|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2001 : 13:37:08 [Permalink]
|
Final thought.
It may be true that the U.S. doesn't want to lift the sanctions until Hussein himself is gone, but that doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. If all the mandates are followed and Iraq petitions the U.N. to lift the sanctions, the political voice to allow it would eventually overwhelm the U.S.'s oppositions (with the possible exception of the UK). So it's still in Hussein's power to keep his position and get the sanctions lifted
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 13:57:20 [Permalink]
|
I agree. Enforcing those sanctions is politically and militarily a pain in the butt. At he end of the war, he agree to follow the UN mandates. Since then he's done everything he can to ignore them, hence, the sanctions.
While I might wish otherwise, I think we're going to be over there for a long time. Even if Sadaam started honoring his commitments tomorrow, and the sanctions were lifted, our allies in the region would probably want us to maintain a small, well armed presence. Just in case he decides to expand his borders again.
Thanks for your even handed and well reasoned post, Garrette.
To reply with a quote, click on the button at the top that says "reply with quote". Erase anything you don't want.
BTW Gorgo, referring to Trish as a Troll was pretty uncalled for.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 14:02:06 [Permalink]
|
Face is a big part of it. If you've read Ramsey Clark, and I would agree with anyone that says that he goes overboard in parts - like a good prosecutor - he has some evidence that negotation that saved Saddam Hussein a little face to begin with would have gone a long way. George said no negotiations, so there you have that. Face aside, the U.S. has to now be in love with the idea of a big military presence in the area. Not all for terrible reasons.
General Clark also has some evidence that the U.S. meant to hurt the civilian population to make the sanctions worse, I assume with the idea in mind that they would rebel, I don't know.
Even if you're right; the U.N. has the duty to protect those who live under brutal dictatorships as much as possible. That is not happening. After the first year, you could maybe make a case that people are reasonable for blaming Saddam. For 11 years, there is no excuse for the continuing military blockade and terror attacks. These are not military sanctions, they are meant to hurt the population. Pencils, books, chlorine to purify the water and even for a while, parts for ambulances were banned. This is intentional murder after 11 years even if you can excuse the first 11 years. Now they wish to make the sanctions look better without actually changing them.
quote:
Final thought.
It may be true that the U.S. doesn't want to lift the sanctions until Hussein himself is gone, but that doesn't mean that's the only way to do it. If all the mandates are followed and Iraq petitions the U.N. to lift the sanctions, the political voice to allow it would eventually overwhelm the U.S.'s oppositions (with the possible exception of the UK). So it's still in Hussein's power to keep his position and get the sanctions lifted
My kids still love me.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 14:05:07 [Permalink]
|
I didn't call anyone a troll. I thought someone else was calling her a troll. I was defending her. Are you saying they weren't referring to her?
quote:
BTW Gorgo, referring to Trish as a Troll was pretty uncalled for.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 14:28:06 [Permalink]
|
No. There is a stick, but no carrot. No amount of cooperation got the Iraqis anything. There is no evidence that even the most absolutely perfectly rigid cooperation (would you want your government to cooperate completely?) would have lessened the sanctions at all. There were no weapons of mass destruction in 1998 except for the small potential of some small amounts of information or chemical or biological materials that you'll never find anyway.
quote:
Since then he's done everything he can to ignore them, hence, the sanctions.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 14:50:27 [Permalink]
|
Are you saying that Iraq should not have a military in this hostile and overly-armed region?
Also, the sanctions do very much restrict the ability to import certain items. It has wrecked the economy. There are a lot of reasons. The money spent on the military and on palaces was largely funded by worthless dinars domestically as well. Some of this is true, but a lot of it is U.S. propaganda.
quote:
Now you can argue against this if you argue against war as a whole, which is a separate argument for a different thread. But given that there is a war, it is impossible to wage it without harm to civilians and civilian infrastructure even though that is not the intent.
But your point is that the sanctions removed the means to repair that damage, yes? Let's see: Did Hussein find it impossible to repair barracks and airfields? No. Did he find it impossible to rebuild a large portion of his army and feed them well? No. Do the sanctions prevent the building/rebuilding of hospitals or the training/importation of trained personnel to staff them? No.
There are NGO's (Non-governmental Organizations; e.g., the Red Cross/Crescent) who are allowed, even under the sanctions, to provide humanitarian assistance to the populace including the rebuilding of the infrastructure, including water collection, purification and distribution. Why aren't they there? Hussein won't let them.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 15:02:14 [Permalink]
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I fear that, given the U.S. predisposition to swat flies with sledgehammers, we have created the Fidel Castro of the Middle East. If you read some accounts of the "man in the street" interviews with Iraqis people given by various news organizations, there is a certain pride that they have endured against the most powerful military and economic power on earth. The U.S. for better or for worse, is not going to back down. Neither is Hussein.
So, just like Cuba, sanctions will continue against Iraq until Saddam dies of old age. I have little faith that the U.S. can "think" its way out of this one. Well, actually it can, but it is not politically expedient to do so.
In the meantime, the rampant black market trade in Jordan and Syria will continue unabated.
(:raig |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2001 : 16:32:47 [Permalink]
|
Quoting from Ramsey Clark's The Fire This Time
"The overall plan was described in the June 23, 1991. Washington Post. After interviews with several of the war's top planners and extensive research into how targets were determined, reporter Barton Gellman wrote:
'Many of the targets were chosen only secondarily to contribute to the military defeat of [Iraq]....Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society...Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as "collateral" and unintended, was sometimes neither...They deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society.'
Col John A. Warden III, whom Gellman quoted, made the additional point that damage to Iraq's life-support systems would make Iraq economically dependent on Western help: 'Saddam Hussein cannot restore his own electricity. He needs help. If there are political objectives that the UN coalition has, it can say, "Saddam, when you agree to do these things, we will allow people to come in and fix your electricity." 'It gives us long term leverage."
One Pentagon planner was quoted in the article explaining the relationship between the bombing and the sanctions:
'People say, "You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water and sewage?" Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions - help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on the infrastructure was to accelerate the effects of the sanctions."
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 04:22:55 [Permalink]
|
Sorry about the delay responding, but it will have to be even longer. I spent some time last night writing down some thoughts and comments only to have it all go wonky on me and not post it. Just as well, I suppose, since I think I screwed up the 'quoting' function. (Thanks to Lisa anyway for the help and the kind comments).
It was all brilliant, though. Really really brilliant. Trust me on this.
When I get more time I'll try to reconstruct it and perhaps add more.
Til then.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 04:25:18 [Permalink]
|
One thought, though; my response included the Cuba similarities like Mespo_man mentioned.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 04:31:41 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo:
quote:
Is this a UFO society, or a skeptic's forum? I'm in the phone book dear, if you're so paranoid, look me up. Do a search on the web. You'll find me all over the place.
Just idle curiosity, nothing more...you seemed to blow off the comment. As for looking you up, I really have no desire to spend the time.
quote:
It is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with anything. Iraq did not "kick out" the inspectors. It's been admitted by Butler himself. Next problem.
Ok, I'll concede this point, however, Iraq has not allowed the return of UNSCOM and IAEA inspectors since their withdrawl in December of 1998.
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/s/index.html
Try this link. These are letters to the UN from UNSCOM via Butler and Butlers own reports as regards Iraq semi or non compliance with UN mandates.
quote:
You have no idea what you're talking about. It would take a year to explain this to you in a way that you'd understand. If you want to talk about it, do some research.
Also, I appreciate your help in figuring out this system. You might want to check out the spell-check feature.
Excuse me, this is completely uncalled for. As for using the spell-check feature, my apologies, my system here at home is less than desireable. So I am incapable of using two browser windows at once without causing extreme problems with my system, read it crashes a lot. This merely points out spelling errors without making corrections. Leaving me to my own unfortunately limited knowledge of etymology, my apologies for getting laid off, when the company I worked for closed its US operations, shortly after my regular computer fried its motherboard. I had to go dig up the old 486 and use the 36K modem since the 56K was damaged by the problems with my other computer.
I'm always open to rational explanation, that does not mean, however, that I will agree with you in whole or in part. I will weigh the arguments and my limited understanding and inept incompetence will have to muddle through to form a biased opinion. (Yes, read this with heavy sarcasm dripping in livid puddles.)
You seem to continue to attack when I've researched the subject. Am I reading your posts wrong? I don't see how. According to you, the UNSC resolution are irrelevent, the sites I've researched from are irrelevent. I lack the mental capacity to understand. I fail to research the information. Again I ask you, is this because I do not ascribe to your point of view? It would IMHO seem as such.
quote:
Don't call Trish a troll. She's caught up in some mental trap or other, but I think she's trying.
This also was uncalled for. And the implication, from your perspective, is that I am a troll, not as I think Tokyodreamer intended, but that's my own bias coloring my view of the statement. It was originally Lisa who commented about the likes of Piper and Conspiracy Dave. Trolls at another board both Lisa and I frequent.
quote:
Look, I said early on that I'm not going to get a doctorate and supplies pictures with circles and arrows to get you to understand what I'm talking about. Trish isn't even paying attention to what I'm saying. She's just blabbering on about things that have nothing to do with anything. She needs to start smoking more, not less. I'm trying to be polite, but a lot of the rest of you are just plain angry people. You're defensive, and I haven't said anything against any of you. Those of you that have been insulted are insulted by some irrational fear that questioning our leaders will bring civilization to an end. How can you call yourselves skeptics? Disagree, yes, but let's have a little discipline about it.
I've paid attention. I have researched the issue. You choose to discount my research because you don't want to read what the UN has to say regarding the issues. I've supplied you with various links to information regarding the specific UNSC resolutions. You brush the information aside as though it is without relevence. It is patently relevent to this discussion. As for my smoking, keep your opinions to yourself.
Your comments here are an attack to all those who have been posting here for some time. Um, why don't you practice some discipline yourself?
As for questioning the leaders of this country, I do and will continue to question more than the leaders of this country but also it's policies both foreign and domestic.
Garrette:
quote:
On the historical side, there have been references to Manifest Destiny as if it were an actual document and doctrine. Not so. Manifest Destiny was simply a belief in the early and middle 1800's that the white settlers of North America had a divine right to the conquest of all the land stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and those who stood in the way of the settlement were standing in the way of righteousness. Manifest Destiny had nothing to do with anything beyond the shores of what is now the continental U.S.
The Monroe Doctrine, on the other hand, was President Monroe's 'double-dast-dare-ya' to Europe saying that the Western Hemisphere was ours and any meddling in any of the Americas by any European power would be considered meddling in the affairs of the U.S. and an act against the interests of the U.S. It has been slowly expanded into a recognition that U.S. interests have become worldwide and include such diverse topics as oil, commerce routes, commercial markets, a limited support of human rights, political alliances, military bases, etc. etc. etc. (This became the Truman Doctrine which is what led to our involvement in Vietnam).
My apologies and thanks to you again Garrette. Of course I was intending to refer to the Monroe Doctrine. It's been ten years since I have had any studies regarding Political Science. My bad memory storage system...it gets rather muddled at times...actually I hate filing. 
quote:
Does this bother me? It bothers me a little that humanity demands this, but it does not bother me that we recognize it and act accordingly. It's the way the world works and it's the way I expect and demand my government to work. I insist on a respect for human rights, but it is not absolute nor is it the sole factor. Any attempt to base all our political and military decisions solely on hum |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 05:14:21 [Permalink]
|
First a publicly personal note to Trish: Let's just both assume we got off on the wrong foot and leave it at that. My apologies for anything that was seen as an attack. That wasn't my intent. Please also see that you have reasons for not using your spell-check, and I have reasons for not erasing things to your specifications. I'll try and you'll try. I understand what you're saying, but I also have my buts. Okay?
Second, I apologize if it seems as though I'm saying that you're irrelevant or stupid. You certainly are not. What I'm saying is that if you research what I'm saying, instead of taking three lines out of some report that has little to do with what we're talking about, you'll see why I'm saying it. For some things, I'm not going to go research everything and post it. Iraq did not "kick out" the inspectors. This is really not that important a thing, as Iraq, after the decision to pull out the inspectors, decided not to cooperate with the inspectors. Iraq is not in a position to "kick out" anyone. As far as the troll remark, I was making a joke because some person implied that I was a troll. I was trying to lighten things up a little. In my view, which may be wrong, many of you have come off as angry defensive people that are afraid that criticizing the government will end civilization and that I'm leading Saddam's armies into Ohio in the morning. I blew off the comment because it's insulting. Copperfast is on the web, it is not a candy company. Gorgo is a very old nickname, not picked by me. If he wasn't joking, he's a very lousy detective.
The idea that the Monroe Doctrine excuses the brutality that the U.S. has visited on our Southern neighbors is insane.
I've answered your question regarding whether or not the sanctions were designed to hurt the population. You see how difficult it is to take these things point by point. I'm willing to do that to a point, but am unable to spend the time and energy to counter every point with evidence that someone's going to reject out of hand or say, "Well, I guess you're right but war is war" or some other feeble excuse as they've already done here.
Yes, the Iraqis are not perfect either, as you would expect any government to be. The UN people handling the sanctions have said time and again that the Iraqis have been exceptional in their distribution of goods. All this without proper transportation, with the U.S. holding up billions of dollars in goods (while blaming "Saddam" for that) and all kinds of logistical and economic problems.
After 11 years, I assure you that the constant bombing is very much related to words that you don't like to ascribe to the U.S. like "terror" and "murder."
If there were a reasonable International Court that could actually be objective, and that could scientifically understand the question of what to do about crime, yes, I think that body should do whatever is best for everyone as regards everyone in the world who commits an international crime, including the United States. The problem is, there is no such body, as the United States is against it.
Do I think all sanctions against Iraq should be lifted? I disagree with most in the anti-sanctions community who say that only military sanctions should be imposed. I say that if you're going to impose punishments on Iraq, you should punish all criminals in the same way, including the U.S., Isreal, the U.K., and many many others, some of which are U.S. allies. As we are seeing, the U.S. has said for years that they are only imposing military sanctions, and of course they are not. Books and kidney machines have nothing to do with military sanctions.
The U.S. is simply there to have the benefits of a large military presence in the area. No other reason.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 06:02:52 [Permalink]
|
I don't have time for the full response, but I saw Trish's and Gorgo's posts and felt a need for some quick comments, so here goes. (Actually, Trish's post says much of what I wanted to say and also includes sources, so there's lots I don't have to include.):
quote:
Iraq did not "kick out" the inspectors. This is really not that important a thing, as Iraq, after the decision to pull out the inspectors, decided not to cooperate with the inspectors. Iraq is not in a position to "kick out" anyone.
True that Iraq didn't kick the inspectors out, but they didn't cooperate long before the team was pulled out by the UN and Butler left. Delaying the team at the doors and on the road is not cooperating.
quote:
The idea that the Monroe Doctrine excuses the brutality that the U.S. has visited on our Southern neighbors is insane.
Never said it excused any U.S. misconduct; I only explained what it was. But do not attempt to imply that the U.S. is/was the only nation with the equivalent of a Monroe Doctrine or Truman Doctrine or any Doctrine. Islam spread through a sort of "Conversion-by-Conquest" Doctrine. The PLO operates under a "If it's Jewish then it's okay to kill it" Doctrine. Much of interior Africa operates by a "If we can get away with it let's take it" Doctrine. The U.S., as a human organization, has the same tendencies as other human organizations. The two differences are that for the most part we temper our aggression more than most (this is denied by many), and we have been more successful than most (and this pisses off many). Personally, I think our conduct in Central and South America in the late 1800's and most of the 1900's has been shameful, and when not shameful, embarrassingly counterproductive. We haven't fared much better in the Middle East.
But I will not accept, as Trish will not accept, that our political support of the sanctions against Iraq are terroristic or murderous. If you insist on calling it that, then you must even more vehemently condemn and denounce the actions of Hussein and others like him whose sole purpose is self aggrandizement.
quote:
I'm willing to do that to a point, but am unable to spend the time and energy to counter every point with evidence that someone's going to reject out of hand or say, "Well, I guess you're right but war is war" or some other feeble excuse as they've already done here.
It was hardly presented in so trite a manner, and was never presented as an excuse, so please do not characterize it as such. And feeble? Hardly. What is feeble is the implication that since civilians suffer than force is murder, particularly when the same standard is not applied to those being defended. Terrorism and murder Example The First: Hussein and Kuwait and the atrocities against the populace and the environment. Terrorism and Murder Example the Second: Hussein and the Kurds. Terrorism and Murder Example the Third: Hussein's brother and the losing soccer team. Terrorism and Murder Example the Fourth: Hussein lobbing Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War when Israel was a non-belligerent.
quote:
The UN people handling the sanctions have said time and again that the Iraqis have been exceptional in their distribution of goods. All this without proper transportation, with the U.S. holding up billions of dollars in goods (while blaming "Saddam" for that) and all kinds of logistical and economic problems.
Sources, please?
quote:
The U.S. is simply there to have the benefits of a large military presence in the area. No other reason.
If you mean that we're there because it is in our strategic and economic interest to be there, then I agree.
quote:
Are you saying that Iraq should not have a military in this hostile and overly-armed region?
I'm saying they should abide, as they agreed, with the UN sanctions. And it is not without precedent for a defeated aggressor nation to go for a period without a military, e.g., Japan and Germany after WWII.
quote:
The money spent on the military and on palaces was largely funded by worthless dinars domestically as well. Some of this is true, but a lot of it is U.S. propaganda
So these dinars can buy marble but not concrete? Armor but not water?
And of course there's U.S. propaganda. Are you saying there is no Iraqi propaganda? At least it's possible to check the substance behind both and to find that the truth lies closer to the U.S. version than the Iraqi.
quote:
'Many of the targets were chosen only secondarily to contribute to the military defeat of [Iraq]....Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society...Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as "collateral" and unintended, was sometimes neither...They deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society.'
This is an indication of Gellman's (the quoted reporter's) lack of understanding of military operations. OF COURSE they did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society. At the time of the Gulf War, Iraq had the world's fourth largest army, behind only Russia, China, and the U.S. (to be fair, they may have been fifth behind North Korea; can't remember exactly). They also had the industrial capacity to support that army. If you recall, the projections of the military planners was that this would be a much costlier war to the allies than it turned out to be in terms of allied casualties in personnel and equipment. So we treated it like the serious business it was. The problem wasn't the tanks and the troops and the front line; the problem was the root of it all, the infrastructure. So we attacked that. Civilians got hurt. I care about that. The generals cared about that. Bush cared about that. But th |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 07:10:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
True that Iraq didn't kick the inspectors out, but they didn't cooperate long before the team was pulled out by the UN and Butler left. Delaying the team at the doors and on the road is not cooperating.
Again, some of this is true, as would be expected of a government which hopes to maintain some autonomy. Most of it, just isn't true. Even Richard Butler has stated that Iraq is "quantatatively" disarmed. He thinks there might be some things and people which could be holed up in a hotel in Paris for all he knows. When the inspectors were withdrawn, there were no weapons of mass destruction.
quote:
The idea that the Monroe Doctrine excuses the brutality that the U.S. has visited on our Southern neighbors is insane.
Never said it excused any U.S. misconduct;
I understood that you were explaining your point to Trish. So was I. It seemed to be her intention to say that the U.S. had some right to brutalize its neighbors. You said that others have the same idea. That was my point.
quote:
It was hardly presented in so trite a manner, and was never presented as an excuse, so please do not characterize it as such.
Again, I was responding to previous posts.
quote:
And feeble? Hardly. What is feeble is the implication that since civilians suffer than force is murder, particularly when the same standard is not applied to those being defended. Terrorism and murder Example The First: Hussein and Kuwait and the atrocities against the populace and the environment. Terrorism and Murder Example the Second: Hussein and the Kurds. Terrorism and Murder Example the Third: Hussein's brother and the losing soccer team. Terrorism and Murder Example the Fourth: Hussein lobbing Scuds at Israel during the Gulf War when Israel was a non-belligerent.
Now I am responding to your post. You and others, are very quick to dismiss the crimes of the U.S. and accept their spin on the matter, but very quick to indict Saddam Hussein. Some of this is propaganda. Some of this is true. Saddam Hussein is one rotten bastard. George Bush is one rotten bastard. So which is worse?
quote:
I'm saying they should abide, as they agreed, with the UN sanctions. And it is not without precedent for a defeated aggressor nation to go for a period without a military, e.g., Japan and Germany after WWII.
quote:
So these dinars can buy marble but not concrete? Armor but not water?
Again, this requires too much of me to answer properly. Dinars can buy labor. Dinars can buy concrete. Smuggled money buys marble, etc., which is "Saddam's" way of thumbing his nose at the U.S. and making himself a big man. He's an asshole. Now. Do you want the same restrictions put on the U.S.? Should they have no marble until all their children are fed?
[/quote]
And of course there's U.S. propaganda. Are you saying there is no Iraqi propaganda? At least it's possible to check the substance behind both and to find that the truth lies closer to the U.S. version than the Iraqi.
[/quote]
I don't know what the Iraqi version is. That's rarely presented in the corporate media. I only know the version presented to me by people like Denis Halliday, Hans Von Sponeck and others like Kathy Kelley and Ramsey Clark who have been there and studied the situation.
quote:
'Many of the targets were chosen only secondarily to contribute to the military defeat of [Iraq]....Military planners hoped the bombing would amplify the economic and psychological impact of international sanctions on Iraqi society...Because of these goals, damage to civilian structures and interests, invariably described by briefers during the war as "collateral" and unintended, was sometimes neither...They deliberately did great harm to Iraq's ability to support itself as an industrial society.'
[/quote]
You didn't read what I wrote. It was designed to increase the effect of the sanctions on the population. Even if that weren't true, for many years Iraq's only source of income was the oil-for-food program. There was no way for all those years to repair ambulances and water processing plants and electric plants and sewage plants.
People are quick to call what others do murder and terror and genocide. The U.S. is somehow exempt from these terms when they do the same thing.
Amazing.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2001 : 07:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Sorry about quoting my own statements on the last post there. I'll get the hang of this in a year or so.
Stop the murder of the Iraqi people.
http://www.endthewar.org |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
