water, and ample food were scarce commodities. By continuing to deny his own people of the supplied they needed for survival, Saddam and his elite class were partially responsible for the deaths of almost a million women children and elderly. He blamed it on the sanctions, and on the US war that had damaged the country severely, and this was a partial truth that the people believed. At the same time, the West was telling its people (the few that were interested) that it was in fact Saddam that was causing the suffering. They were partially correct, and the masses bought it, and became disinterested. All along, I saw the sham: The West got their oil, Saddam and his wealthy elite Baathists got their money, and to hell with all the dying people. It was the perfect method for the west to weaken Iraq’s foundation while the pigs at the top continued to wallow in their wealth. Then came the inspections, really just another ruse to soften Iraq up more for a long planned invasion, orchestrated by Zionists like Wolfowitz and Perle, and by oil barons like Bush and Cheney. Now we see the results of all the planning. I’ll let you guess as to how things will turn out. * * * So, what’s the point here? First of all, my point is that the option of getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not previously pursued seriously, and that in fact, his continued presence was desired by the US gov’t, until that time came when it would be convenient to take him out. What would I have done differently? So much. What follows is my plan on how we should handle many other situations where a despotic regime threatens its own people and its neighbors. What so few here understand is that I have not been complaining that the US is doing TOO MUCH, but that it is NOT DOING NEARLY ENOUGH. What follows is a slightly modified version of a previous post: OK. ARE YOU READY TO IGNORE THIS? How to peacefully Democratize a foreign, despotic regime: After long and thorough deliberation to determine that a regime is unequivocally despotic, the UN organizes a truly international, multilateral delegation to go into the capital city. 1. A UN delegation representing the vast majority of countries sets up shop in the Capital City to oversee affairs, and to begin broadcasting objective information to the rest of the world about the true conditions there. They are escorted by a minor security apparatus for basic protection. The understanding is that if a hair is touched on any of the delegation, the world’s wrath righteously will follow. Of course, there would have to be a strong potential< fighting force available to the UN waiting in the wings. I am not unaware that force is a necessary deterrent< This delegation has a few functions, mainly: A. To ensure human rights are not being violated. B. To enable an apparatus for true Democratic elections to take place in the country, with the current leader’s ‘full cooperation and support’ (coerced or otherwise). Any resistance on the part of said leader will of course be broadcast worldwide, and new, more vigorous steps towards gaining compliance would be enacted. Elections would be funded by the countries own domestic revenues, unless outside assistance was required, in which case the UN would foot the bill, with the expectation that the country in question would eventually repay it. The elections would of course be closely regulated to ensure fairness and accuracy. C. As a possible contingency in circumstances of non-compliance, an international tribunal would be set up. This tribunal would be designed to present evidence and testimony about the officials in question, and would be protected, legislated and guarded by the international community. The genius of this proposal comes from two main factors: 1. True Credibility: The very close adherence to ideals of international law, and universally (now) accepted standards of human rights. By following these precepts, the international force gives itself the moral authority to be present, and places the burden of doubt not on the enforcers, but upon the despotic regime itself. Because the procedures would honestly be employing peaceful methods, without simply the false rhetoric of such, there would be no question of their validity. This is the basis of gaining true credibility. 2. True Multilateralism: One of the key factors towards this method succeeding is the need for the delegation to truly be multilateral — i.e. representing a vast majority of the world’s nations. Because of the credibility factor, presented above, few if any countries would want to be seen as non participatory. Each country would like to have that credibility given to itself. The necessity is not that absolutely ALL nations be represented, but that few abstain, and these should themselves not be strong democratic nations. Imagine this system were enacted to handle the Iraq crisis. Which nation in the world would not want to be part of a TRULY peaceful action with the purpose of honestly and peacefully making Iraq a better place? With an international delegation, completely and honestly dedicated to peace, which despot in their right mind would do anything to impede their progress? None, because it would be instantly and thoroughly understood than any such an action would entail THE ENTIRE WORLD COMING DOWN ON THEM WITH A RIGHTEOUS FURY. To resist would be instant, and deserved suicide. And the added bonus: Hospitals would not be filled with innocent dead and wounded children, mothers, fathers and elderly. True Democracy would be the goal, not enforced hegemony — there would be no underhanded grab for war profits, no grab for resources such as oil etc.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This goes out to all the mind-dead Party zealots who are doing their worst for the Republican Reich who now rule America: I AM GLAD SADDAM HUSSEIN IS OUSTED. I bet you just can’t believe I’m saying that, but I’ve been against Saddam Hussein all along. I have wanted him to be ousted ever since I learned about his villainy long ago, before the first Gulf War. Yes, I am more well informed than the average person, its a personal policy of mine to know what’s going on, and I have hated the man for over a decade. This by no means indicates that I supported the war. In fact, I have, as most know, considered this war an abomination against all American ideals since it first was suggested by G.W. Bush over a year and a half ago. "But, how can you hold both views, Sky Walker? They contradict one another. You hate the man, but you want to reward him by allowing him to continue ruling. You are a hypocrite." WRONG. I have supported, suggested, explained, discussed numerous other means by which to depose Saddam Hussein starting quite a while back.

Fun to observe the back peddling. First of all, let’s look at what the international community did to try and get Saddam out of Iraq. 1. In an earlier time, when Saddam was fighting Iran, a mutual US/Iraq enemy, the United States, under the control of the Republican Party, armed Saddam with terrible weapons, and supported his gassing of Kurds, and his killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Iranians. This was something that many liberals at the time completely opposed. We saw Saddam for what he was, and tried to stop the Republicans from strengthening this dictators hold over his people, and the threat he posed to his neighbors. The Republicans in the US continued to support Saddam, regardless of the loud outcry of the liberals at the time.

OK so it is right to continue to do so…twisted logic. 2. Before Saddam invaded Kuwait, he checked in with his allies in the first Bush administration to ask permission. In thinly veiled terms, he got that permission — we know this now as the Glaspie incident — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about. Bush Sr. set up Saddam, his ally days earlier, so as to increase US presence in the Middle East and begin the campaign that we are seeing today coming to full fruition.

Times change and so do allies….France has become a clear example. it’s so obvious it’s painful to even enter this discussion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 3. After the Gulf War, the US ostensibly could not get rid of Saddam Hussein, because international consensus was against us invading Iraq. What we did instead is ask the Shiites in the south, and the Kurds in the north to rise up, more or less promising them support if they did so. When the uprisings began, what did the US do? Did we gather international support to stop Saddam and aid the uprisings? Of course, we can see today that if we wanted to push a propaganda campaign to allow us to do this, we could have easily excused our support of the Shiites and Kurds to topple Saddam. We didn’t do that. We stood back, just as observers on the scene (US forces were present), and watched Saddam brutally repress and kill thousands of Shiites and Kurds. We even gave Saddam clearance to take helicopters and tanks into an area to do this. This is history. Look it up. Not only did we do nothing, we practically HELPED Saddam to kill these people. And yes, this was still under the Bush Sr. administration.

Yes. practically. But, we did not help him, we merely turned out head in the interest of what you are now advocating. Please. don’t go away mad. Just go away. (sniped the balance of backpeddling)

Response:

I would imagine they would understand his position better than you think. I would imagine you wouldn’t have to look far to find onlookers who have a family member at home or in the hospital with a missing limb. You didn’t see any of those people out there jumping up and down did you. Because you don’t see them doesn’t mean they are not there. Those of us who seek the truth, seek to see all that we can see. Tunnel vision never rendered wisdom. Randy R. Cox

Response:

With an international delegation, completely and honestly dedicated to peace, which despot in their right mind would do anything to impede their progress? None, because it would be instantly and thoroughly understood than any such an action would entail THE ENTIRE WORLD COMING DOWN ON THEM WITH A RIGHTEOUS FURY. To resist would be instant, and deserved suicide.

This is the whole problem with your argument. You are assuming that a government will support the overthrow if its own ideas. That is not the case, never has been, and never will be. You’re telling me that a small group of people from international sources going into a country with a radio tower and spouting off about how bad their government is will lead the people in that country to revolt? Ever stop to think that the government in that country already has the infrastructure in place to spread propaganda to the civilian population at large? Has the ability to organize demonstrations of people all around that radio tower, demanding it be removed? Where does world opinion go with that? seeing millions of people protesting the invasion of their homeland by people whose only goal is to bad mouth their leader? I’ll tell you where it goes. Straight back to France. Is there a better method to effect a regime change in Iraq? Probably. Is there a better way to ensure that the Iraqi regime is removed from power and not pulling the puppet strings of a new government? Probably not. Your method would result in a lengthy feud where an impotent organization is attempting to control the opinion of the masses. The masses don’t understand reason. The masses understand survival. If survival requires they oppose the delegation with the radio tower to avoid pissing off their current leader, they are not going to support it, no matter how much hope it offers them. Furthermore, what would happen if your plan started to work, and the people began to turn away from the leader? The exact same thing that is happening now. You’re assuming that everyone will change at the same time. You’re assuming that the leader cannot organize his hardliners into committing to a battle, even if the forces arrayed against them could easily defeat an army twice their size. What you are suggesting will result in a war very similar to the current one, except there will be international support (assuming you could get the UN to agree to the plan in the first place)

Response:

You don’t have to explain. It was already CRYSTAL CLEAR to us. "You’re an idiot". But at least now you want to be on the winning team.

Response:

Filed under: Human Rights

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism