Pro-war rally "bombs" out.

[AAP]

On Saturday, the anti-war rally in D.C. attracted over 100,000 supporters at the day long rally.

Sunday, after weeks of proclaiming that their Pro-War rally would have "many, many times the number" of attendees because "America's voice will be heard", the total number of people was estimated at a whopping, 400. And many in attendance said that number was inflated quite a bit.

Sheehan later proclaimed that apparently America's voice was heard over the weekend, and it wasn't from those 400 people.

The highlight to me was the woman that got up there and said we should support our troops because they were over in Iraq fighting for our rights and our freedom. WTF?? This woman must be so disllusional that it is not even funny. What rights am I gaining from the Iraq war? How is that war giving me more freedom.

Bible thumbers and conservatives should pull their heads out of the smoke screen and get a fucking clue. Or at least learn to articulate better arguements supporting their views.

 

[nycgirl]

There had to be at least 50 Pentagon Policemen, 10 MPs, and at least 5 dogs waiting to pounce on some protestors that felt it was necessary to protest on the grounds of the Pentagon near the entrance to the train station (thus delaying my commute this morning).

 

[Lestat]

did someone say bomb?

 

[bigmann245]

On Saturday, the anti-war rally in D.C. attracted over 100,000 supporters at the day long rally.

Sunday, after weeks of proclaiming that their Pro-War rally would have "many, many times the number" of attendees because "America's voice will be heard", the total number of people was estimated at a whopping, 400. And many in attendance said that number was inflated quite a bit.

Sheehan later proclaimed that apparently America's voice was heard over the weekend, and it wasn't from those 400 people.

The highlight to me was the woman that got up there and said we should support our troops because they were over in Iraq fighting for our rights and our freedom. WTF?? This woman must be so disllusional that it is not even funny. What rights am I gaining from the Iraq war? How is that war giving me more freedom.

Bible thumbers and conservatives should pull their heads out of the smoke screen and get a fucking clue. Or at least learn to articulate better arguements supporting their views.

i hate people that say this is for OUR freedom. i fully support the soldiers there because not onlt was i one of them but its not their choice to go. most of them are in the military for the college money. but now they are being told they have to go fight another countries war. i still havent found what this war is about. it was origionally about WMD but that proved fals and now we say its fro freedom. not ours, theirs. wtf do we care about what other countries do. i wanted saddam killed more than anyone, but i also want to kill my previous commanding officer but you dont see me running out there to do it. we started something we cant just walk away from because WE started it. i just dont get the logic anymore. i was all for the war when i thought they seriously had evidence of WMD but as a country that has WMD's ourselves we are very hipocritical. and believe me i was in the military so dont try to tell me we dont have them.

 

[Mavafanculo]

On Saturday, the anti-war rally in D.C. attracted over 100,000 supporters at the day long rally.

Sunday, after weeks of proclaiming that their Pro-War rally would have "many, many times the number" of attendees because "America's voice will be heard", the total number of people was estimated at a whopping, 400. And many in attendance said that number was inflated quite a bit.

Sheehan later proclaimed that apparently America's voice was heard over the weekend, and it wasn't from those 400 people.

The highlight to me was the woman that got up there and said we should support our troops because they were over in Iraq fighting for our rights and our freedom. WTF?? This woman must be so disllusional that it is not even funny. What rights am I gaining from the Iraq war? How is that war giving me more freedom.

Bible thumbers and conservatives should pull their heads out of the smoke screen and get a fucking clue. Or at least learn to articulate better arguements supporting their views.

[* doing an imitation of a Senator *] "I would like to associate myself with AAP's remarks."

I think it was Rove who said "There isnt any anti-war movement." right. The American people have finally opened their eyes just alittle, and they dont like what they see. all the spin in the world wont change that now.

 

[Whiskey]

Psshhhhh

Whiskey

 

[rsnoble-im-back]

Iraq=oil and military positioning.

And if you haven't figured that out yet.........a few more years of neo-con rule will convince you.

 

[AAP]

Instead of fighting for OUR rights and OUR freedom in another country that didn't do shit to us, why not just fight for OUR oil too.

 

[Gambino]

Iraq=oil and military positioning.

And if you haven't figured that out yet.........a few more years of neo-con rule will convince you.

assuming this is true, why are you so opposed to this? do you not want america to have control over oil reserves? would you rather have some despot in control of the oil reserves?? i mean, you made a ton of posts about having all these guzzling mopar machines, how do you plan on putting gas in them if their is no fuel??

 

[AAP]

Gasoline prices were lower when Saddamn was in power. Maybe we should stick him back in office. After all our own leader has proven he can't stop making a mess of his own country, why should we expect him to do it for another?

 

[Gambino]

Instead of fighting for OUR rights and OUR freedom in another country that didn't do shit to us, why not just fight for OUR oil too.

So i take it you are a isolationist...that's how you come across. certainly nothing wrong with that mentality, though it does seem outdated in this day of international existence
If you follow you learn of reasoning throughout the 20th century, both wars against germany could have been avoided. afterall, germany never attacked are soil or directly threatened our rights. Just trying to figure out if you are consistent or if the bush thing makes you illogical

 

[Mavafanculo]

Gasoline prices were lower when Saddamn was in power. Maybe we should stick him back in office. After all our own leader has proven he can't stop making a mess of his own country, why should we expect him to do it for another?

I think I posted elsewhere that a good case can be made that part of the reason for the Iraq misadventure was not to take their oil, but rather create the chaos that now exists and is keeping Iraqii oil off the market, thus supporting high oil prices for the benefit of George & Dicks past and future business partners and contributors. . Remember that the Oil sanctions were about to be lifted, and cash-starved Sadaam would have flooded the world market with oil.

(p.s to Matt - at any given level of refining capacity and vertical/horizontal integration, lower raw material price will lead to lower ultimate sale price. iow, higher supply &/or lower competitor inventory cost = lower price obtainable at the pump )

 

[Mavafanculo]

So i take it you are a isolationist...that's how you come across. certainly nothing wrong with that mentality, though it does seem outdated in this day of international existence
If you follow you learn of reasoning throughout the 20th century, both wars against germany could have been avoided. afterall, germany never attacked are soil or directly threatened our rights. Just trying to figure out if you are consistent or if the bush thing makes you illogical

G why exactly do you support our involvement in Iraq? What good do you believe it does for us. Bush & Co have changed the reason for us being there 5 or 6 times now, and everytime a reason is discredited, they roll out a new one with a straight face..

 

[Gambino]

G why exactly do you support our involvement in Iraq? What good do you believe it does for us. Bush & Co have changed the reason for us being there 5 or 6 times now, and everytime a reason is discredited, they roll out a new one with a straight face..

damn i just had a phat page of text but i deleted it. off topic slightly but lenghty. basically if your boy was in office, whoever it may be, you'd be all for this war and I'd proly be against it. uglyness of partisan-ness

 

[Basic_wonder]

I though we just wanted to go over and kill people, since when did war mean anything else ....

 

[Mavafanculo]

damn i just had a phat page of text but i deleted it. off topic slightly but lenghty. basically if your boy was in office, whoever it may be, you'd be all for this war and I'd proly be against it. uglyness of partisan-ness

I was actually gung-ho for iraq invasion (as i supported afghanistan vs taliban/al queda) when I believed the WMD sales pitch. and as it became obvious that they deliberately snowed us I got more and more anti-bush as well as anti-iraq war. (i always hated and despised him, just became more so lol)

 

[AAP]

I would not be for this war no matter who was in office. It is a fucking mistake and nothing but a personal agenda of a few asswipes in office.

 

[Spartacus]

U.S. Special Forces Kill No. 2 Terrorist in Iraq

Monday, September 26, 2005

WASHINGTON — U.S. Special Forces killed Al Qaeda's No. 2 terror mastermind in Iraq , Defense Department officials said.

FOX News has confirmed that Abu Azzam , who was believed to have been in charge of the financing of terrorist cells in the war-torn country, was killed during a raid in Baghdad early Monday morning Iraq time. Azzam is thought to be the top deputy to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , Iraq's most wanted terrorist.

Azzam is the latest in a series of top Zarqawi deputies that have been killed or captured by coalition forces in recent months. Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq group has taken responsibility for some of the country's most horrific acts of terror including car bombings, kidnappings and beheadings of Iraqi civilians and westerners.

Earlier this month Zarqawi, a Sunni Muslim, pledged war on Iraqi Shiites in response to the U.S. and Iraqi military offensive on the town of Tal Afar near the Syrian border.

The U.S. military said it is continuing to make progress dismantling Zarqawi's operations. Officials credit much of the success to the increasing number of tips coming from Iraqi civilians. A top U.S. commander in northwestern region of the country said that 80 percent the terror network has been affected by coalition operations in his region.

 

[Spartacus]

54% Say US Troop Withdrawal Will Make Things Worse in Iraq

Survey of 2,000 Adults

September 22-25, 2005

If the United States withdraws all of its troops from Iraq, will that make things better or worse in Iraq?
Better 20%
Worse 54%
No Impact 14%

RasmussenReports.com

September 26, 2005--Most Americans (54%) believe that withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq will make things worse in that troubled nation. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 20% disagree and say that troop withdrawal will make things better. These numbers are identical to the results of our August survey.

Republicans, by a 78% to 10% margin, say that withdrawing troops from Iraq would make things worse in that county. Democrats are evenly divided on the question, with 30% of Harry Reid's party saying the troop withdrawal would make things better and 33% taking the opposite view.

As for those not affiliated with either major party, 49% say withdrawing troops now would make the situation worse. Twenty percent (20%) of unaffiliateds say bringing U.S. troops home would improve the situation in Iraq.

A measure of the country's polarization concerning Iraq is that Republicans overwhelmingly view the U.S. troops as a liberating army. Democrats, by a 2-to-1 margin, see the U.S. forces as an occupying army. Unaffiliateds are evenly divided.

Overall, 35% say that the U.S. forces in Iraq are an occupying force. Forty-four percent (44%) view them as a liberating force.

 

[ziggyziggy]

On Saturday, the anti-war rally in D.C. attracted over 100,000 supporters at the day long rally.

Sunday, after weeks of proclaiming that their Pro-War rally would have "many, many times the number" of attendees because "America's voice will be heard", the total number of people was estimated at a whopping, 400. And many in attendance said that number was inflated quite a bit.

Sheehan later proclaimed that apparently America's voice was heard over the weekend, and it wasn't from those 400 people.

The highlight to me was the woman that got up there and said we should support our troops because they were over in Iraq fighting for our rights and our freedom. WTF?? This woman must be so disllusional that it is not even funny. What rights am I gaining from the Iraq war? How is that war giving me more freedom.

Bible thumbers and conservatives should pull their heads out of the smoke screen and get a fucking clue. Or at least learn to articulate better arguements supporting their views.

I had access to ariel footage that you will not see on the close cropped media shots. There MAY have been 35K lefties at the protest. 40K is being generous.

Now, as the media hates Bush, they will say just about anything to help out the antiwar leftists. Hell, even the DC Police Chief said the they reached their goals of 100K.

This is nothing more than police politics. Ramsey hopes to placate the lefties by saying that they were out in force. 35 - 40K, max, is what was in DC.

Yes, the lefties outnumbered the pro-war supporters, but then again, what do you expect from a city that has the East coast's welfare state, MD, on its border?

Zig

 

[Spartacus]

If you follow you learn of reasoning throughout the 20th century, both wars against germany could have been avoided. afterall, germany never attacked are soil or directly threatened our rights. Just trying to figure out if you are consistent or if the bush thing makes you illogical

France and Britian declared war on Nazi Germany over the sovereignity of Poland
which was also attacked by the USSR
Poland didn't gain her sovereignity until circa 1989

 

[1_more_rep]

I would not be for this war no matter who was in office. It is a fucking mistake and nothing but a personal agenda of a few asswipes in office.

AGREED 100% VOTE AAP FOR OFFICE!

it's kind of sad and pathetic when people start having pro-death rallies. sorry, i meant pro-war. oh well, they're synonyms so its ok .

 

[AAP]

35,000 vs. 400. Hmmm... easy to still see who made a point.

Besides, 400 is not exactly the 20,000 that the righties promised would show up.

 

[nycgirl]

I had access to ariel footage that you will not see on the close cropped media shots. There MAY have been 35K lefties at the protest. 40K is being generous.

Now, as the media hates Bush, they will say just about anything to help out the antiwar leftists. Hell, even the DC Police Chief said the they reached their goals of 100K.

This is nothing more than police politics. Ramsey hopes to placate the lefties by saying that they were out in force. 35 - 40K, max, is what was in DC.

Yes, the lefties outnumbered the pro-war supporters, but then again, what do you expect from a city that has the East coast's welfare state, MD, on its border?

Zig

He's right. I wasn't here this weekend, but they usually start arriving on Thursday/Friday and from what I saw on Friday there weren't alot hippies in the city.

The protest I saw at the Pentagon this morning only had about 10-12 people. I didn't understand the need for 50 Pentagon police officers, MPs AND dogs, but hey, what do I know?

And he's definitely right about MD being a welfare state.

 

[Spartacus]

35,000 vs. 400. Hmmm... easy to still see who made a point.

Besides, 400 is not exactly the 20,000 that the righties promised would show up.

Farrakhan routinely attracts thousands more to his rallys

 

[AAP]

Hell even ol' Reilly is going in print and calling the Iraq War and the hurricane emergency aid to be Bush disasters.

Why are we in Iraq? I don't remember going to war because our rights were threatened or our freedom was being compromised. Is that what they said? I don't remember that. What I do remember is saying that lots and lots of WMD were there and so far, they havne't found a single one. Then they started calling it the War on Terror. What terror? Last I heard not a single terrorist from the last go around was from Iraq.

From Reilly :

More Bad News For President Bush...
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
PHOTOS


More bad news for President Bush, but his opponents fail to capitalize. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

A new Gallup (search) poll taken after the president's speech in New Orleans (search) last week shows no bounce. His job approval rating stands at 40 percent. And a record 58 percent of Americans saying his performance is not good.

O'REILLY: Bush addressed the U.N., says he wants to be steadfast in battling terrorism. I'm sure all the U.N. people fell asleep.

Can President Bush Make A Comeback?
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
By Bill O'Reilly
PHOTOS VIDEO

The poll numbers after Katrina show the president's job approval slipping below 40 percent, which is in Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon territory. If Mr. Bush continues to fall, he will be handcuffed for the next three years in getting his programs passed, his policies implemented.

There's no question President Bush did not fulfill the leadership role Americans expect in a disaster like that. As soon as the levees were breached, it became a national and security issue and the president should have issued an executive order immediately, sending in the military.

In time of life/death, Americans look for to the commander in chief to lead, not to some confused governor or mayor.

The question now becomes can Mr. Bush make a comeback? The relief efforts are building, but we're still dealing with a huge, confused bureaucracy here. I expect most hurricane victims will get a chance to start again, but it won't be easy.

That, however, will not be enough. President Bush needs a big win and soon. Katrina, Iraq, gas prices and the chaotic border have all descended upon the president. If something dramatically good doesn't happen soon, like the capture of bin Laden or Zarqawi, Mr. Bush could be staring at very, very tough times.

 

[AAP]

Farrakhan routinely attracts thousands more to his rallys

Then that is a true sad statement of the Presidency when more people turn out to support a nitwit like Farrakhan than they do their own elected Commander in Chief.

This statement really put your foot in your mouth.

For the President's Policies = 400
Against The Pres's Policies = 100,000 reported. Though even the lower being claimed still is completely dwarfing.

 

[bluepeter]

So i take it you are a isolationist...that's how you come across. certainly nothing wrong with that mentality, though it does seem outdated in this day of international existence
If you follow you learn of reasoning throughout the 20th century, both wars against germany could have been avoided. afterall, germany never attacked are soil or directly threatened our rights. Just trying to figure out if you are consistent or if the bush thing makes you illogical

Germany was an international threat. Please don't tell me that Iraq fell into the same category.

 

[AAP]

Germany was an international threat. Please don't tell me that Iraq fell into the same category.

dude, didn't you know... they were like... and then they..... and they were gonna....

wait, what did they do to anyone?

 

[1_more_rep]

dude, didn't you know... they were like... and then they..... and they were gonna....

wait, what did they do to anyone?

don't you remember? mr saddam tried to KILL bush's daddy...so of course baby bush would try to humiliate the man that tried to kill daddy. It's all justified. and iraq has weapons of mass destruction remember? or wait nevermind the US is the superpower with all the nukes and Iraq is the country with a bunch of oil and sand, im sorry, i make alot of mistakes.

 

[javaguru]

Germany was an international threat. Please don't tell me that Iraq fell into the same category.

I'll play devil's advocate. Saddam had proven to be an international threat with his wars of aggression and specifically his invasion of Kuwait. Had he managed to successfully acquire the Kuwait oil reserves his threat to international stability would have greatly increased. Who knows, if England and France had stood up to Hitler over the Sudetanland he and Saddam may have had a similar footnote in history. He also waged a ten year sitzkrieg against Iran, supported by the US, but the United States has always had the "enemy of my enemy" attitude in foreign relations.

Personaly, I was against the invasion from the beginning. The "anti-war" movement momentum isn't surprising, with a Democratic nation it's only a matter of time before one arises. Extensive propoganda is the only proven way to extend the life of a conflict and the media isn't cooperating. That's why Roosevelt wanted to be the "arsenal of democracy" as he understood how fragile the will of a Democratic nation becomes in direct warfare. A counter insurgency is the worst case situation.

 

[bluepeter]

I had access to ariel footage that you will not see on the close cropped media shots. There MAY have been 35K lefties at the protest. 40K is being generous.

Now, as the media hates Bush, they will say just about anything to help out the antiwar leftists. Hell, even the DC Police Chief said the they reached their goals of 100K.

This is nothing more than police politics. Ramsey hopes to placate the lefties by saying that they were out in force. 35 - 40K, max, is what was in DC.

Yes, the lefties outnumbered the pro-war supporters, but then again, what do you expect from a city that has the East coast's welfare state, MD, on its border?

Zig

Other than a chance to repeat the tired line about the notoriously leftist media bias and obfuscate the real issue, what was the point of this post?

40 thousand vs. 400 or 100 thousand vs. 400, what's the difference?

Also, why is someone that is against an unjust war a lefty (whatever that means)?

 

[Spartacus]

Then that is a true sad statement of the Presidency when more people turn out to support a nitwit like Farrakhan than they do their own elected Commander in Chief.

This statement really put your foot in your mouth.

For the President's Policies = 400
Against The Pres's Policies = 100,000 reported. Though even the lower being claimed still is completely dwarfing.

they have jobs
weekends are for spending the fruits of their labors
mostly it's about time

how many HIV protests have you traveled far for
and how many HIV "parties" have you hosted in which you pocketed 5K or whatever the figure

 

[bluepeter]

I'll play devil's advocate. Saddam had proven to be an international threat with his wars of aggression and specifically his invasion of Kuwait. Had he managed to successfully acquire the Kuwait oil reserves his threat to international stability would have greatly increased. Who knows, if England and France had stood up to Hitler over the Sudetanland he and Saddam may have had a similar footnote in history. He also waged a ten year sitzkrieg against Iran, supported by the US, but the United States has always had the "enemy of my enemy" attitude in foreign relations.

Personaly, I was against the invasion from the beginning. The "anti-war" movement momentum isn't surprising, with a Democratic nation it's only a matter of time before one arises. Extensive propoganda is the only proven way to extend the life of a conflict and the media isn't cooperating. That's why Roosevelt wanted to be the "arsenal of democracy" as he understood how fragile the will of a Democratic nation becomes in direct warfare. A counter insurgency is the worst case situation.

You just supported the Gulf War with your argument but that's ancient history Also, Saddam in 1990 was nowhere near the military threat that Germany was in 1939. Saddam in 2003 was just sad.

 

[javaguru]

You just supported the Gulf War with your argument but that's ancient history Also, Saddam in 1990 was nowhere near the military threat that Germany was in 1939. Saddam in 2003 was just sad.

Well, it's more of a justification for removing what could be a continuing threat based on past history. I don't have the numbers handy but Saddam re-built his military to pre-war levels within roughly two years post Gulf War. You could point to the human rights violations as well, the Bush admin jumped on that after the WMD proved unsubstantiated. The point being one can make a legitimate case for intervention in Iraq; Playing devils's advocate.

I was more or less making a point in regard to stopping a pending threat of aggression Vs. actual military threat. Saddam did show he was a major threat to the miltary's of the region by his quick conquest of Kuwait reagrdless of his actual threat to an international coalition. That being said, Germany wasn't that much of a threat in 1938, had Britain and France shown a little backbone. The Czech military hardware was superior to the Wehrmachts ( as was the French armor), they actually used Czech chasis' and Skoda works as a major arms supplier for the Wehrmacht post Sudetanland, combined with France and England Hitler would have likely been a footnote in history. There is a good scholarly work entitled, "The German Motorized Myth" or something like that which addresses the whole issue. The Wehrmacht breakthrough in the Ardennes was a fluke which made the allied advance into the low countries a catastrophic blunder. Likewise, barring a political coup Germany had no real hope of defeating the Soviet Union. Consider a single tank factory in the Urals could produce more T-34's in six months than the number of tanks in the entire Wehrmacht in 1941. People tend to forget warfare is nothing more than an extension of a nations political will and as long as your foes holds all the military prowess in the world can't overcome a vastly superior manpower and industrial base.

 

[Spartacus]

Then that is a true sad statement of the Presidency when more people turn out to support a nitwit like Farrakhan than they do their own elected Commander in Chief.

This statement really put your foot in your mouth.

For the President's Policies = 400
Against The Pres's Policies = 100,000 reported. Though even the lower being claimed still is completely dwarfing.

the real barometer is "elections"
not who manages to show up for folly

 

[75th]

You just supported the Gulf War with your argument but that's ancient history Also, Saddam in 1990 was nowhere near the military threat that Germany was in 1939. Saddam in 2003 was just sad.

Saddam did have the 3rd largest military in 1990.

Shit, even Saudi Arabia was scared of them and we give them all the shit we build for ourselves as well.

 

[Spartacus]

Germany was an international threat. Please don't tell me that Iraq fell into the same category.

in short
Saddam's aggressive stance in the midst of the middle east necissated his removal for the future of world economic security

 

[AAP]

they have jobs
weekends are for spending the fruits of their labors
mostly it's about time

how many HIV protests have you traveled far for
and how many HIV "parties" have you hosted in which you pocketed 5K or whatever the figure

The anti-war protesters had jobs too. Yet they traveled to speak their voice.

Face it, there are less people pleased with Bush's agenda than those who support it blindly.

As far as HIV and parties go, I don't travel for any. And no matter what I pocket off of them - which is only 50% of the proceeds for every third one I have because 100% of the proceeds goes to my charity of choice- at least I contribute something. Bush has pocketed how much off this war? What has he contributed to us?

 

[75th]

The anti-war protesters had jobs too. Yet they traveled to speak their voice.

Face it, there are less people pleased with Bush's agenda than those who support it blindly.

As far as HIV and parties go, I don't travel for any. And no matter what I pocket off of them - which is only 50% of the proceeds for every third one I have because 100% of the proceeds goes to my charity of choice- at least I contribute something. Bush has pocketed how much off this war? What has he contributed to us?

Why is the word "blindly" thrown in whenever anybody supports even one of Bush's policies.

Shit, Ive said time and time again Ive been against the war, but even some folks on here claim Im "blindly" supporting Bush when I try to inject what I believe to be common sense into some arguments.

And AAP, more people showing up does not equal more people displeased.

And dont bother mentioning any recent polls...I believe the largest number of people interviewed was maybe 850...and unless the finer details of the polling procedures are published theres no reason to give them a second thought.

While you may not agree, 4everhung is correct when he says the only poll that matters happens once every 4 years.

 

[AAP]

Saddam did have the 3rd largest military in 1990.

Shit, even Saudi Arabia was scared of them and we give them all the shit we build for ourselves as well.

This is 2005, not 1990. Wrong war. Though the first one was another Bush family failure too.

 

[75th]

This is 2005, not 1990. Wrong war. Though the first one was another Bush family failure too.

I think we won back in 1991.

And I wasnt saying anything about the current conflict, merely replying to bluephallus.

 

[AAP]

in short
Saddam's aggressive stance in the midst of the middle east necissated his removal for the future of world economic security

Oh, so you can see the future too? Saddams oil was a threat to the Bush oil? Is that it? Wow. I need one of those crystal balls too.

Again, I expect better posts from you in the morning when I wake up. These simply were not stimulating enough.

 

[1_more_rep]

Oh, so you can see the future too? Saddams oil was a threat to the Bush oil? Is that it? Wow. I need one of those crystal balls too.

Again, I expect better posts from you in the morning when I wake up. These simply were not stimulating enough.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to AAP again.

 

[Spartacus]

Oh, so you can see the future too? Saddams oil was a threat to the Bush oil? Is that it? Wow. I need one of those crystal balls too.

Again, I expect better posts from you in the morning when I wake up. These simply were not stimulating enough.

so you're claiming forward thinking is "crystal ball" gazing?
heh
I have my balls and our administration does too

you don't

 

[1_more_rep]

so you're claiming forward thinking is "crystal ball" gazing?
heh
I have my balls and our administration does too

you don't

administration has alot of balls...sending soldiers that the majority of need college money to go fight their aggressive wars. how come none of the bush administration is jumping in line to sign up their sons/daughters to serve in Iraq? isn't it such a noble cause - they should be jumping for this great opportunity.

besides, not wanting war does not mean not having balls. That is a misconception many war-junkies in our society have. Those that want to avoid war have balls, but they also have brains.

 

[75th]

administration has alot of balls...sending soldiers that the majority of need college money to go fight their aggressive wars. how come none of the bush administration is jumping in line to sign up their sons/daughters to serve in Iraq? isn't it such a noble cause - they should be jumping for this great opportunity.

besides, not wanting war does not mean not having balls. That is a misconception many war-junkies in our society have. Those that want to avoid war have balls, but they also have brains.

Im not sure how old you are or what country youre from, but in America parents cant sign their kids up for the military.

 

[pintoca]

assuming this is true, why are you so opposed to this? do you not want america to have control over oil reserves? would you rather have some despot in control of the oil reserves?? i mean, you made a ton of posts about having all these guzzling mopar machines, how do you plan on putting gas in them if their is no fuel??

Dude, that oil was not there for the taking...

 

[AAP]

so you're claiming forward thinking is "crystal ball" gazing?
heh
I have my balls and our administration does too

you don't

I have balls. And you can find them on your chin. What? Didn't your "forward thinking" predict that for you too?

Our administration has no balls either, just like you have no conclusively sound arguement to back up anything that you have posted thus far, except pulling some lame ass German sniper book report out of your ass that has no bearing to any topic being discussed. Hello? 2005 calling.