mbkdu...whenever i see you on here, I think of one thing...

Mugatu.

Have no idea who he is or what you are talking about.

You've never seen Zoolander?

mbkudu......mugatu

Sorry, just bored. Not an insult, more like a badge of honour.

Mugatu is a hero of mine.

No offense taken Igotworms. I am not much of a television watcher, so I am afraid I don't know what 'Zoolander' is. From the first picture he looks like some sort of illusionist or something.

Cheers, Mbkudu.

P.S. The Gentleman Scamp asked me about my nickname; he thought it was some cool African name or something. All it means is, Moo Baan Kudu, the village in Issan where my wife is from and where I live part of the year. I think G.S. was disappointed after I told him that. It ruined his perception that I might be an African tribal warlord or a South African diamond smuggler behind the keyboard. Actually I'm just an average joe.

I also try and not use any words larger than wheelbarrow, so he can grasp the sentence. 

Wheelbarrow needs to be hyphenated: wheel-barrow!

thanks P1P

Sorry, the above was a bit long. I shall post a short version for those short of reading skills.

George W Bush hated Saddam.

He thought Saddam tried to kill his daddy!

GWB tried to find a reason to attack Saddam.

GWB chose WMD.

However Iraq had NO nasty bombs.

This was known before the war but hushed up.

Therefore  the war was not legal.

Those who prosecuted it are war criminals.

pip~

"Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds."

The above, a direct quote from your post of the other day which makes the argument for one reason to go to war with Iraq. One of the main reasons to go after Saddam was to keep him from getting nukes which would both make any U.S. intervention in the future next to impossible and make it possible for Saddam to blow up, hmm, let's say, Cleveland. Often, those who ask "Why Iraq?" — and not Iran or Syria or North Korea or China — are being intellectually dishonest, because they don't actually think any of those places should be attacked either. They see the world through a child's eyes, in the sense that they think it's wrong to punish one person if another person isn't being punished for doing the same things. Kids always use this logic: "It's not fair my friend Tommy cheated on the test and he's not being grounded!" But if this rule guided us in the real world, we wouldn't throw anybody in jail unless we could be sure all the criminals would be caught. Yep, it's in some sense unfair that China gets away with murder — literally — but Iraq doesn't. But no serious person would argue that Iraq should get away scot-free because China does. Ultimately, you do what you can, where you can. And since America is the "Big Dog" on the porch - the World's policeman, it was left to us.

In other words, it's a checklist, not an on/off switch. And in the end that's the response to all of these alleged silver-bullet antiwar arguments. No one argument is sufficient, pro or con. You need to look at a long list of criteria and make a decision. Some pro-war arguments are very strong, some less so. But you have to add them all up together and look at the final tally.

So: Was Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? Check! Was it a proven threat to its neighbors? Check! Was it a proven threat to its own people? Check! Was it a proven threat to our allies? Check! Was it willing to export terrorism abroad? Check! Was it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? Check! Was it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? Check! Would Saddam's people be better off without him? Check! Would we and our allies be better off without him? Check! Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? Check! And, would getting rid of him make it less likely that another September 11 would "happen again"? Check!

Let's move past the "Dubya hated Saddam who tried to kill his daddy" arguments, please. And, the argument that those who prosecuted the war are war criminals is bogus too in light of the previous war in Kosovo where the Left's Darling, Bill Clinton also went to war w/out UN sanction.

You may not know:

•80,000 Iraqi children are alive today because the Coalition Forces took Saddam Hussein from power.

•Polls show 75% of Iraqis want a democracy.

•51% of Iraqis say their country is going in the right direction.

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/

Boon, thank you for a most interesting post. I apologise my reply is a bit long. (I fear other readers may lose interest before they get to the end!

"Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds."

The above, a direct quote from your post of the other day which makes the argument for one reason to go to war with Iraq.  One of the main reasons to go after Saddam was to keep him from getting nukes which would both make any U.S. intervention in the future next to impossible and make it possible for Saddam to blow up, hmm, let's say, Cleveland.

Yes, absolutely, but an intention, wish, desire is no reason or excuse to start a war. I would love to be filthy rich, to rob the Louvre or a big bank, but I can not be arrested for my wish. Only if I act on it.

Often, those who ask "Why Iraq?" — and not Iran or Syria or North Korea or China — are being intellectually dishonest, because they don't actually think any of those places should be attacked either. They see the world through a child's eyes, in the sense that they think it's wrong to punish one person if another person isn't being punished for doing the same things. Kids always use this logic: "It's not fair my friend Tommy cheated on the test and he's not being grounded!" But if this rule guided us in the real world, we wouldn't throw anybody in jail unless we could be sure all the criminals would be caught. Yep, it's in some sense  unfair that China gets away with murder — literally — but Iraq doesn't. But no serious person would argue that Iraq should get away scot-free because China does. Ultimately, you do what you can, where you can.  And since America is the "Big Dog" on the porch - the World's policeman, it was left to us.

This is true and accepted, but to declare war on Iran, Syria or North Korea, China or France because we do not like their politics and they do not like ours, would be no more legal than starting a war with Iraq.

In other words, it's a checklist, not an on/off switch. And in the end that's the response to all of these alleged silver-bullet antiwar arguments. No one argument is sufficient, pro or con. You need to look at a long list of criteria and make a decision. Some pro-war arguments are very strong, some less so. But you have to add them all up together and look at the final tally.

This is a fallacy. I can sail close to the wind, case the joint in 100 banks and museums, but I can not be arrested for it. Likewise, you can not add up a thousand irritations and declare them a reason to go to war.

So: Was Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? Check!

Yes, but this is no reason to declare war, as you show yourself with your references to PRK and China.

Was it a proven threat to its neighbors? Check!

History. The fact Japan, Germany and others have once attacked their neighbours is no reason for anybody else to attack them. Those wars were over and peace deals signed.

Was it a proven threat to its own people? Check!

Yes, but again an irrelevancy when it comes to war, unless the Security Council orders it.

Was it a proven threat to our allies? Check!

This we could debate until the cows come home, but it is not relevant as a reason for war.

Was it willing to export terrorism abroad? Check!

There has never been any evidence that Iraq ever exported terrorism or had any links with terrorist organisations. Saddam was too much of a pragmatist to pull such strings.

Was it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? Check!

Where is the evidence for this. Yes, I know he used Chem and Bio weapons on the Iranians, Kurds and Marsh Arabs, but how can that be described as reckless and what relevancy does it have anyway as he had no such weaponry available?

Was it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? Check!

Another fallacy. Iraq had destroyed all stocks and hidden the blueprints. They were certainly not working hard to rearm with WMD.

Would Saddam's people be better off without him? Check!

True but totally irrelevant.

Would we and our allies be better off without him? Check!

Again true, but again totally irrelevant.

Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? Check!

What has this got to do with anything. The USA can destroy anything it wishes, but it would almost certainly not be legal.

And, would getting rid of him make it less likely that another September 11 would "happen again"? Check!

No, totally false. He had nothing to do with September 11th and the anarchy ruling in Iraq has increased the chance of more terrorist outrages by many factors. Every nutter, their brothers, wives, sons and cousins are now rallying to the cause.

Let's move past the "Dubya hated Saddam who tried to kill his daddy" arguments, please.

These are relevant arguments, far more so than most above, and display the mindset on the US Commander in Chief as he sent his young men out to give their lives for his cause.

And, the argument that those who prosecuted the war are war criminals is bogus too in light of the previous war in Kosovo where the Left's Darling, Bill Clinton went to war w/out UN sanction either.

This, again, is not relevant. Besides, since when did two wrongs make a right. There has never been a time that I could say I stole a sweet because my friend did the same, and be let off for doing so.

No offense taken Igotworms. I am not much of a television watcher, so I am afraid I don't know what 'Zoolander' is. From the first picture he looks like some sort of illusionist or something.

Cheers, Mbkudu.

P.S. The Gentleman Scamp asked me about my nickname; he thought it was some cool African name or something. All it means is, Moo Baan Kudu, the village in Issan where my wife is from and where I live part of the year. I think G.S. was disappointed after I told him that. It ruined his perception that I might be an African tribal warlord or a South African diamond smuggler behind the keyboard. Actually I'm just an average joe.

I too was leaning towards some sort of Nigerian meaning for your name. Mugatu is a fashion guru _hell-bent on taking over the world. Sorry for the interuption. Let the mudslinging continue.

Go Nader.

IGW, I was gunning for Leonard Peltier myself.

You may not know:

•80,000 Iraqi children are alive today because the Coalition Forces took Saddam Hussein from power.

•Polls show 75% of Iraqis want a democracy.

•51% of Iraqis say their country is going in the right direction.

http://www.thetruthaboutiraq.org/

Yeah don't tell that to the media. I was in Iraq The places where the bombings take place is a small area. It is not the whole country, even if a bomb goes off somewhere outside of the sunni triangle then it's mass hysteria according to the media.

The Iraqi people have been stepped on for so many years they don't know how to stand up on their own They have to learn now. Personally I am getting tired of this OIL crap reason. They did that last time in the first gulf war. I guess everyone forgot what saddam hussein did during the nineties, UN resolution after UN resolution were voted on to have him disarm.

So what there were no weapons of mass destruction, but that dosen't mean he wasn't trying to get them.

Boon, thank you for a most interesting post. I apologise my reply is a bit long. (I fear other readers may lose interest before they get to the end!

"Kamel said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions. The stocks had been destroyed to hide the programs from the U.N. inspectors, but Iraq had retained the design and engineering details of these weapons. Kamel talked of hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches and even missile-warhead molds."

The above, a direct quote from your post of the other day which makes the argument for one reason to go to war with Iraq.  One of the main reasons to go after Saddam was to keep him from getting nukes which would both make any U.S. intervention in the future next to impossible and make it possible for Saddam to blow up, hmm, let's say, Cleveland.

Yes, absolutely, but an intention, wish, desire is no reason or excuse to start a war. I would love to be filthy rich, to rob the Louvre or a big bank, but I can not be arrested for my wish. Only if I act on it.

Often, those who ask "Why Iraq?" — and not Iran or Syria or North Korea or China — are being intellectually dishonest, because they don't actually think any of those places should be attacked either. They see the world through a child's eyes, in the sense that they think it's wrong to punish one person if another person isn't being punished for doing the same things. Kids always use this logic: "It's not fair my friend Tommy cheated on the test and he's not being grounded!" But if this rule guided us in the real world, we wouldn't throw anybody in jail unless we could be sure all the criminals would be caught. Yep, it's in some sense  unfair that China gets away with murder — literally — but Iraq doesn't. But no serious person would argue that Iraq should get away scot-free because China does. Ultimately, you do what you can, where you can.  And since America is the "Big Dog" on the porch - the World's policeman, it was left to us.

This is true and accepted, but to declare war on Iran, Syria or North Korea, China or France because we do not like their politics and they do not like ours, would be no more legal than starting a war with Iraq.

In other words, it's a checklist, not an on/off switch. And in the end that's the response to all of these alleged silver-bullet antiwar arguments. No one argument is sufficient, pro or con. You need to look at a long list of criteria and make a decision. Some pro-war arguments are very strong, some less so. But you have to add them all up together and look at the final tally.

This is a fallacy. I can sail close to the wind, case the joint in 100 banks and museums, but I can not be arrested for it. Likewise, you can not add up a thousand irritations and declare them a reason to go to war.

So: Was Iraq a brutal totalitarian regime? Check!

Yes, but this is no reason to declare war, as you show yourself with your references to PRK and China.

Was it a proven threat to its neighbors? Check!

History. The fact Japan, Germany and others have once attacked their neighbours is no reason for anybody else to attack them. Those wars were over and peace deals signed.

Was it a proven threat to its own people? Check!

Yes, but again an irrelevancy when it comes to war, unless the Security Council orders it.

Was it a proven threat to our allies? Check!

This we could debate until the cows come home, but it is not relevant as a reason for war.

Was it willing to export terrorism abroad? Check!

There has never been any evidence that Iraq ever exported terrorism or had any links with terrorist organisations. Saddam was too much of a pragmatist to pull such strings.

Was it likely that if it got weapons of mass destruction, it would use them recklessly? Check!

Where is the evidence for this. Yes, I know he used Chem and Bio weapons on the Iranians, Kurds and Marsh Arabs, but how can that be described as reckless and what relevancy does it have anyway as he had no such weaponry available?

Was it working very hard to get weapons of mass destruction? Check!

Another fallacy. Iraq had destroyed all stocks and hidden the blueprints. They were certainly not working hard to rearm with WMD.

Would Saddam's people be better off without him? Check!

True but totally irrelevant.

Would we and our allies be better off without him? Check!

Again true, but again totally irrelevant.

Do we have the power and capabilities to get rid of him without paying too high a cost? Check!

What has this got to do with anything. The USA can destroy anything it wishes, but it would almost certainly not be legal.

And, would getting rid of him make it less likely that another September 11 would "happen again"? Check!

No, totally false. He had nothing to do with September 11th and the anarchy ruling in Iraq has increased the chance of more terrorist outrages by many factors. Every nutter, their brothers, wives, sons and cousins are now rallying to the cause.

Let's move past the "Dubya hated Saddam who tried to kill his daddy" arguments, please.

These are relevant arguments, far more so than most above, and display the mindset on the US Commander in Chief as he sent his young men out to give their lives for his cause.

And, the argument that those who prosecuted the war are war criminals is bogus too in light of the previous war in Kosovo where the Left's Darling, Bill Clinton went to war w/out UN sanction either.

This, again, is not relevant. Besides, since when did two wrongs make a right. There has never been a time that I could say I stole a sweet because my friend did the same, and be let off for doing so.

Did you serve on saddam husseins council?? are you sure about all these responses you gave to the various questions??

P.S. The Gentleman Scamp asked me about my nickname; he thought it was some cool African name or something. All it means is, Moo Baan Kudu, the village in Issan where my wife is from and where I live part of the year. I think G.S. was disappointed after I told him that. It ruined his perception that I might be an African tribal warlord or a South African diamond smuggler behind the keyboard. Actually I'm just an average joe.

######! And I thought you were the "udu" of the MBK shopping center in Siam, whatever that is....

Did you serve on saddam husseins council?? are you sure about all these responses you gave to the various questions??

No! Yes, absolutely.

Not too off-topic - have to post this cartoon as it's a Hoot!

Not too off-topic - have to post this cartoon as it's a Hoot!

Like it muchly!

P

...The Gentleman Scamp asked me about my nickname; he thought it was some cool African name or something. All it means is, Moo Baan Kudu, the village in Issan where my wife is from and where I live part of the year. I think G.S. was disappointed after I told him that. It ruined his perception that I might be an African tribal warlord or a South African diamond smuggler behind the keyboard. Actually I'm just an average joe.

I too was leaning towards some sort of Nigerian meaning for your name. Mugatu is a fashion guru _hell-bent on taking over the world. Sorry for the interuption. Let the mudslinging continue.

Go Nader.

...and I thought you had an "udu" shop in the mbk

At this point of time nobody really remembers because they have all forgot what they said yesterday. The link below gives and interesting view( a little long though) of the real reason for the war>

http://www.newstatesman.com/site.php3?newT...RN=200411010013

Cheers.........kandt

God, I'm so sick of it all.

God, I'm so sick of it all.

We're all sick to death of it and some more than others...

But, we’re over there so that the creatures who would do this to an American or to any human be removed from the future of the world by any means necessary.

God, I'm so sick of it all.

We're all sick to death of it and some more than others...

But, we’re over there so that the creatures who would do this to an American or to any human be removed from the future of the world by any means necessary.

Seeing how p1p's extremely well-argued and factual posts totally seem to fail to have an impact on you, I guess we'll never agree on this... and my post does not add anything to the topic, just stating my case again in slightly different words...

You really seem to believe the present US policy will work.

Personally, I think it is total madness - if you are REALLY striving for the goal of creating a safer world, that is. If the real agenda is something else, then you may be doing the right thing. Any of the following, for example:

1. Creating enough enemies to be able to flex the muscles of the US war machine with at least a tiny trifle of something that resembles justification

2. Testing your combat equipment

3. Keeping your citizens subdued and so scared of terrorist attacks that they will flock to 'strong' conservative leaders like Dubya who protect their own business interests above all else.

4. Diverting attention from policies which are detrimental to empoverished groups in US society as well as overseas (removing monetary support for NGO's who propagate birth control in 3rd world countries for example).

5. Increasing the possibilities for the US to exercise control over the movement of people and money in as much of the world as possible by demanding of other countries that they change their policies to enable this control.

6. Pissing off millions and millions of people overseas who believe that the US, like any other nation in the world, should comply with international rules, in particular the rules your government have signed themselves. ...and doing so not only when it is convenient for you.

But of course, going back to a familiar theme in American movies - any essentially 'good' cop who 'knows' he is right can kill as many people as he wants in order to prove his point, and nobody has the right to question any of his actions at the end of his rampage... Because 'he is the good guy' to paraphrase Wolfowitz in his formulation of American foreign policy for the new millennium. Especially when it gets 'personal' for this cop and he is defending 'family values'.

I can actually only see how the illegal interventions and general course of action so far have aggravated the conflict between muslims and non-muslims and served to create more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers than ever before in recent history, gradually fulfilling the gross generalizations of those who think (although I am uncertain whether the word 'think' is entirely applicable here) that all muslims are terrorists by definition.

Well, keep going like this and they just might...

But, we’re over there so that the creatures who would do this to an American or to any human be removed from the future of the world by any means necessary.

Do you really think you can just kill all the 'terrorists' active in the world today, and the problem will disappear?

Do you really think you can just kill all the 'terrorists' active in the world today, and the problem will disappear?

OK...what's your answer? Sit down with OBL and his boys and sing a few "Kumbaya" songs?

Boon.

I find I can not keep from destroying my forehead against this wall here.

The problem with those on the political right wing, such as yourself, or the far left, is that they are unable to see any issue in terms other than black or white, at worse, or primary colours if they are extremely deep thinkers. They fail to realise that there are an infinite number of greys, multiplied an infinite times by all the different shades of colour available.

No, we do not believe in "Hunting down and killing every Terrorist, Revolutionary, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Palestinian, Arab, Black, Yellow, Green, Non Christian, Marxist, Mexican, Thief, Homosexual, Foreign, Disabled, Gipsy, Female, Child....... on the planet. Nor do we wish to stick our tongues up their nether regions.

We simply believe that each and every one of us has an equal right to life, and the necessities thereof. If certain people feel aggrieved and in need of a manner to bring their grievance to a resolution without the necessity to resort to terrorism, we know absolutely that the only way to stop that terrorism is to give the aggrieved some other method of resolving their problems, without violence.

As things stand, the current US administration runs under the philosophy that you do as we say, not as we do, and if you do not like the choice we present you, tough shit, accept it, or we will put you against the wall and de-brain you.

This is no choice.

We have never suggested there are easy answers. Sure as H3LL there are none. All we are stating, very categorically, is that the current policy pursued by the current US administration is severely flawed, not to say incompetent, at best and deeply criminal at worst. It can not and will never succeed.

You can post as many horror pictures as you like, of Americans killed in one way or another by followers of these fanatical leaders. All you are doing is to punctuate and bang more nails into the coffin of this administration’s incompetence or criminal behaviour.

No person will ever go to join any fanatical leader, no matter how charismatic, if he is truly happy with his lot in life. You do not make him happy by bombing his home, killing or maiming his children, destroying his workplace, etc. etc. etc. You make him happy by showing him genuine reasons to be optimistic about his future. The old story, “Hearts and Minds” says it all. It is a deep pity that the US have never learned that lesson in any of the conflicts in which they have been involved.

Do you really think you can just kill all the 'terrorists' active in the world today, and the problem will disappear?

OK...what's your answer? Sit down with OBL and his boys and sing a few "Kumbaya" songs?

Of course I have no almighty panacaea - but the best way to avoid terrorism would be to be sensitive to the needs of the majority of the world's population, the ones that do not have a lot of cash, simply speaking. The people whose minds can be polluted by anti-west propaganda would be a lot harder to convert by the terrorist leaders if less of the allegations against the West and the US in particular were true.

Some ideas off the top of my head:

1. Not forcing countries who are already beaten to the ground and keep taking punches to pay exorbitant debts which will effectively ensure no chances of ever starting on the path to developing welfare.

2. Identifying groups of people who are likely to become terrorists. Winning the hearts and minds of these groups through spending resources to improve the situation in such communities. Educational facilities, hospitals etc. Trying to create these facilities in dialogue with the locals, and not try to shove an alien system down their throats.

Of course, some work along these lines is being done, but as long as one hand is killing, and especially killing innocents, it does not really matter what the other hand does, because that amounts to double standard and most people do not like double standard - you do not win people's hearts and minds that way.

3. Starting to act in accordance with international treaties and using diplomacy instead of jet fighters. I know discussion does not look as glorious or simple as a high-tec war, but it usually yields better results in the long run.

4. Adopting an outward-looking attitude every once in a while, even to places that are not directly affecting US economic interests. Basically, tuning down the 'USA number 1' megaphone a few notches and opening your eyes and ears a little to what others think and feel.

You personally obviously have the desire to learn more about a foreign culture since I see you are learning Thai - if you could perhaps try to persuade a few more of your fellow countrymen that there actually is a World outside your own borders, that might help a bit as well.

I do not feel any pity for bin Laden or those closest to him, they definitely have it coming, and negotiating with them is not an option. But if you can persuade their support base that they are not worthy of joining or listening to, that is where you will win...

p1p~

My position is one of not turning the other cheek. We did not start this war - it was foisted upon us for reasons that have been throughly explored already.

No, we can't kill every terrorist on the planet but presently we've got the majority of them bottled up in Flujha(sp) right now and once Iraq has become pacified and OBL brought to justice...we'll have a better handle on the situation.

That children may grow up knowing that soldiers came from far away, and gave their lives so that they could be free.

I give up.

Again.

p1p~

Come on! It's a worthwhile discussion and for every position you and Meadish take for withdrawal (if that's what you're advocating) I can understand where you're coming from.

When one is ensconced safely up in CM and the likelihood of a terrorist attack is minimal?...

p1p~

Come on!  It's a worthwhile discussion and for every position you and Meadish take for withdrawal (if that's what you're advocating) I can understand where you're coming from.

When one is ensconced safely up in CM and the likelihood of a terrorist attack is minimal?...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boon, This is the problem. You truly can not comprehend what we are advocating. Withdrawal is not an option, but then neither is bombing half the planet into dust, with a liberal sprinkling of gore and bone fragments.

Please read my, and Meadish's posts and meditate for some time on what we are trying to put across. As the Budha taught, the "Middle Way" is the only way that ever works.

p1p~

Come on!  It's a worthwhile discussion and for every position you and Meadish take for withdrawal (if that's what you're advocating) I can understand where you're coming from.

When one is ensconced safely up in CM and the likelihood of a terrorist attack is minimal?...

Boon, This is the problem. You truly can not comprehend what we are advocating. Withdrawal is not an option, but then neither is bombing half the planet into dust, with a liberal sprinkling of gore and bone fragments.

Please read my, and Meadish's posts and meditate for some time on what we are trying to put across. As the Budha taught, the "Middle Way" is the only way that ever works.

I'm somewhat familiar with Buddha's teachings as my father-in-law has been a Monk for the past 25 years and he's always trying to correct the so-called "errors of my ways"!

And, please don't patronize me with statements that I "can't comprehend what you're advocating". I most certainly do comprehend that you cannot have it both ways - elimination of Terror and a Liberal approach to it's end.

OBL and his Crew have to go...

Speaking of having to go, I've got to sign off for today but I'll leave y'all with a small token... Let Freedom Reign!

I'm somewhat familiar with Buddha's teachings as my father-in-law has been a Monk for the past 25 years and he's always trying to correct the so-called "errors of my ways"!

And, please don't patronize me with statements that I "can't comprehend what you're advocating".  I most certainly do  comprehend that you cannot have it both ways - elimination of Terror and a Liberal approach to it's end.

OBL and his Crew have to go...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boon,

No patronising was intending, however your posts have all, (including the one quoted above,) shown your lack of comprehension of the posts we have made.

Still, there is no point in flogging this dead horse any more. Tomorrow will decide if the current madness continues/gets worse, or if we have a breath of fresh air and the remote possibility of solving the problems we all face at present.