NationStates Jolt Archive

Wish to know something ironic? The candidates running for 08' against the Iraq War are actually making the US plan less effective. The insurgents won't lose morale if they know they only need to hold on for one more year and then be set free when the troops are pulled out.

Politics aren't as one-sided as some people see it as.
At least, some of you have good reasons for disliking Bush; but hey, it's not all his fault. Sure, he's a complete dunce at managing, at least in my opinion, but then again, leading a superpower isn't that easy. Still, he probably failed English class.

Don't see things just one-way. Try to see them both ways.

"lol war for OIL"
"lol letz kill some sand niggas"

are not seeing both ways.

"Perhaps the US is wrong for intervening, but you have to admit if the country appears to be hiding the chemical weapons plants from inspectors, you have to expect something. Perhaps an assault was rash, but for Bush it was easier than drafting an ultimatum (which could have solved this mess) and asking the Congress to declare war if conditions are not met. However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it. Instead, it was manipulating the country for more money or rather oil."

I think the US shouldn't just pull out, but instead offer contracts for construction and utility corporations of America to go to Iraq and fix some shit up if the Iraqis meet certain quotas. Decent amounts of materials will be provided for meeting quotas. Also, they could threaten a bombing run if any workers are killed.

Comments?

"Perhaps the US is wrong for intervening, but you have to admit if the country appears to be hiding the chemical weapons plants from inspectors, you have to expect something. Perhaps an assault was rash, but for Bush it was easier than drafting an ultimatum (which could have solved this mess) and asking the Congress to declare war if conditions are not met. However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it. Instead, it was manipulating the country for more money or rather oil."
Wait, how is this whole mess Europe's (specifically France's) fault?

Wish to know something ironic? The candidates running for 08' against the Iraq War are actually making the US plan less effective. The insurgents won't lose morale if they know they only need to hold on for one more year and then be set free when the troops are pulled out.

Politics aren't as one-sided as some people see it as.
At least, some of you have good reasons for disliking Bush; but hey, it's not all his fault. Sure, he's a complete dunce at managing, at least in my opinion, but then again, leading a superpower isn't that easy. Still, he probably failed English class.

Don't see things just one-way. Try to see them both ways.

"lol war for OIL"
"lol letz kill some sand niggas"

are not seeing both ways.

"Perhaps the US is wrong for intervening, but you have to admit if the country appears to be hiding the chemical weapons plants from inspectors, you have to expect something. Perhaps an assault was rash, but for Bush it was easier than drafting an ultimatum (which could have solved this mess) and asking the Congress to declare war if conditions are not met. However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it. Instead, it was manipulating the country for more money or rather oil."

I think the US shouldn't just pull out, but instead offer contracts for construction and utility corporations of America to go to Iraq and fix some shit up if the Iraqis meet certain quotas. Decent amounts of materials will be provided for meeting quotas. Also, they could threaten a bombing run if any workers are killed.

Comments?hmmm...
whatever you are smoking.. its killing your neurones...
...

However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. like I said..

I'll disregard the one who's not typing properly.
--
Let's look back to WW1 folks. Let's look at The Ottoman Empire. Let's look at how Britain and France split the entire empire into fragments based on race without leaving a "Kurdistan," because they were ashamed of being beaten by the Middle East, or rather whooped a decent bit.

Wait, how is this whole mess Europe's (specifically France's) fault?

I'm guessing what happened after WWI.

I'm guessing what happened after WWI.
I think that the US intervention in Iraq has surpassed that in fuck up magnitude.

Wish to know something ironic? The candidates running for 08' against the Iraq War are actually making the US plan less effective. The insurgents won't lose morale if they know they only need to hold on for one more year and then be set free when the troops are pulled out.

Politics aren't as one-sided as some people see it as.
At least, some of you have good reasons for disliking Bush; but hey, it's not all his fault. Sure, he's a complete dunce at managing, at least in my opinion, but then again, leading a superpower isn't that easy. Still, he probably failed English class.

Don't see things just one-way. Try to see them both ways.

"lol war for OIL"
"lol letz kill some sand niggas"

are not seeing both ways.

"Perhaps the US is wrong for intervening, but you have to admit if the country appears to be hiding the chemical weapons plants from inspectors, you have to expect something. Perhaps an assault was rash, but for Bush it was easier than drafting an ultimatum (which could have solved this mess) and asking the Congress to declare war if conditions are not met. However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it. Instead, it was manipulating the country for more money or rather oil."

I think the US shouldn't just pull out, but instead offer contracts for construction and utility corporations of America to go to Iraq and fix some shit up if the Iraqis meet certain quotas. Decent amounts of materials will be provided for meeting quotas. Also, they could threaten a bombing run if any workers are killed.

Comments?
You sir, are totally out to lunch on this one. Come back when you have done your homework. The Bushevik method has been a complete disaster and it doesn't surprise me one bit.

I'll disregard the one who's not typing properly.
--
Let's look back to WW1 folks. Let's look at The Ottoman Empire. Let's look at how Britain and France split the entire empire into fragments based on race without leaving a "Kurdistan," because they were ashamed of being beaten by the Middle East, or rather whooped a decent bit.So.. if you were in charge.. you would NOT have split the Ottoman empire?

You sir, are totally out to lunch on this one.I think he had some magic mushrooms for lunch.. or something :D

I think that the US intervention in Iraq has surpassed that in fuck up magnitude.

I think the argument is that had the ottoman empire not been partitioned (or partitioned 'properly' instead of based upon colonial interests) much of the trouble in the M.E. over the past 100yrs would not have happened.

So it's too early to tell.

I think he had some magic mushrooms for lunch.. or something :D
Certainly must be something that is blocking the thought process? :D

Either that, or he is suffering from puppetitis.

So.. if you were in charge.. you would NOT have split the Ottoman empire?

My question would be "would the US have done anything any less stupid than Britain and France's arbitrary border drawing?

I think the argument is that had the ottoman empire not been partitioned (or partitioned 'properly' instead of based upon colonial interests) much of the trouble in the M.E. over the past 100yrs would not have happened.

So it's too early to tell.
I do believe that if there wasn't any oil in the Middle East, that we probably wouldn't even know Iraq existed?

My question would be "would the US have done anything any less stupid than Britain and France's arbitrary border drawing?

Don't forget Italy.

I do believe that if there wasn't any oil in the Middle East, that we probably wouldn't even know Iraq existed?

Or if isreal didn't exist, or if there was no cold war.

Sure, oil plays a role, but it's not 100% of it by a long stretch.

Wish to know something ironic? The candidates running for 08' against the Iraq War are actually making the US plan less effective. The insurgents won't lose morale if they know they only need to hold on for one more year and then be set free when the troops are pulled out. Exactly the words used to extend Vietnam.



"Perhaps the US is wrong for intervening, but you have to admit if the country appears to be hiding the chemical weapons plants from inspectors, you have to expect something. Perhaps an assault was rash, but for Bush it was easier than drafting an ultimatum (which could have solved this mess) and asking the Congress to declare war if conditions are not met. The inspectors were being given free run of the country. That was the original ultimatum. If one is to fight a war, wouldn't it be good to get as much knowledge of the enemy as possible? The inspectors begged to stay. There was plenty of time to fight if they either found something or if Saddam threw them out. The timing of the war was for one purpose only, to get it over and declare victory before the congressional elections. And it worked.

However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it. Instead, it was manipulating the country for more money or rather oil." If you will remember the first country to offer troops for Afghanistan was France. When the US needs an ally to fight a legitimate war France is there. They just aren't a lap dog like the UK.

I think the US shouldn't just pull out, but instead offer contracts for construction and utility corporations of America to go to Iraq and fix some shit up if the Iraqis meet certain quotas. Decent amounts of materials will be provided for meeting quotas. Also, they could threaten a bombing run if any workers are killed.
A statement like that makes Haliburton's rock hard heart flutter.

I do believe that if there wasn't any oil in the Middle East, that we probably wouldn't even know Iraq existed?

We could probably find some gold mines there so we might as well go anyways.

@Op: A BOMBING run if workers are killed, who would we bomb more innocent civilians.

Sooo... European Imperialism 100 years ago is to blame.
Therefore American Imperialism is justified today?

Exactly the words used to extend Vietnam.

The inspectors were being given free run of the country. That was the original ultimatum. If one is to fight a war, wouldn't it be good to get as much knowledge of the enemy as possible? The inspectors begged to stay. There was plenty of time to fight if they either found something or if Saddam threw them out. The timing of the war was for one purpose only, to get it over and declare victory before the congressional elections. And it worked.
If you will remember the first country to offer troops for Afghanistan was France. When the US needs an ally to fight a legitimate war France is there. They just aren't a lap dog like the UK.
A statement like that makes Haliburton's rock hard heart flutter.

Thanks for responding instead of flaming.
--
To the others, I don't support Bush, but it really doesn't matter because Democratic and Republican parties are potentially the same.
Conservativism is a way to benefit the economy by encouraging stability and "family life."
Liberalism encourages freedoms to boost the economy.
Both are good.
However, I believe they could be mixed to allow freedom while encouraging "families" with some aid and maybe some social workers.
--
Well, thanks for showing some things to me.
The bombing run was something I just threw out of my head, despite knowing it was flawed.
I wasn't aware of certain things.

Sooo... European Imperialism 100 years ago is to blame.
Therefore American Imperialism is justified today?

Hegemony and Isolationism.

Isolationism potentially caused WW2 and the Middle East Crisis because America wasn't willing to persuade for more lenient peace terms.

Hegemony causes the US to potentially get in crises that can end up also fucking things up more.

Shows you that neither is exactly a good strategy.

Don't forget Italy.

I'm sorry, when I read this I thought of Bush's "don't forget Poland" comment. :p

Just to make my stance clear. I wasn't ever for the Iraq War, but I don't believe pulling out is the best answer.

I don't agree with Bush's methods, or with his reasoning.

Well, thanks for pwning my post. It taught me a few things.
What do you mean with your last response, though?

A. It flutters with laughter at my incompetence?
B. It flutters at a decent idea.
C. It just flutters?

Your right the U.S. shouldn't just pull out from Iraq. At the same time we can't just leave our troops there with no political solution. The only way to fix the problem in Iraq is for Our Senate to pass the Biden/Gelb plan. Also the only way the candidates running for 08' against the Iraq war are hurting the situation in Iraq is by cutting off the funding.

I would agree, with the first thought. Why can't there be a middle stance? As most people know truth is seldom found in extremes. So lets get off the bandwagon, and actually delve into both sides story. Same should be said for anything in politics. As for me, one of the sides (or a third, independent, party) has to make a solid case to win my vote. And so far it hasn't happened.


When the US needs an ally to fight a legitimate war France is there. They just aren't a lap dog like the UK.

And on this, no offense, but it made me laugh. When have they helped the US (or Britain, usually referred to as a bulldog... which makes a rather uncomfortable lapdog) in a legitimate war? Ever? If I remember correctly, all the history I have studied, says that A.) France was invaded by Germany B.) The Yank's and Brit's attempt to free them. C.) De Gaulle hides, and the French do next to nothing. D.) The Brit's and Yanks free France. E.) De Gaulle dislikes both and France begins the path of intolerance towards America.

Well, maybe that was an illegitimate war, I mean the Germans were only running racist/genocidist ideas across Europe, murdering untold millions. hmmmm... where do our priorities lie?http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/smilies/confused.gif
:confused:

I wasn't aware of certain things.History is very complicated.. and biased

the History books bias is even greater when its war-related..

The single largest loser of WWI was not Germany.. it was the Ottoman Empire (and the muslim world).. in deaths, destruction of cities.. and loss of influence.

One of the most important side effects of WWI is the Partition of the Ottoman empire.

One of the side-effects of WWII is the Independence of these ME "colonies". (relative political independence.. of course)

What I just typed is an extreme oversimplification on these issues.. but It should give you a bit of knowledge.. something you can use to start you own research on these issues.

Wish to know something ironic? The candidates running for 08' against the Iraq War are actually making the US plan less effective. The insurgents won't lose morale if they know they only need to hold on for one more year and then be set free when the troops are pulled out.

Politics aren't as one-sided as some people see it as.
At least, some of you have good reasons for disliking Bush; but hey, it's not all his fault. Sure, he's a complete dunce at managing, at least in my opinion, but then again, leading a superpower isn't that easy. Still, he probably failed English class.

Don't see things just one-way. Try to see them both ways.

"lol war for OIL"
"lol letz kill some sand niggas"

are not seeing both ways.

"Perhaps the US is wrong for intervening, but you have to admit if the country appears to be hiding the chemical weapons plants from inspectors, you have to expect something. Perhaps an assault was rash, but for Bush it was easier than drafting an ultimatum (which could have solved this mess) and asking the Congress to declare war if conditions are not met. However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess. Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it. Instead, it was manipulating the country for more money or rather oil."

I think the US shouldn't just pull out, but instead offer contracts for construction and utility corporations of America to go to Iraq and fix some shit up if the Iraqis meet certain quotas. Decent amounts of materials will be provided for meeting quotas. Also, they could threaten a bombing run if any workers are killed.

Comments?

First off, you are clearly the dumbest ass in captivity. how in the HELL did you come up with this tripe. france, what a crock, you know goddamned well, bush had this idea since before his first election...or is there another interpretation of "if elected I will finish what my father did not". Don't get me wrong france is a shithole, but that has nothing to do with iraq. YOU my friend sound like a pure redneck, because only someone from the deep( and I use the term loosely) south who refers to animals as "varments", and food as"vittles", could adopt such an asinine perspective.

AND while we're at it, please explain why a man with a failing oil company continues to turn a profit, or where saddams seized accounts went, not to france I can tell you. A lso who's controlling iraq oil right now. If I'm not mistaken lil bush said we would take charge of it until a suitable government was in place. Of course I'm sure france was all for that. and doesn't it seem odd that we know our presence only fuels hostility but we don't leave, maybe it's because ( and I'm speculating ) as long as we have the hornets nest stirred, there won't be a stable government there and we will continue to control the oil, and stick it to fellow americans at the pumps. at least that way you can't say that bush didn't treat everyone equally........CAUSE HE'S SHITTING ON ALL OF US!!!:upyours:

The single largest loser of WWI was not Germany.. it was the Ottoman Empire (and the muslim world).. in deaths, destruction of cities.. and loss of influence.


True, but a good bit of that is self inflicted.

A. It flutters with laughter at my incompetence?
B. It flutters at a decent idea.
C. It just flutters?

It flutters at the idea of more contracts worth billions thrown its way. Or have you forgotten that Haliburton was given de facto control over the entire re-construction with blank cheques by the US government?

A statement like that makes Haliburton's rock hard heart flutter.

since when has Haliburton had a heart?

True, but a good bit of that is self inflicted.self inflicted because they entered the War?

self inflicted because they choose to take sides on the conflict?

No, I mean things like the Armenian genocide.

No, I mean things like the Armenian genocide.The Armenians did not destroy the Ottoman empire.

Actually its the other way around.. the Turks destroyed the Armenians.. a bloody genocide.

The Armenians did not destroy the Ottoman empire.

Actually its the other way around.. the Turks destroyed the Armenians.. a bloody genocide.

What happened to the Armenians is typically counted in the casualty figures (5,000,000) for the ottoman empire, not separately. That's what I meant by self inflicted.

Your right the U.S. shouldn't just pull out from Iraq. At the same time we can't just leave our troops there with no political solution. The only way to fix the problem in Iraq is for Our Senate to pass the Biden/Gelb plan. Also the only way the candidates running for 08' against the Iraq war are hurting the situation in Iraq is by cutting off the funding.

There is no mission for the military in Iraq. One soldier described what they do as "driving around waiting to be blown up," and that seems pretty accurate if you watch something like Baghdad ER (I think that's the title--the documentary HBO showed a couple of years ago).

The "enemy" is too diffuse, too varied, and blends in too well for the army to have any chance of providing real security.

Our options at this point: 1.) keep spending 10 billion dollars and 70-or-so American lives per month in a futile attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, or 2.) withdraw and let the sectarian conflict boil over into a bloody ethnic cleansing and balkanization of Iraq, creating a Kurdish state in the north that will antagonize Turkey, a Shia state in the south that will likely be a client state of Iran, and a weak and poor Sunni area in the middle. Baghdad will probably be a mess for the next decade no matter what happens.

Obviously 2 is a bad option, but 1 is no better -- just blindly hoping things will improve as we keep wasting our resources and destroying our army. The end result of 2 might actually not be so bad, if we could regain our credibility on the world stage (with a Democratic president) and act as a good-faith broker between the Kurds and Turkey. And actually, you know, TALK to Iran. Contrary to what the lying Bushites will tell you, Iran is NOT an "evil" state... Like us, it just has horrible leaders.

The Biden plan has some good ideas, but it will never work. The Shiites will balk at anything less than 33% of oil revenues, regardless of whether or not it's "proportional."

If the Iraqi Constitution already follows a federalized structure allowing for local control of day-to-day issues, why aren't the factions working together politically NOW? What will Biden's plan do to MAKE them work together if nothing is being changed in this regard?

Incentive structures based on government benchmarks will not work. It takes a relatively small amount of people to destabilize an area, and there are simply too many factions whose interests aren't aligned with the creation of a stable and united Iraq. There is no history or tradition of governing bodies that are not based on clan, sect, or military power, and we can't expect Iraqis to suddenly understand and conform to a Western idea of government and stop fighting to get public-good incentives, no matter how "rational" it may be.

The plan is typically American in its Pollyanna-esque optimism. And it's useless for just that reason.

I hate to say it, but the best course is simply to get out of the way and let them fight until they're exhausted.

Option 3: We find another Saddam and arm him to the teeth. We then allow him to do anything necessary to return to the conditions we found when we got there. At least the people would be safe as long as they weren't criminals, treasoners, or the family and friends of criminals and treasoners. The advantage would be he would be our man. Of course, Saddam was our man until we told him he could invade Kuwait then reneged on the agreement.

Option 3: We find another Saddam and arm him to the teeth. We then allow him to do anything necessary to return to the conditions we found when we got there. At least the people would be safe as long as they weren't criminals, treasoners, or the family and friends of criminals and treasoners. The advantage would be he would be our man. Of course, Saddam was our man until we told him he could invade Kuwait then reneged on the agreement.

You're joking, right?

[QUOTE=Erlik;12973457]"The Biden plan has some good ideas, but it will never work. The Shiites will balk at anything less than 33% of oil revenues, regardless of whether or not it's "proportional." If the Iraqi Constitution already follows a federalized structure allowing for local control of day-to-day issues, why aren't the factions working together politically NOW? What will Biden's plan do to MAKE them work together if nothing is being changed in this regard?"

Under the Biden/Gelb plan the Shiites will be able to get atleast 33% of oil revenues, and the Sunnis won't have to get as much, but as long as we guarantee them a small percentage of oil revenues they will accept it just for the fact that as of right now they don't recieve any. Also Biden's plan will make them work together politically because once we start pulling out troops the Iraqi Gov't will be forced to start following their own constitution. You have to realize the Iraqi Constitution may follow a federalized structure allowing for local control of day-today issues but their Gov't won't until they know our troops won't be their forever to help them.

*super crap up to this point*

However, do not forget that Europe essentially caused this entire mess.
Erm not really.

The Ottoman Empire was absolutely collapsing before the Great War, what the most powerful states of Europe did was simply speed it up and leave out most of the bloodshed.

If perhaps you knew what you were on about in the slightest, then
Yet, one of the countries, France isn't doing shit about it.
"Country with severe unemployment issues and the costs that come with that has far better things to do than gallivanting around the world for no benefit, other than keeping their peoples' minds off the troubles at home shock".

Conservativism is a way to benefit the economy by encouraging stability and "family life."
Conservatism is simply keeping money in the hands of the rich and keeping families with no love for each other because they feel they should be families. Not a fan.
Liberalism encourages freedoms to boost the economy.
Not really very good unless you have a fair bit of money to start, though.
Both are good.
Meh.
However, I believe they could be mixed to allow freedom while encouraging "families" with some aid and maybe some social workers.
The exact problem with this is, indeed, highlighted by your good self.

"families" - not for any decent reason, just because it's a nice little gimmick, and many people aspire to having a stable home. On the other hand, families often go wrong, and having society pressuring a couple to stick together just because that's the fairytale version of life isn't a good thing, really.

Under the Biden/Gelb plan the Shiites will be able to get atleast 33% of oil revenues, and the Sunnis won't have to get as much, but as long as we guarantee them a small percentage of oil revenues they will accept it just for the fact that as of right now they don't recieve any.
At which point the historically more powerful Sunnis won't be overly happy.
[/QUOTE]Also Biden's plan will make them work together politically because once we start pulling out troops the Iraqi Gov't will be forced to start following their own constitution. You have to realize the Iraqi Constitution may follow a federalized structure allowing for local control of day-today issues but their Gov't won't until they know our troops won't be their forever to help them.[/QUOTE]
I don't see how they're at all forced to follow their constitution after a troop pullout - when it becomes their own country again, they're pretty much free to do as they please.

I think the US shouldn't just pull out, but instead offer contracts for construction and utility corporations of America to go to Iraq and fix some shit up if the Iraqis meet certain quotas.

They already gave out the contracts, 95% of them to US companies. Many did shoddy work and fleeced the PA.

[QUOTE=Erlik;12973457]"The Biden plan has some good ideas, but it will never work. The Shiites will balk at anything less than 33% of oil revenues, regardless of whether or not it's "proportional." If the Iraqi Constitution already follows a federalized structure allowing for local control of day-to-day issues, why aren't the factions working together politically NOW? What will Biden's plan do to MAKE them work together if nothing is being changed in this regard?"

Under the Biden/Gelb plan the Shiites will be able to get atleast 33% of oil revenues, and the Sunnis won't have to get as much, but as long as we guarantee them a small percentage of oil revenues they will accept it just for the fact that as of right now they don't recieve any. Also Biden's plan will make them work together politically because once we start pulling out troops the Iraqi Gov't will be forced to start following their own constitution. You have to realize the Iraqi Constitution may follow a federalized structure allowing for local control of day-today issues but their Gov't won't until they know our troops won't be their forever to help them.

Sorry, I meant to write that the SUNNIS will balk at anything under 33%. These are the people that used to run the country, no matter how unreasonable it may seem to us they won't accept 20%. It doesn't matter if they're getting nothing at all now, they won't accept a number they see as an insult. And Arabs aren't known for setting reasonable goals -- just look at the Palestinians continually saying "The destruction of Israel" is the only acceptable end for them. The Sunnis will hold out for more.

Oh, and one more thing: the Iraqi government is not in charge. That's part of the problem. There are many many factions running around slaughtering each other and random strangers, even the Sunni and Shiite members of government accuse each other of having secret militias that attack the other sect. It is NOT a simple matter of "political will." Again, look at the Palestinian situation. Abbas genuinely wanted to try to live up to his end of the deal with Israel and stop the suicide bombings, but he simply couldn't. His government could not control the situation to the degree necessary to stop it. And the Iraqi government has even less power.

They already gave out the contracts, 95% of them to US companies. Many did shoddy work and fleeced the PA.

This is true.

Also, the electrical grid and oil infrastructure are attacked/sabotaged on a nearly daily basis.

To be honest, America lost the war. America is fighting a huge size of disgruntled Iraqi population and a few hundred thousand American soldiers won't solve a damn thing over there. Iraqis never wanted a war but America with its unacceptable demands (like Bush demanding that Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq within 48 hours) brought a devastating war to Iraq. Iraq is no different, even if America attacked Switzerland, America would receive the same hostility as it receives from the Iraqi people.

First off, you are clearly the dumbest ass in captivity. how in the HELL did you come up with this tripe. france, what a crock, you know goddamned well, bush had this idea since before his first election...or is there another interpretation of "if elected I will finish what my father did not". Don't get me wrong france is a shithole, but that has nothing to do with iraq. YOU my friend sound like a pure redneck, because only someone from the deep( and I use the term loosely) south who refers to animals as "varments", and food as"vittles", could adopt such an asinine perspective.

AND while we're at it, please explain why a man with a failing oil company continues to turn a profit, or where saddams seized accounts went, not to france I can tell you. A lso who's controlling iraq oil right now. If I'm not mistaken lil bush said we would take charge of it until a suitable government was in place. Of course I'm sure france was all for that. and doesn't it seem odd that we know our presence only fuels hostility but we don't leave, maybe it's because ( and I'm speculating ) as long as we have the hornets nest stirred, there won't be a stable government there and we will continue to control the oil, and stick it to fellow americans at the pumps. at least that way you can't say that bush didn't treat everyone equally........CAUSE HE'S SHITTING ON ALL OF US!!!:upyours:

Oh fuck off. I do not follow Bush, and I have been against him ever since he was elected. Believe me, I wanted Gore, but I also wanted try to see things from a different view. Not exactly pure trolling like FaG's, but just a few other things.
By not even honoring Bush, but saying "peh, it really wouldn't matter anyways," I get flamed because what I was really trying to say that I believe pulling out isn't going to really solve anything.
So fuck off and read what I was trying to say but failed, instead of flaming me because I said "he's not as horrible some people make him out to be, still bad, though." I even flamed him you fool.

At least the other people had arguments based off of fact. I just didn't read enough so I had some holes in what I was saying.

Can somebody lock this? I don't doing something even like FaG, yet I still get flamed for promoting "tolerance." (lol, maybe not)

And I thought Haliburton was a member. >_>

I don't know what the point of doing this was.
Seriously, I still dislike Bush but still dislike Hilliary.
*shrugs*
Must've been a random tangent.

Good Lifes, Saddam only invaded Kuwait to siphon on their oil wealth to pay for Iraq's debt which he had to mortgage to pay for the war with Iran, most of it owed to Europe and the US.

Wait, how is this whole mess Europe's (specifically France's) fault?

For failing to do jack shit.

It's not specifically France's fault however, but all of Europe with the exception of the UK of course.

Doing jack shit is what let Hitler capture Europe before the UK, USA, and USSR came to save the day.

Good Lifes, Saddam only invaded Kuwait to siphon on their oil wealth to pay for Iraq's debt which he had to mortgage to pay for the war with Iran, most of it owed to Europe and the US.

I think you need to review the history of Saddam. He actually asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait. The State Department gave him permission. Then Bush 1 reneged because of public opinion.

http://www.bushflash.com/swf/thanks.swf

Option 3: We find another Saddam and arm him to the teeth. We then allow him to do anything necessary to return to the conditions we found when we got there. At least the people would be safe as long as they weren't criminals, treasoners, or the family and friends of criminals and treasoners. The advantage would be he would be our man. Of course, Saddam was our man until we told him he could invade Kuwait then reneged on the agreement.


You're joking, right?

No I'm not joking. In the end the solution is to put in a power that can control the nation under their culture. That person can be an anti-American or a pro-American. We were perfectly satisfied with Saddam for many years. There is no reason we can't find another General that we can't have in out hip pocket again.

No I'm not joking. In the end the solution is to put in a power that can control the nation under their culture. That person can be an anti-American or a pro-American. We were perfectly satisfied with Saddam for many years. There is no reason we can't find another General that we can't have in out hip pocket again.

And this time we will try to find a non-genocidal one.

No I'm not joking. In the end the solution is to put in a power that can control the nation under their culture. That person can be an anti-American or a pro-American. We were perfectly satisfied with Saddam for many years. There is no reason we can't find another General that we can't have in out hip pocket again.

So crimes against humanity committed at the behest of the US is okay, as long as the US doesn't actually get its hands dirty?

No doubt you'll be bitching about GITMO within the week though.

For failing to do jack shit.

It's not specifically France's fault however, but all of Europe with the exception of the UK of course.
For the Ottoman Empire, we were damned if we split it up and damned if we didn't.

Splitting it -

Pros : No civil war going on, extremism falls
Cons : Makes the whole damned thing a bit weak

Keeping it together -

Pros : Strong power base
Cons : Linguistic and social problems, a civil war'd be going on still. Pretty rubbish all 'round, really.
Doing jack shit is what let Hitler capture Europe before the UK, USA, and USSR came to save the day.
Different issue entirely.
Click Stand;12975275']And this time we will try to find a non-genocidal one.
You won't if you want to have someone to keep things in order.

A few thousand Kurds here, some shi'ites there etc. leads to national unity, even if you're only unified in a combination of terror and hatred for the leader.

Didn't get much car bombing or fucking stupid sects floating about gunning people down back when he was in control, that's for sure.

Doing jack shit is what let Hitler capture Europe before the UK, USA, and USSR came to save the day.
Hahaha. Seriously?! The Russians had a pact of non-aggression with the Germans until the Germans attacked them. The US didn't even get involved at all until the Japanese attacked them and the UK was taking a beating, but holding up.

Let's ignore the fact that France was putting up a resistance and other countries (such as Canada) were in the war from the start. Oh no, they're not at all important.

Good Lifes, Saddam only invaded Kuwait to siphon on their oil wealth to pay for Iraq's debt which he had to mortgage to pay for the war with Iran, most of it owed to Europe and the US.

Saddam invaded Kuwait because Kuwait was using illegal slant-drilling practices.

So crimes against humanity committed at the behest of the US is okay, as long as the US doesn't actually get its hands dirty?

No doubt you'll be bitching about GITMO within the week though.

The US culture is different than the Iraqi culture. Saddam killed following his culture. He only killed criminals, treasoners, their families and protectors. Under that culture you are truly your brother's keeper. Peer pressure keeps people in line. Under US control more Iraqis have been killed per year than under Saddam. And the US controlled deaths have been at random, not according to the culture of the area.

The US (in the past) had a culture based on English common law as described in the constitution. According to former US culture a person was responsible for him/herself not responsible for family. There was no guilt by blood. And under the US culture everyone had rights as to how things were handled legally. That of course is no longer true of the US culture. The US has a new culture where torture and unlimited confinement without charge is the norm. In other words we have adopted the worst of the enemy's culture without the restraints of killing only criminals, treasoners, their family and protectors. Saddam was hung because he killed people who were protecting treasoners. Isn't it interesting that under the new US norms the government can do anything to get information that might protect the government. That includes torturing and killing those that protect the guilty. The exact same thing for which Saddam was hung.

The difference is a culture of "guilt by blood" and the new US culture of guilt until proven innocent without a chance to be proven innocent.

For failing to do jack shit.

It's not specifically France's fault however, but all of Europe with the exception of the UK of course.

Doing jack shit is what let Hitler capture Europe before the UK, USA, and USSR came to save the day.

You really need to study the writings of Hitler. He knew that his only chance was a rapid war in which he threw everything at the beginning. He knew if the war lasted more than a couple years he would lose. He didn't have backup forces for a prolonged war. It just so happened that he ran out of those forces at the very moment he needed to invade the UK. A lot of that had to do with the incompetence of Italy, throwing his schedule off for the invasion of Russia. He couldn't wait another year for Russia because they would then be prepared. The French underground, along with other guerrilla movements in occupied Europe tied down troops that could otherwise been used for the UK invasion.

You won't if you want to have someone to keep things in order.

A few thousand Kurds here, some shi'ites there etc. leads to national unity, even if you're only unified in a combination of terror and hatred for the leader.

Didn't get much car bombing or fucking stupid sects floating about gunning people down back when he was in control, that's for sure.

Interesting, either:

A. Disorder and civil war kills people
or
B. A dictator kills people to maintain order+we get oil.

I guess the lesser of two evils.

Let's look back to WW1 folks. Let's look at The Ottoman Empire. Let's look at how Britain and France split the entire empire into fragments based on race without leaving a "Kurdistan," because they were ashamed of being beaten by the Middle East, or rather whooped a decent bit.

Bleh. In that case, WW1 is all Russia, Britan and Germany's fault. Had they not partitioned the Napoleonic empire into fragments, their would have been only one great and peaceful French empire. To hell with self determination.

Hahaha. Seriously?! The Russians had a pact of non-aggression with the Germans until the Germans attacked them. The US didn't even get involved at all until the Japanese attacked them and the UK was taking a beating, but holding up.

Let's ignore the fact that France was putting up a resistance and other countries (such as Canada) were in the war from the start. Oh no, they're not at all important.
You seem to have a better grasp of reality then our dear friend New Stalinberg. :D

The most sensible solution:

The way out of war (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/10/0081225):

A blueprint for leaving Iraq now.

The US culture is different than the Iraqi culture. Saddam killed following his culture. He only killed criminals, treasoners, their families and protectors. Under that culture you are truly your brother's keeper. Peer pressure keeps people in line. Under US control more Iraqis have been killed per year than under Saddam. And the US controlled deaths have been at random, not according to the culture of the area.

The US (in the past) had a culture based on English common law as described in the constitution. According to former US culture a person was responsible for him/herself not responsible for family. There was no guilt by blood. And under the US culture everyone had rights as to how things were handled legally. That of course is no longer true of the US culture. The US has a new culture where torture and unlimited confinement without charge is the norm. In other words we have adopted the worst of the enemy's culture without the restraints of killing only criminals, treasoners, their family and protectors. Saddam was hung because he killed people who were protecting treasoners. Isn't it interesting that under the new US norms the government can do anything to get information that might protect the government. That includes torturing and killing those that protect the guilty. The exact same thing for which Saddam was hung.

The difference is a culture of "guilt by blood" and the new US culture of guilt until proven innocent without a chance to be proven innocent.

I don't think for a second that Saddam Hussein was actually a good representative of arab culture. I think he was an insane madman that used to sponsor rape gangs, gassing people, mutilation &c. Often at random.

He prospered because of american cynicism, greed and the cold war. The very fact that the US supported him in the first place is a shameful act. Replacing him with another psychotic madman would be just as bad as if we actually behaved that way ourselves. It would be better to just abandon the place than be party to installing Saddam II.

Still, what should I expect. Americans have a habit of going somewhere, shitting it up and then ditching the mess as if it had nothing to do with us. Or even worse, feel smug about it, like the disgraceful way the US abandoned south Vietnam.

Of course, actually trying to fix the problem is out of the question, because that would distract us from our own petty intramural disputes, and would probably take self-sacrifice and effort. So fuck that noise. Far too hard. (Then again, we pay farmers not to farm, so why should we expect anything at all from anyone?)

I don't think for a second that Saddam Hussein was actually a good representative of arab culture. I think he was an insane madman that used to sponsor rape gangs, gassing people, mutilation &c. Often at random.

He prospered because of american cynicism, greed and the cold war. The very fact that the US supported him in the first place is a shameful act. Replacing him with another psychotic madman would be just as bad as if we actually behaved that way ourselves. It would be better to just abandon the place than be party to installing Saddam II.

Still, what should I expect. Americans have a habit of going somewhere, shitting it up and then ditching the mess as if it had nothing to do with us. Or even worse, feel smug about it, like the disgraceful way the US abandoned south Vietnam.

Of course, actually trying to fix the problem is out of the question, because that would distract us from our own petty intramural disputes, and would probably take self-sacrifice and effort. So fuck that noise. Far too hard. (Then again, we pay farmers not to farm, so why should we expect anything at all from anyone?)

Look around at the culture. Show me a benevolent leader. What does the support of the House of Saud say about the West? The "President?" of Egypt? The family of Kuwait? Iran is the closest thing to popular leadership and it's "Axis of Evil".

The best thing that could and did happen to Vietnam was for the US to pull out. The first time they have had peace since France colonized it. And even before that they were at the mercy of China. The US went in on a lie. There was no consideration of the culture of the area. The US tried to impose a foreign culture and ideas. They didn't even know why the Vietnamese were fighting. Everything is parallel except Bushnam is more dangerous if we don't impose a new strongman. If we don't put one in the people will. That might be the worst possible outcome. I recommend you check out "The Fog of War".

There is no fix when we don't recognize that the world is made up of many cultures. The West has no monopoly on culture. The Fertile Crescent was civilized while pre Europeans were painting cave walls. Their culture works for them. It has for thousands of years.

Off the subject, but there is little money going to farmers not to farm. Most of that ended 25 years ago. Most now goes to soil and water conservation. There are a few exceptions but they are also being phased out.

Look around at the culture. Show me a benevolent leader. What does the support of the House of Saud say about the West? The "President?" of Egypt? The family of Kuwait? Iran is the closest thing to popular leadership and it's "Axis of Evil".

The best thing that could and did happen to Vietnam was for the US to pull out. The first time they have had peace since France colonized it. And even before that they were at the mercy of China. The US went in on a lie. There was no consideration of the culture of the area. The US tried to impose a foreign culture and ideas. They didn't even know why the Vietnamese were fighting. Everything is parallel except Bushnam is more dangerous if we don't impose a new strongman. If we don't put one in the people will. That might be the worst possible outcome. I recommend you check out "The Fog of War".

There is no fix when we don't recognize that the world is made up of many cultures. The West has no monopoly on culture. The Fertile Crescent was civilized while pre Europeans were painting cave walls. Their culture works for them. It has for thousands of years.

Off the subject, but there is little money going to farmers not to farm. Most of that ended 25 years ago. Most now goes to soil and water conservation. There are a few exceptions but they are also being phased out.

The best thing that could have happened for Vietnam would have been for the US not to stick its nose in by putting Ngo Dinh Diem into power in the first place (another 'strongman'). Second best would have been not assassinating him at the behest of JFK - which pretty much morally obliged the US to become heavily involved.

The fact is, however, that the US did meddle in Vietnam, and by doing so it incurred a moral obligation to support the hundreds of thousands of people it co-opted into it to the bitter end. Being the US though, it just abandoned them and instead ended up passing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (for reasons of spiteful domestic politics more than anything else) which effectively condemned hundreds of thousands of south Vietnamese to concentration camps. Anyway you slice it, it was absolutely disgraceful behavior. And anyone who supported that course of foreign policy should feel their cheeks burn in shame when they remember it.

Dubai, Quatar, are both run in a benevolent fashion. So your argument that it is impossible for the culture to produce such leadership is wrong. As is the assertion that it is impossible to defeat an insurgency. It simply requires effort and self sacrifice on the part of the US. (As well as self discipline and a change of attitude). Of course since these qualities seem to be uniformly lacking on the part of americans these days it won't happen.

While we are off topic, american farm policy has probably caused more misery in the third world than all the wars we ever fought put together.

The best thing that could have happened for Vietnam would have been for the US not to stick its nose in by putting Ngo Dinh Diem into power in the first place (another 'strongman'). Second best would have been not assassinating him at the behest of JFK - which pretty much morally obliged the US to become heavily involved.

The fact is, however, that the US did meddle in Vietnam, and by doing so it incurred a moral obligation to support the hundreds of thousands of people it co-opted into it to the bitter end. Being the US though, it just abandoned them and instead ended up passing the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (for reasons of spiteful domestic politics more than anything else) which effectively condemned hundreds of thousands of south Vietnamese to concentration camps. Anyway you slice it, it was absolutely disgraceful behavior. And anyone who supported that course of foreign policy should feel their cheeks burn in shame when they remember it.

Dubai, Quatar, are both run in a benevolent fashion. So your argument that it is impossible for the culture to produce such leadership is wrong. As is the assertion that it is impossible to defeat an insurgency. It simply requires effort and self sacrifice on the part of the US. (As well as self discipline and a change of attitude). Of course since these qualities seem to be uniformly lacking on the part of americans these days it won't happen.

While we are off topic, american farm policy has probably caused more misery in the third world than all the wars we ever fought put together.

For the most part I agree with your evaluation of Vietnam. Although there was no obligation to send in forces. That was a decision that was made out of ignorance and based on a lie. Had the US leadership make contact with Ho they would have realized that the Viets were fighting for independence and not to spread communism. Ho hated China as much as the US. He only used them as an available tool.

Let's see, when was the last time Dubai and Quatar held an election? When was the last time they allowed opposition to the rulers? What is it they do to those who voice opposition? What rights do foreign workers have?

It is possible to defeat a guerrilla force. England did it regularly during the colonial era. The secret is to eliminate the support for the fighters. Eliminate those that support the fighters and the fighters can't operate. Let's see...now how do we control those that support the fighters.....Oh, yea,....we kill them. I guess if we don't want to put in place a hired gun we could do that ourselves. After all, we already torture, kill in private, imprison without charge, hire mercenaries to torture and kill, blackmail and hire other countries to torture and kill, what is one more step?

For the most part I agree with your evaluation of Vietnam. Although there was no obligation to send in forces. That was a decision that was made out of ignorance and based on a lie. Had the US leadership make contact with Ho they would have realized that the Viets were fighting for independence and not to spread communism. Ho hated China as much as the US. He only used them as an available tool.

Let's see, when was the last time Dubai and Quatar held an election? When was the last time they allowed opposition to the rulers? What is it they do to those who voice opposition? What rights do foreign workers have?

It is possible to defeat a guerrilla force. England did it regularly during the colonial era. The secret is to eliminate the support for the fighters. Eliminate those that support the fighters and the fighters can't operate. Let's see...now how do we control those that support the fighters.....Oh, yea,....we kill them. I guess if we don't want to put in place a hired gun we could do that ourselves. After all, we already torture, kill in private, imprison without charge, hire mercenaries to torture and kill, blackmail and hire other countries to torture and kill, what is one more step?

I'm not suggesting that Iraq has to end up as a democracy. I'm saying that installing another psychopath is worse than just abandoning it. Quatar and Dubai, for all the faults you point out, do at least have the rule of law and a relative degree of liberalism and free speech. Dubai especially so. So if a suitable non-democratic - or limited democratic - government could be found - like post colonial Singapore - that would be a perfectly reasonable option.

As to Vietnam, I think there was an obligation to begin a military presence after the assassination of Diem. Of course, you could take the view that the assassination itself was a de facto beginning of the american military presence, in which case we are probably in 100% agreement. Either way, not getting involved after the french withdrew would have been the best option.

Actually when it came to fighting insurgencies, I was thinking more of what the british accomplished in Malaya. Granted it is expensive, time consuming and difficult. It would also require much eating of humble pie on out parts. But it is not impossible.

But if that can't be done, I would rather the US acted as the instrument of terror than appointing a proxy to do it. If we can't stomach doing it ourselves, then we shouldn't ask for it to be done.

I'm not suggesting that Iraq has to end up as a democracy. I'm saying that installing another psychopath is worse than just abandoning it. Quatar and Dubai, for all the faults you point out, do at least have the rule of law and a relative degree of liberalism and free speech. Dubai especially so. So if a suitable non-democratic - or limited democratic - government could be found - like post colonial Singapore - that would be a perfectly reasonable option.

As to Vietnam, I think there was an obligation to begin a military presence after the assassination of Diem. Of course, you could take the view that the assassination itself was a de facto beginning of the american military presence, in which case we are probably in 100% agreement. Either way, not getting involved after the french withdrew would have been the best option.

Actually when it came to fighting insurgencies, I was thinking more of what the british accomplished in Malaya. Granted it is expensive, time consuming and difficult. It would also require much eating of humble pie on out parts. But it is not impossible.

But if that can't be done, I would rather the US acted as the instrument of terror than appointing a proxy to do it. If we can't stomach doing it ourselves, then we shouldn't ask for it to be done.

I think we pretty much agree. I just don't think the US has the stomach for it. So as a practical matter that only leaves the other option.

I think your forgetting that Malaki for the most part does not care about the Sunnis or Kurds, his government is basically a Shia lovein which became so bias the Sunnis just left it, Malaki also routinely ignores his Kurdish Pres. The reason the killings continue is because he allows it and sometimes supports it.

I think your forgetting that Malaki for the most part does not care about the Sunnis or Kurds, his government is basically a Shia lovein which became so bias the Sunnis just left it, Malaki also routinely ignores his Kurdish Pres. The reason the killings continue is because he allows it and sometimes supports it.

So he's a wimp. Get rid of him and get a general that knows how to control the country.

I think we pretty much agree. I just don't think the US has the stomach for it. So as a practical matter that only leaves the other option.

Well if the US doesn't have the stomach, then there should be some foreswearing of all foreign adventures from now on. And no one currently in office should be allowed to run again for anything.

Fresh slate. And something that will make the people in power wary.

Because otherwise we'll be doing this again in thirty years time. (Or less).

Well if the US doesn't have the stomach, then there should be some foreswearing of all foreign adventures from now on. And no one currently in office should be allowed to run again for anything.

Fresh slate. And something that will make the people in power wary.

Because otherwise we'll be doing this again in thirty years time. (Or less).

10-4 No argument with that. I seldom vote for the incumbent anyway. Unfortunately, that's not the norm.

In 30 years some rich guy's kid will forget history (or never have known it) and we start over again.

10-4 No argument with that. I seldom vote for the incumbent anyway. Unfortunately, that's not the norm.

In 30 years some rich guy's kid will forget history (or never have known it) and we start over again.

It's really any politician. Bill Clinton had no problem with serbia. People forget that because it turned out alright. But it could just as easily have turned into a quagmire. (Of course back in those days the republicans were anti-foreign entanglement :rolleyes:).

This is one of the few areas I agree with Charles Rangel about the draft. If the children of the privileged were conscripted into the ranks, then there would be a lot less enthusiasm for building a legacy through interventionist foreign policy.

It's really any politician. Bill Clinton had no problem with serbia. People forget that because it turned out alright. But it could just as easily have turned into a quagmire. (Of course back in those days the republicans were anti-foreign entanglement :rolleyes:).

This is one of the few areas I agree with Charles Rangel about the draft. If the children of the privileged were conscripted into the ranks, then there would be a lot less enthusiasm for building a legacy through interventionist foreign policy.

Yea, but when they had the draft it was pretty corrupt. Take for instance the Pres and VP. It did suck in the middle class though. Now we have mostly the poor so the middle also doesn't have a stake in it.

It sure is both. I don't know how far back one would have to go to find a Pres that didn't commit troops. Carter only had the failed rescue mission. But to send NO troops would have to be sometime before WW2.

We got into this "war president" thing where you aren't supposed to criticize a Pres for anything if troops were in the field. So they have to make up an excuse to send troops.

Reagan sent troops to Grenada and made out like he had just won WW3. In fact a lot of his supporters still think he won WW3. When the troops got blown up in Lebanon he "cut and run". At least that's what Rush and Sean would say if a Democrat did the same thing. And that's what they'll say when we pull out of Bushnam.

Yea, but when they had the draft it was pretty corrupt. Take for instance the Pres and VP. It did suck in the middle class though. Now we have mostly the poor so the middle also doesn't have a stake in it.

It sure is both. I don't know how far back one would have to go to find a Pres that didn't commit troops. Carter only had the failed rescue mission. But to send NO troops would have to be sometime before WW2.

We got into this "war president" thing where you aren't supposed to criticize a Pres for anything if troops were in the field. So they have to make up an excuse to send troops.

Reagan sent troops to Grenada and made out like he had just won WW3. In fact a lot of his supporters still think he won WW3. When the troops got blown up in Lebanon he "cut and run". At least that's what Rush and Sean would say if a Democrat did the same thing. And that's what they'll say when we pull out of Bushnam.

Coolidge or Harding I guess were the last ones. I do know that Coolidge renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy. (Oddly enough, he was Reagan's hero. I don't know if that speaks to american education, reagan, or both).

The Grenada thing was ridiculous. I was a young lad in the UK at the time. Everyone there reckoned that it only happened because Reagan felt put in a shadow by the Falklands. It's probably not the whole truth, but I suspect it was part. Hollywood didn't help either by glamorizing it. I mean, who can't feel good about it if "Gunny" Highway is out there facing the overwhelming odds of the Grenadan military with only the combined might of the US military-industrial complex at his back? A true american hero!

Your point about the draft is well taken. I would hope that if it were to be re-instituted it would be in such a fashion that politicians could not avoid sending their relatives without some form of censure. Or maybe politicians should have to go themselves if they vote for it. I just think that for them at the moment foreign policy is a game to score points at home, and not something that is actually real.

And yeah, Sean and Rush are all about the 'cut and run'. But I remember when Rush was warning about the potential vietnam in serbia. It's only a good war if your party is fighting it. Sadly.

Coolidge or Harding I guess were the last ones. I do know that Coolidge renounced war as an instrument of foreign policy. (Oddly enough, he was Reagan's hero. I don't know if that speaks to american education, reagan, or both).

The Grenada thing was ridiculous. I was a young lad in the UK at the time. Everyone there reckoned that it only happened because Reagan felt put in a shadow by the Falklands. It's probably not the whole truth, but I suspect it was part. Hollywood didn't help either by glamorizing it. I mean, who can't feel good about it if "Gunny" Highway is out there facing the overwhelming odds of the Grenadan military with only the combined might of the US military-industrial complex at his back? A true american hero!

Your point about the draft is well taken. I would hope that if it were to be re-instituted it would be in such a fashion that politicians could not avoid sending their relatives without some form of censure. Or maybe politicians should have to go themselves if they vote for it. I just think that for them at the moment foreign policy is a game to score points at home, and not something that is actually real.

And yeah, Sean and Rush are all about the 'cut and run'. But I remember when Rush was warning about the potential vietnam in serbia. It's only a good war if your party is fighting it. Sadly.

And Rush and Sean never went either.

1:30 here and I have to be at work at 7:00. Better get some sleep. Hope we get a chance to do this again.

And Rush and Sean never went either.

1:30 here and I have to be at work at 7:00. Better get some sleep. Hope we get a chance to do this again.

Have a goodnight. It was nice chatting.