TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Two things...
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Two things...

1. The US provided weapons and training to Afghanistan during the Russia - Afghanistan conflict.

2. The US provided weapons to Iraq during the Iraq - Iran conflict.

On a related note "Don't bite the hand that feeds you".

Crazy.

TP

Re: Two things...

quote:

Originally posted by Trance Plant 1. The US provided weapons and training to Afghanistan during the Russia - Afghanistan conflict. 2. The US provided weapons to Iraq during the Iraq - Iran conflict. On a related note "Don't bite the hand that feeds you". Crazy. TP

1. at the time, russia was a greater threat to american national security. (remember cuba?)
2. at the time, iran was a greater threat to american national security. (remember the hostage takings at the american embassy in tehran?)

it is extremely justifiable. suxor that the side the americans helped then went around and stabbed them in the back. america is the classic tragic greek figure.

Well, I guess, it did seem like a good idea at a time what they did in Afghanistan. To support muslim extremist groups in SSSR's backyard, so any time soviets would try to intervene within one of those countries, they'd have serious terrorist problems.

But, now, supporting Iraq at that time is a totally different story. First of all, the Americans supported Iraq against an Iranian regime which they helped in overthrowing a regular Iranian government. Years ago, Iran was not a muslim extremist spawning ground, but a rather normal country. So was Iraq as well. The United States first intervened in Iran, helping to overthrow a regular government, which later led to islamic fundamentalism. Then, they supported Iraq and Saddam when he tried to conquer Iran for himself, because they realised they didn't get quite what they wanted. They wanted a backward country which was to be turned inward, and minding only it's own internal business, but that wasn't quite so. Saddam wasn't able to correct that mistake, though. Now, about relations between Iraq and the US; The US gave a green light to Saddam for invading Kuwait. They literally told him that the US will not interfere in a Iraq-Kuwait conflict. However, the US disobeyed that agreement, and then invaded Iraq, on the pretext of defending Kuwait. Why would they do that? Well, Iraq has second largest amount of oil deposits in the world, it's second only to Saudi Arabia. And it started to grow a respectable military and civilian infrastructure as well. It appeared like it was almost going to be a successful country. After defeating Iraq, the US imposed sanctions on it, which basically allowed Iraq not to import anything from the rest of the world, except food, and that food was going to be exchanged for oil, the well known oil for food program. This way the US secured large and cheap oil income. Basically the US supported Iraq in their offence of Kuwait just to have an excuse to attack it and get their oil at a very cheap price. Iraq is in no way responsible for current relations with the US. It is completely an american agression. Just look at the GW Bush and his speeches. He wants war with Iraq so badly that he won't stop at anything to get it. Have you ever seen on the news after Gulf war that Saddam threatened to wage an offensive war?
Another, not so important reason, but a reason nevertheless for the US to attack Iraq is it's internal situation. It's in a state of recession, and wars usually help to get people's thoughts off that kind of stuff. Who cares about companies falling down when there's a war around. I know that scenario all too well from here where I live. Most damage Croatia suffered in war was not from weapons but from corporate corruption which destroyed many large companies, making few still unaccused criminals very rich and most of the others very poor. But not many noticed until the war was over.

The only interesting thing about arab countries is their oil, which they have in huge amounts. It seems like a blessing at first, but actually it's more of a curse, because the big players like US and earlier also former USSR never left them alone, and forced them into what they are now. Nobody wanted them to have independent industries, those tries were sabotaged all the time, and their economy was forced to rely on oil only and nothing else. Now these are poor fanatical countries with a very dim future, especially when oil which they have become so dependent upon runs out.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The US gave a green light to Saddam for invading Kuwait. They literally told him that the US will not interfere in a Iraq-Kuwait conflict.

sounds like conspiracy mumbo jumbo to me, care to back that up with some proof?

Re: Re: Two things...

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy 1. at the time, russia was a greater threat to american national security. (remember cuba?) 2. at the time, iran was a greater threat to american national security. (remember the hostage takings at the american embassy in tehran?) it is extremely justifiable. suxor that the side the americans helped then went around and stabbed them in the back. america is the classic tragic greek figure.

I understand the justification. In the end, it's sad that the US is fighting itself really.

quote:

Iraq has second largest amount of oil deposits in the world, it's second only to Saudi Arabia

This is one of the reasons, I believe, why the Saudi's don't want the US to overthrow Saddam's regime. Why? Because by doing so, sanctions would be lifted, thus making Iraq competitive in the exportation of Oil again. Potentially, Saudi Arabia would lose business to Iraq.

quote:

Basically the US supported Iraq in their offence of Kuwait just to have an excuse to attack it and get their oil at a very cheap price.

Has the US been getting Iraq's oil for a very cheap price, if at all?
This hypothesis is out of this world. Then again who really knows what goes on behind the scenes. It's the first time I hear this one.


TP

quote:

sounds like conspiracy mumbo jumbo to me, care to back that up with some proof?

American ambassador April Glaspie met on 27.7.1990. in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein , that was few days before the Iraq invaded Kuwait. She said to Saddam that Bush's government "will take no sides in the Iraqi borderline dispute with Kuwait". Iraqi government published that interview right away, and the US congress did it about a year later.

Now about history of Iran and Iraq...Why did it started? Well, in 1953 Iranian shah (i don't know what's the english term for it, but the original term sounds like this) with help from CIA has overthrown Mossadeghs nationalist regime. They did it because Mossadegh nationalised British Petroleum company in Iran. As shah was supported by british and american secret services, he repayed that debt by giving the US and Britain exclusive rights for it's oil. Well, Iran started to get a lot of money from this oil, and decidet to turn to nuclear energy. There was a plan of making 20 reactors by 1995, which would make Iran almost completely independent of it's oil. Iran was very serious about it and already had contracts with the european manufacturers of nuclear reactors. Pakistan at that time also tried to turn to nuclear energy, but CIA started a revolution there which led to the hanging of Bhutto, the leader of Pakistan at that time. The US wasn't happy about it at all, of course.Also at that time, the british wanted Iran to sign an agreement that for the next 25 years, Britain would be the only country to get their oil. Iran, ofcourse wanted to export oil not only to US and Britain, but to other european countries as well. The british then started to buy less oil than Iran manufactured, and that in turn started an economic crisis in iran. Radical islamic elements with support from CIA started to bring unrest in the country. At the same time they talked shah into being more represive of the people, which made more and more people angry. The result was an islamic revolution in 1978, whose fundamentalist leader Homeini were unable to continue the nuclear program. Oil prices skyrocketed and brought many countries on the verge of being bankrupt. The reason for this was to stop the world toward progressing to nuclear energy, which would make them independent on the US and Britain controlled oil reserves. Additionaly at that same time a nuclear incident in Harrisburg appeared, and the report about it on 3.8.1973 stated sabotage or intentional carelessness as the reasons of the accident.
Years later, the US economy was at it's downfall, and they talked SA into lowering it's oil prices, against the OPEC regulations, so oil fell to below 10$/barrel. That was done to bring USSR to it's economic downfall, because that country had already been in large financial debt, with oil being it's only large export besides weapons. This of course screwed up most of the middle east countries as well. At that time, Iraq was at it's war with Iran, which started because CIA forged data which seemed that Iraq would win the war very quickly. The US supported giving large amounts of loans to Baghdad, so that they wouldn't have to demand a cease-fire. As the war ended, Saddam wanted to talk about his post-war development. He had a 40 billion $ plan which, beside industrial development, was to irrigate whole of Iraq so that Iraq would be independent about food import. At that time Iraq depended on american grain. To pay off it's debt, Iraq offered americans to invest in petrochemical and steel industry. The americans said no to that and offered instead that Iraq give them the rights to all of it's oil. Saddam of course refused, and then the US urged Kuwait to drop it's oil prices drastically, so that Iraq would not be able to pay off it's debt. It even didn't have enough money anymore to pay for its imported food supplies. Saddam had to attack Kuwait because of that, and here comes his above talk with the US ambassador. We know what came later, the British and the US intervened, and gained exclusive rights to Iraq oil, allowing it only to buy food for it. During their intervention they destroyed Berlin-Baghdad railway completely, the best rail infrastructure in middle east, as well as most bridges and important roads. The reason for all this war was to gain American domination in middle eastern oil supply and to make Europe and Japan, the US's biggest market opponents dependant upon American and British companies for their oil supply needs.

Resources:
F. William Engdahl - A century of war, 1993
US - Iran business forum Bulletin, NY, august 1989
Saddam Hussein - report to Arabian cooperation association, 16.2.1990.

And people still wonder...

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 American ambassador April Glaspie met on 27.7.1990. in Baghdad with Saddam Hussein , that was few days before the Iraq invaded Kuwait. She said to Saddam that Bush's government "will take no sides in the Iraqi borderline dispute with Kuwait". Iraqi government published that interview right away, and the US congress did it about a year later.

im sorry im not yet convinced... i went to do a little more research on my own now. i typed in April Glaspie in google and started reading...

heres what i found to raise my doubt on this whole matter

http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html
gives an overview of the whole story however i must point out this header at the beginning

quote:

Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz. A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic. The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.

seeing as this comes straight from iraqi officials, i hold this to be very uncredible, i do not trust saddam or his regime at all, he has broken his word on many many times and especially on international matters (not obeying to the resolution drafted at the end of the gulf war)

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1999/05/27/p23s3.htm

quote:

But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate.

you can actually see a video of this testimony infront of the commettie at http://www.c-span.org/iraq/history.asp third video from the top (warning, its 65 minutes long)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html
firstly i want you to notice on the top what they say:

"I cannot confirm the reliability of the source, a strange website called which I found via a meta-search engine, but here's their scoop on Glaspie and Saddam:"

anyways it goes on to give a quote supposedly said by Glaspie which seems to be present on most the sites

quote:

We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.

i can see how america would want to respect iraqs want for higher oil prices, and would say something like that so kuwait and iraq would settle their own differences, but to expect an invastion leading to a full occupation of a sovergn nation by saddam? thats a far strech in my book. how dumb is saddam not to realize if he were to conquer the whole of kuwait that would piss off a lot of people all over the world.

some more sites
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHil...am_glaspie.html
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/iraq-desert-storm.html
http://home.achilles.net/~sal/greenlight.htm

they either all say this info comes from iraqi sources (which i do not trust) or do not give a credible backround of what really happened (has been lost through war... BS) to me all this sounds like conspiracy theory to me.

Very nice conspiracy theories...

ok, lets assume one US ambassador did say this to Saddam. And he did invade Kuwait, why did he not seize the opprotunity to avoid the war with the UN security council decleration that was annouced telling him to get the hell out of Kuwait or they would force him out.

Obviously before and during the invasion, it was condemned across the world, also by the US and it's president. Perhaps Saddam should of headed their warning? I think I would take the word of a president over any amabassador.

Especially if you say, the US was conspiring against him and Iraq to make the war to destory any advantage blah blah so they couldn't pay them back (what the hell?). So why did they give him an opprotunity to back out of the war? To get out with little to no problem?

Sorry your conspriacy theories hold no water to the truth's of reality.

.

quote:

Very nice conspiracy theories...

I'm glad you like them.

I also forgot to mention that Kuwait itself gave huge loans to Iraq during Iraq-Iran conflict. Invading Kuwait would release Iraq of those loans.
Anyway, in case Saddam would have retreated from Kuwait, what do you think would happen then? Kuwait would be re-established, it's policy of dropping oil prices would continue, oil would get cheaper still, below 9$/barrel, and that would lead Iraq into even worse situation than there already was.
At the time US and Britain attacked Iraq, Jevgenij Primakov, who was on a mission to make peace, said that the war could be avoided, if Margaret Thacher and George Bush would have listened to the other side. Also, the US first moved troops in the area to supposedly protect SA from possible Iraqi invasion on them. Only after that they said they'll attack Iraq. And if they wanted to free Kuwait, why did they destroy railroads and bridges?
And how do you all explain that as soon as Bush came to power he wants war with Iraq again? No weapons of mass destruction have been found, but still Bush and Blair say that Iraq has them. But they won't say to the UN inspectors where they are. Little strange, isn't it? And this time they want total invasion of Iraq. Now, If Iraq can't invade Kuwait, how come americans can invade Iraq? And still no evidence whatsoever for the action has been found. It's like Hitler's excuse to attack Czechoslovakia. Dress up a few prisoners in czech uniforms and make them attack a TV station. Then kill them and declare war on C-S. There are no real arguments for the war.

And about April Glaspie, the US congress certified the Baghdad report, at least that's what my sources say.

quote:

how dumb is saddam not to realize if he were to conquer the whole of kuwait that would piss off a lot of people all over the world.

Well that's why he asked the americans for their opinion, right?
And as long as the americans would do nothing, the rest of the world wouldn't do anything also.

quote:

but to expect an invastion leading to a full occupation of a sovergn nation by saddam

Well in a war with a nation the size of a city-state there's either total invasion or nothing at all.

quote:

so they couldn't pay them back (what the hell?).

They'd have to pay back then by giving up their oil reserves to the US/Britain.

quote:

I think I would take the word of a president over any amabassador

Yes, but that was after the invasion already happened.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I also forgot to mention that Kuwait itself gave huge loans to Iraq during Iraq-Iran conflict. Invading Kuwait would release Iraq of those loans.

that i will belive, but then agian that has nothing to do about the US wanting iraq to invade kuwait (there are other alternatives to pay someone back then by conquering your neighbour)

quote:

And if they wanted to free Kuwait, why did they destroy railroads and bridges?

so that military personal couldnt use them. so that tanks couldnt cross rivers and so that weapons could not be sent through rail. this is a very primative military tactic, hit the nations infrastructure so as to obstruct the military machine.

quote:

And how do you all explain that as soon as Bush came to power he wants war with Iraq again?

because he feels more threatened by saddam then clinton did, thats only one option but i bet you can come up with a million and a half other reasons as to why

quote:

No weapons of mass destruction have been found, but still Bush and Blair say that Iraq has them.

i want to ask you a serious personal question, do you belive saddam possess weapons of mass destruction? i belive he does, fact remains that he had them at one time in the past and that no one has proven he has none now (not even saddam himself). the inspectors after leaving in '98 said they destroyed most of the chemical/biological weapons but admitted that saddam still possessed some. further more the threats coming out of iraq saying that, if america attacks, it will use "whatever means nessaciry" to win, is kinda a hint to what they got.

quote:

But they won't say to the UN inspectors where they are. Little strange, isn't it?

not really there are many reasons why the US and UK wouldnt want to release that information, and i bet you can think of them if you know a little about how the intellegence community works. that said, it is not the UN inspectors job to find whether iraq has or does not have WOMD but rather to test saddam's willingness to be frank and open about his progams. so far seems to me like saddam is beating around the bush (hahahaha i just realized what a pun that is)

quote:

It's like Hitler's excuse to attack Czechoslovakia.

no its not, Hitler's plan was to annex or incorporate each conquered country into his 'empire'. america has no intention of "conquering" iraq and making it the 51st state of america. The US is simply out for a regime change.

quote:

And about April Glaspie, the US congress certified the Baghdad report, at least that's what my sources say.

come on if your sources are the same ones i found through the search, they are nothing but conspiracy theorists. if you came to me with sources such as ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY, CBC... something crediable then i would hold you with higher value.

quote:

Well that's why he asked the americans for their opinion, right? And as long as the americans would do nothing, the rest of the world wouldn't do anything also.

agian there is a far jump of logic between seeing the allegide quote:
"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait."
as an OK for a complete act of war agianst kuwait. thats one big leap of faith on saddam's part (i never held that guy to much of a high IQ anyways).

Izzy, you have to at least wonder about US motives in all of this. Blind faith is the trait of an extremist. I believe Pakistan and North Korea are much more dangerous than Iraq in terms of the damage they can and might do, and the job in Afghanistan is at best only half-finished. I think we would do better to address these problems first. There are many hotspots around the world where tensions run high and at present there are something like 30 conflicts in the world, most of which are ignored. Yet somehow Iraq is getting all this attention from a superpower whose entire culture and economy depends on an awful lot of oil. If you care about human suffering and global safety you must ask yourself: why? Isn't this all a bit strange in the context of things?

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard Izzy, you have to at least wonder about US motives in all of this.

You don't have to wonder about anything. The US motives are its own personal interests (in this case, that might be related to oil). And there's nothing wrong with that.

Countries, like people, are selfish. The U.S. just gets noticed more because it's big, influential, and is in direct competition with almost the entire world.

At what cost?

How far can America go in "acting in it's own interests" and still be doing "nothing wrong"?

quote:

there are other alternatives to pay someone back then by conquering your neighbour

No there are not if your neighbour is responsible for a huge drop in oil prices on which your country's economy is completely based upon.

quote:

because he feels more threatened by saddam then clinton did

I'm really interested in seeing how can possibly Saddam be a threat to Bush and the USA at this time, and why is he more concerned about it than Clinton. Before Bush started proposing war, the relations were more or less stable.

quote:

do you belive saddam possess weapons of mass destruction?

I'm not sure. But even if he does, who's to say he can't have them? Many countries have them and it's not a big deal. Those weapons will be used only if he's extremely threatened.

quote:

that said, it is not the UN inspectors job to find whether iraq has or does not have WOMD but rather to test saddam's willingness to be frank and open about his progams

Well if he'd be willing, he'd tell them where they are the first day of their inspection. He didn't, so the US should say where they are, and the inspectors should look at, otherwise there will be no proof whatsoever of them existing.

quote:

america has no intention of "conquering" iraq and making it the 51st state of america.

I'm not talking about what will hapen after the war gets started, but about changing public and international opinion towards accepting the war with forged or unproved evidence.

quote:

if you came to me with sources such as ABC, NBC, FOX, CNN, BBC, SKY, CBC..

I'm not sure those sources still have that information at their web sites, it's been more than 10 years, but if I find some I'll notify you. And why wouldn't you trust Saddam? He's a nice guy.

quote:

"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." as an OK for a complete act of war agianst kuwait

But the American government knew it was not going to be just a simple borderline dispute. They knew that Saddam wants to invade Kuwait because it was the only way for it to get oil prices back at their previous state. A few gunshots from the one side to the other wouldn't solve anything, and americans knew that very well. It was not a territorial dispute, but the one that could be solved only by overthrowing Kuwaiti government, because all diplomatic tries have failed.
Besides, if you compare that war to many others in which americans didn't get involved it's not a big war. Kuwait is a very small but very rich country. Compare war in Kuwait to the one in Afghanistan, in which americans didn't get involved until the WTC incident. Americans only get involved in wars that have something to do with oil, or are in some other ways a threat to their dominance in the world.

quote:

The US motives are its own personal interests (in this case, that might be related to oil). And there's nothing wrong with that.

In that case you can say there was nothing wrong with what Hitler did, because he was also protecting Germany's personal interests.
Which was ok in the beginning, because Germany was really opressed by the victorious countries, but what he did later was definitely not necesarry.

quote:

Countries, like people, are selfish. The U.S. just gets noticed more because it's big, influential, and is in direct competition with almost the entire world.

I agree with that completeley. But it's also understandable that as it gets involved in many things, that will piss off many people. I agree that any country in that position would do exactly the same things. But that wouldn't mean that people outside of it would be satisfied.

quote:

Originally posted by evil_bastard blah blah blah blah, why does the USA attack Iraq and not North Korea or Pakistan wha wha wha

Simple reason, because IT CAN!

Just because it can't attack North Korea or Pakistan (Iran was BTW the other 1/3 of the axis of evil) doesn't mean they are any better and does not mean the US is any worse.

The fact is the USA right now CAN attack Iraq because of its isolated position, and if you are going to use the argument that if we can'tattack North Korea or Pakistan, we shouldn't attack Iraq.. well that is one of the most childish and ridiciolous arguments I've heard.

Go ahead, tell me yourself.. what should the USA do against North Korea or Pakistan. If you were in Bush's shoes what would you do differently in addressing thier risk to your nation and the world?

ok tito, my lengthy reply to you just got erased so I will sum it up.

Here is an alternative for Saddam not paying debts to Kuwait:
a.Stop paying debts to kuwait.
This is better then:
b. invade kuwait

Saddam can't have WOMD because the WORLD say's so. He signed a contract with the UN that said the world said so, and that he said its ok.

Then he went on to have WOMD. You break a contract their are consequences (or at least there SHOULD BE!), simple no?

Third, Hitler invaded Czech without a just cause for war, and therefore was seen as an agressor. The USA has a just cause for war against Iraq as it violated the contract it signed with the world, of which the USA is very important in.

Please man, open your mind a little, get some thought to other peoples suggestions, their are other conspriacies on the other far end you could learn.

quote:

my lengthy reply to you just got erased so I will sum it up.

Same thing happened to me a day ago. Hate it when that happens.

quote:

Here is an alternative for Saddam not paying debts to Kuwait: a.Stop paying debts to kuwait. This is better then: b. invade kuwait

Yes, but Kuwait wasn't the only loan giver to Iraq, and it caused Iraq not to be able to pay back other loans as well. And if it stopped paying those loans, there would be no foreign investments at all.

quote:

Saddam can't have WOMD because the WORLD say's so. He signed a contract with the UN that said the world said so, and that he said its ok. Then he went on to have WOMD. You break a contract their are consequences (or at least there SHOULD BE!), simple no? Third, Hitler invaded Czech without a just cause for war, and therefore was seen as an agressor. The USA has a just cause for war against Iraq as it violated the contract it signed with the world, of which the USA is very important in. Please man, open your mind a little, get some thought to other peoples suggestions, their are other conspriacies on the other far end you could learn.

Ok, I forgot that he signed a contract with the UN about it. But you don't know if he has them or not yet. So there is still no just cause for the US to invade yet as well.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Yes, but Kuwait wasn't the only loan giver to Iraq, and it caused Iraq not to be able to pay back other loans as well. And if it stopped paying those loans, there would be no foreign investments at all.

Again, stop paying the debts seems like a better alternative then war. Also if at financial trouble, why didn't they ask the world bank for help? Nations in financial debt that can't pay it, that are (or were) allies of the USA, usually has the USA buy out the debt as long as the nation promises to reform the economy, which the IMF and world bank then oversea. This is usually the number 1 option for nations going into debt without the ability to repay it. The 2nd is to not pay them and become isolationists.

quote:

Ok, I forgot that he signed a contract with the UN about it. But you don't know if he has them or not yet. So there is still no just cause for the US to invade yet as well.

The just causes is that Iraq violated contracts with the USA and with the UN of which the USA is a security council member of.

If the inspectors do find that Iraq is in violation, then the USA will have a just cause. Even if it is a thing like they didn't let them see the scientist, or they hampered or bugged inspections.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Just because it can't attack North Korea or Pakistan (Iran was BTW the other 1/3 of the axis of evil) doesn't mean they are any better and does not mean the US is any worse.

Who is the United states to say which countries are evil....LOL....Thats a fucking joke. Rememeber.. your president is an Ape in human costume.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Who is the United states to say which countries are evil....

its called soverignty

what is evil, what isnt? do you belive in natural modesty? in some places its evil to show any exposed skin while other places its completely natural to sun bath topless... are we born knowing what is evil and what isnt or are we conditioned by society?

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy its called soverignty what is evil, what isnt? do you belive in natural modesty? in some places its evil to show any exposed skin while other places its completely natural to sun bath topless... are we born knowing what is evil and what isnt or are we conditioned by society?

What im trying to get at here is that the American government is executing "national/cultural relativism". By comparing the UNited states to other countries.. the Us has labelled anything that is different. IF you dont follow US policy.. ideologies... practices.. you are, evil, communist, oppressive and any other labels they have come up with in the past. Basically...if you are not like they US, you are uncivilized.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King Who is the United states to say which countries are evil....LOL....Thats a fucking joke. Rememeber.. your president is an Ape in human costume.

And who are you to say that our president is an ape?

Remember Canadains, are shields for saddam!

british and americans too are shields... quit that "canadian shield thing"

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.