President Bush - about bush

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-29 14:00:31

Hmm, here's a much better overview: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke … dprk/nuke/

The key bit is the bit about how, you know, the US and Korea signed an agreement (what with it agreements being offical and all).

And who is saying anyone is blaming anyone? We're questioning whether or not a contractual agreement was broken. If they have a case then obviously you can't blame the person who broke it first. But you know I said in my second post that the legitimacy of their claims was suspect... so no one is, or at least I'm not, blaming anyone.

Both sides seem to have claims of the other breaking the agreement.

I still don't see why we don't blow the crap out of Korea, knowing that they have enough nuclear material to make 3 20-kiloton bombs. Pretty freaking disturbing.

el scorcho · 2002-12-30 10:11:40

Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but I didn't feel like reading all 23 previous pages. Throughout the following post, keep in mind that I have an open disdain for all things UN. But if they're going to be around, they should at least make themselves useful.

Iraq (or rather the Hussein regime), has consistently disobeyed UN resolutions (and yes, I know that the US has, too; something should have been done about it). The UN was established in order to keep these punk dictators like Saddam in check. If the UN is to be a relevant body with any chance of enforcing international law, they need to step up and show some backbone.

When Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998, what did Clinton do? Nothing. He was too busy meddling in a Yugoslavian civil war in order to his latest sexual escapades out of the headlines.

What did the international community do about Saddam's little stunt four years ago? Nothing.

Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq have been fired upon over 500 times since the beginning of 2002 alone. That in itself should have been enough justification to blow Iraq's current regime to smithereens. What has the UN done? Nothing.

This same pattern of appeasement took place during the late 1930's when Hitler kept breaking international agreements. That should be a lesson to us. If memory serves me correctly there is some form of a UN army. When ANY country violates international law, they should get one warning. After that, they get the wrath of God. If we want a peaceful free world in this century, that will be the only way.

I don't agree with everything the Bush administration does (*cough Patriot Act cough*), but at least the President is showing some cajones in dealing with Iraq.

el scorcho · 2002-12-30 10:17:31

That last post of mine was sort of off-topic, since now we are talking about North Korea. I apologize.

But I basically feel the same way about them as I do about Iraq. They've kicked out UN inspectors and violated the demarcation line. It's time people like this had real consequences.

Look at them, their people are starving and they're trying to build nukes? They are much more disturbing and frightening than Iraq, particularly because of their relation with China. I think the international message needs to be this: violate international law and we turn you into rubble.

soph · 2002-12-30 11:55:59

el scorcho, if an iraqi bomber flies over your house, are you going to look at it and wave?

iraq is cooperating with the UN. Bush is trying to find any way to show that hes not. one country says "We have and are building nukes" and Bush says "Well, we'll see what we can work out" the other says, "We have none, go ahead and check" and we want to invade. Wheres the logic?

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-30 15:07:15

Hmm, the US should've finished Iraq off after the Gulf War, but they pulled out after public pressure. The original Mr. Bush said something like pulling out of Iraq was the biggest mistake of his life.
If they did'nt pull out of Iraq last time we would'nt have to worry about it, but then again, maybe if Hussien had been finished off and a new regime set-up, it might have been just as bad as is now or maybe worse.

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-30 17:00:01

Um, firstly, the UN inspectors weren't ?thrown out.? Clinton told them to come out because he decided to go and bomb some things (Operation Desert Wolf it was called, or something).

And the no fly zones aren't sanctioned by the UN, which is why Iraq feels vindicated shooting at planes which fly in them, anyone with any understanding of the situtaiton knows this.

I agree that the US should have taken out Saddam when we had the chance, especially since at that point we had a huge rebel uprising and we could have easily succeeded. We didn't do it because it was risky politically (had we lost a lot of men, Bush wouldn't have been reelected- of course, he wasn't anyway...).

AltToWar · 2002-12-31 00:02:19

Forgive me if this has been brought up already, but I didn't feel like reading all 23 previous pages. Throughout the following post, keep in mind that I have an open disdain for all things UN. But if they're going to be around, they should at least make themselves useful.
Iraq (or rather the Hussein regime), has consistently disobeyed UN resolutions (and yes, I know that the US has, too; something should have been done about it). The UN was established in order to keep these punk dictators like Saddam in check. If the UN is to be a relevant body with any chance of enforcing international law, they need to step up and show some backbone.
When Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998, what did Clinton do? Nothing. He was too busy meddling in a Yugoslavian civil war in order to his latest sexual escapades out of the headlines.
What did the international community do about Saddam's little stunt four years ago? Nothing.
Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq have been fired upon over 500 times since the beginning of 2002 alone. That in itself should have been enough justification to blow Iraq's current regime to smithereens. What has the UN done? Nothing.
This same pattern of appeasement took place during the late 1930's when Hitler kept breaking international agreements. That should be a lesson to us. If memory serves me correctly there is some form of a UN army. When ANY country violates international law, they should get one warning. After that, they get the wrath of God. If we want a peaceful free world in this century, that will be the only way.
I don't agree with everything the Bush administration does (*cough Patriot Act cough*), but at least the President is showing some cajones in dealing with Iraq.

Misinformation alert.

Iraq (or rather the Hussein regime), has consistently disobeyed UN resolutions (and yes, I know that the US has, too; something should have been done about it). The UN was established in order to keep these punk dictators like Saddam in check. If the UN is to be a relevant body with any chance of enforcing international law, they need to step up and show some backbone.

So has Isreal. Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Do you suppose this is just cause to invade Israel.

When Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998, what did Clinton do?

Misinfo:
The UN inspectors were recalled, not thrown out. The were recalled because of the impending air strike.

Coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones over Iraq have been fired upon over 500 times since the beginning of 2002 alone.

The 'No Fly Zone' has nothing to do with the UN. It was put into place on the pretense of protectiong the Kurds and (if I recall) the Sheites.

We have consistanty attacked Communications, anti-air, and radar sites all across Iraq.

Is Iraq still a soverin nation? If it is, does it still not have the right to defend itself?

Our planes are not there to enforce any UN Resolution. We are there to aggressively contain Iraq, along with the goal of preparing for eventual war.

This same pattern of appeasement took place during the late 1930's when Hitler kept breaking international agreements.

Pre-emptive war was what we had eliminated with the end of World War II. Respect for a nations soveringty is what the world gained from WWII. A great majority of all wars since WWII have been Civil wars, not inter-nation ones.

The world has learned that nations that invade on country are likely to invade another. They know that they or their allies and partners might be next.

Violation of another nations soverignty by Iraq without emmenent threat, no matter what the intentions or motivation, is what brought the world behind the US in the first invasion of Iraq.

Violation of another nations soverignty by the US without emmenent threat, no matter what the intentions or motivation, is what currently divides the world.

I don't agree with everything the Bush administration does (*cough Patriot Act cough*), but at least the President is showing some cajones in dealing with Iraq.

His warmongering has not made the world a safer place. Indeed the world is much more dangerous now than it was before 9/11

CalTech2010 · 2002-12-31 01:18:37

iraq is cooperating with the UN. Bush is trying to find any way to show that hes not. one country says "We have and are building nukes" and Bush says "Well, we'll see what we can work out" the other says, "We have none, go ahead and check" and we want to invade. Wheres the logic?

North Korea has been known to issue sharp statements regarding foreign policy. They're like that nerdy kid with an attitude that thinks he can backtalk the biggest kid in school. I think diplomacy is good for now, but we should start laying groundwork for an invasion.

Iraq may just be showing a happy face to the UN while it keeps developing its weapons. Keep in mind, Iraq is about the same size as Missouri. There's a lot of places to stash a weapon, especially uninhabited places with very remote access.

I agree that the US should have taken out Saddam when we had the chance, especially since at that point we had a huge rebel uprising and we could have easily succeeded. We didn't do it because it was risky politically (had we lost a lot of men, Bush wouldn't have been reelected- of course, he wasn't anyway...).

We called of our dogs because we had that whiney "coalition" stopping us. Had we done only a US-British operation, we wouldn't have had to honor the requests of the French, Germans, Saudis, etc. France didn't even let us use their airspace... some allies.

So has Isreal. Israel is in violation of more UN resolutions than Iraq. Do you suppose this is just cause to invade Israel.

Care to share those violations with the class, Johnny?

The 'No Fly Zone' has nothing to do with the UN. It was put into place on the pretense of protectiong the Kurds and (if I recall) the Sheites.
We have consistanty attacked Communications, anti-air, and radar sites all across Iraq.
Is Iraq still a soverin nation? If it is, does it still not have the right to defend itself?
Our planes are not there to enforce any UN Resolution. We are there to aggressively contain Iraq, along with the goal of preparing for eventual war.

Does a sovereign nation have the right to slaughter its own citizens based on ethnicity? The Furher would be proud...

el scorcho... you're my hero. Ole!

Josh Cryer · 2002-12-31 03:41:32

Why do we grasp so much with regard to Iraq? Hasn't it been well established that Iraq has no reason to be ?naughty??

And Cal... the US didn't need a ?coalition? then, mainly due to the fact that, you know, we were already at war. It wasn't like we had to ?prove anything.? The Gulf War was probably the easiest war we have ever fought. It was the best technology against a third world country (which was economically starved for some 6 months due to sanctions and so on) for crying out loud. There was no need for anyone else once we had the go ahead.

The only reason we pulled out can be summed up to politics, because there, quite frankly, isn't any other rational reason for it.

And a quick search on Google will inform you as to Israel's violations...

Here's a good one: http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolut … slist.html

But since the site itself is biased towards Arabs, maybe you can't trust it.

How about this one; a neat comparasion between Iraq and Isreal: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/Co … ...ael.htm

It too, is biased towards Arabs, though, so let's try something else.

How about this: http://www.jewsagainsttheoccupation.org … tions.html

?Liberals? I'm sure. But at least their Jews. You can't really think they'd lie about their own people.

I wish I could find the UN's actual violation page. Only then would you be convinced, I'm sure. (Lies, lies, all lies.)

soph · 2002-12-31 08:02:18

well, considering that the palestinian state that was sanctioned by the UN exists, and is named Jordan, i think the Palestinians might be violating a resolution of their own.

Many people choose to ignore the fact that Jordan is the UN-created Islamic state-but its the fact.

Palomar · 2002-12-31 09:30:30

Here's a good one: http://www.middleeastnews.com/unresolut … slist.html
But since the site itself is biased towards Arabs, maybe you can't trust it.
How about this one; a neat comparasion between Iraq and Isreal: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Documents/Co … ...ael.htm
It too, is biased towards Arabs, though, so let's try something else.

*Josh's post reminds me of something I saw yesterday on TV, though it wasn't in favor of Arabs (apparently). It's a commercial which I saw for the first time yesterday, and looks like something usually put out by the National Ad Council (though it does not identify itself as such in any way). To the background of a song which goes (trying to recall verbatim), "It's a mean old world we live in, you gotta live in until you die" are images of Osama bin Laden one one knee, holding an assault rifle and aiming it; Saddam Hussein walking down a corridor; the 2nd airliner heading for the other Twin Tower on 9/11; and Arafat gesticulating while apparently ranting about something. I was waiting for the Ariel Sharon's face to flash on the screen, but he wasn't included.

The last frame of the commercial shows a computer-generated image of the Earth, with the words "Pray for Peace."

I wonder who created this commercial. Does anyone know? Sorry, I don't mean to try and change the subject, but I don't care to create a new thread for this and it does fit with what's being discussed here.

--Cindy

soph · 2002-12-31 10:01:05

Maybe Bush is onto something:

http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=232]Article about Hezbellah use of Iraqi missles

http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=214]Article about Al Qaeda plans for terror attack against Israel

After reading the Iraqi missle article, I'm a little more in support of a war. Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.

Echus_Chasma · 2002-12-31 15:32:11

Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.

They know much more than they care to tell us.

el scorcho · 2003-01-01 00:35:06

The government does know more than they tell us. I admire Israel for the way they handle things. They tend to not take crap off of anyone. If I had my way, this war on terrorism would have been going on in '93 after the first WTC bombing. If Arabs have grievances, there's a legitimate way to do things. The people of Quebec have grievances against the rest of the Canadian confederation. Do they walk into Toronto malls with bombs strapped to their chests? No, they formed a political party for the purpose of voicing their grievances and achieving independence for themselves.

I don't know where the whole "the inspectors were recalled" thing came from, but from my recollection they were thrown out. I admit that I could be wrong, but I don't think I am. And the no-fly zones were part of the cease-fire agreement at the end of the Gulf War. Furthermore, I seem to remember torture and murder being violations of UN resolutions;both of them are commonplace under Saddam's regime.

I don't doubt that Israel violates UN regulations. As I stated in my first post, there ought to be consequences for ALL countries who violate said regulations (including Israel and the US).

And thumbs up to CalTech

soph · 2003-01-01 00:44:27

I was being facetious, if nobody noticed ???

dickbill · 2003-01-01 09:43:12

Hi all,

My wishes for 2003:
Quickly remove Sadam Hussein and his staff, son etc, from power. But for that, don't make a war with thousands of civilian casualties which will discredit US and UK and ultimately just make the arabs more and more crazy against occident.
That's a job for some hundreds of smart and fast commados and helicopters. I'm sure they feel trained for that job. 007 alone can do that, I saw the movie.
Do it quickly, why not now ?, then put Saddam in Jail, don't kill him, that would just mess even more.
Once Sadam is in jail, CNN will find other yummy topics for its perpetual show ( I saw they like the cloning stuff and make fun with the crazy french guru, they can make good money with that story too, and it's much more funny, everybody like the Rael's "captain Galactica" outfit ).
And then, at least, we can talk about WHAT REALLY MATTERS: MAAAAARRRRRRRSSSSS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, dismiss Coffee MiamMiam, the UN president. He is incompetent, he discredits the UN work, he has been himself involved in the "Hutu/Tutsi massacer" scandal and did nothing. I remind you the story: the canadian general chief of the UN troops in place saw the forthcoming genocide, warn the UN president Coffee Miammiam about the imminent disaster and.... Coffee did nothing. After that, Coffee was looking for tons of excuses to explain his inaction.
The truth is that if only a couple of UN troops had just press the trigger of their guns to the sky, even with WHITE BULLETS, that would have been enough to save hundreds of thousands of life !
Coffee, please, dismiss, (after that we can check your bank account number, of course)

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 14:56:58

Maybe Bush is onto something:
http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=232]Article about Hezbellah use of Iraqi missles
http://www.debka.com/article_print.php?aid=214]Article about Al Qaeda plans for terror attack against Israel
After reading the Iraqi missle article, I'm a little more in support of a war. Maybe the government actually does know something we dont.

Don't believe everything you read.

soph · 2003-01-01 15:04:49

its more reliable than the guardian.

oh, and what was that tiny little explosion cnn reported in lebanon the same day? oops, they screwed up.

and why is it that UN inspectors have suddenly become more bold...hmmm it all ties together...but no, bush is going to be wrong no matter what in many people's eyes.

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 15:07:07

http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca … ...ocument

1955-1992:

* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".

* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".

* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".

* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".

* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".

* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".

* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".

* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".

* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".

* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".

* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".

* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".

* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".

* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".

* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".

* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".

*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".

* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".

* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".

* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".

* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".

* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".

* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".

* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".

* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".

* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.

* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".

* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".

* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".

* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member states not to assist Israel's settlements program".

* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".

* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".

* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the council's order not to deport Palestinians".

* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".

* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".

* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".

* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors".

* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's nuclear facility".

* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".

* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".

* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".

* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".

* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in".

* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".

* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".

* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".

* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters.

* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".

* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".

* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians.

* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.

* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".

* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.

* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.

* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United Nations.

* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.

* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.

* Resolution 799: ? . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for there immediate return.

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 15:10:00

its more reliable than the guardian.
oh, and what was that tiny little explosion cnn reported in lebanon the same day? oops, they screwed up.
and why is it that UN inspectors have suddenly become more bold...hmmm it all ties together...but no, bush is going to be wrong no matter what in many people's eyes.

If selling arms to a nasty group of people makes you aligned with their cause, (and I dont doubt that this is true), then the US is to blame for Saddams 1980's atrocities.

soph · 2003-01-01 15:13:27

we are not completely responsible, but we must foot some of the blame. we did not know that he was going to use them for such atrocities, which is not true in the case of hezbollah. giving missles to an organization who has pledged to push israel into the sea is pretty much aligning with the cause. telling reporters he wants to exterminate israel is a pretty good indicator too.

soph · 2003-01-01 15:16:40

now lets discuss the resolutions condemning the arab pre-emptive attacks on israel, and continued shelling of israel from lebanon, and suicide bombings. or the PLO charter, which until recently, called for israels destruction. hmmm.

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 16:40:02

the argument is, if UN Resolution Violations are just cause for a US invasion, why are states like Israel, and palistine for that matter, not looking down the barrel of an A-1 Abrams tank right now?

AltToWar · 2003-01-01 16:44:29

we are not completely responsible, but we must foot some of the blame. we did not know that he was going to use them for such atrocities, which is not true in the case of hezbollah. giving missles to an organization who has pledged to push israel into the sea is pretty much aligning with the cause. telling reporters he wants to exterminate israel is a pretty good indicator too.

Iraq gasses kuds in the north. Us continues to supply iraq with weapons and means by which to develop WMD.

This is fact.

There was a movement in congress to condemn Iraq for using gas on it's own peoplwe, but it went nowhere. US arms were continually shipped to Iraq.

Nations sell arms to other nations. It's a great way to make cash. I think it's not right, but I also think it's hypocritical to condemn one nation for selling arms to bad guys, but lend a blind eye when your own is doing much more of the same.

soph · 2003-01-01 16:52:57

we havent sold them weapons for over a decade. so why are we focusing on things 15 years ago, when the discussion is about now?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#351 2002-12-29 14:00:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#352 2002-12-30 10:11:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#353 2002-12-30 10:17:31

Re: President Bush - about bush

#354 2002-12-30 11:55:59

Re: President Bush - about bush

#355 2002-12-30 15:07:15

Re: President Bush - about bush

#356 2002-12-30 17:00:01

Re: President Bush - about bush

#357 2002-12-31 00:02:19

Re: President Bush - about bush

#358 2002-12-31 01:18:37

Re: President Bush - about bush

#359 2002-12-31 03:41:32

Re: President Bush - about bush

#360 2002-12-31 08:02:18

Re: President Bush - about bush

#361 2002-12-31 09:30:30

Re: President Bush - about bush

#362 2002-12-31 10:01:05

Re: President Bush - about bush

#363 2002-12-31 15:32:11

Re: President Bush - about bush

#364 2003-01-01 00:35:06

Re: President Bush - about bush

#365 2003-01-01 00:44:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#366 2003-01-01 09:43:12

Re: President Bush - about bush

#367 2003-01-01 14:56:58

Re: President Bush - about bush

#368 2003-01-01 15:04:49

Re: President Bush - about bush

#369 2003-01-01 15:07:07

Re: President Bush - about bush

#370 2003-01-01 15:10:00

Re: President Bush - about bush

#371 2003-01-01 15:13:27

Re: President Bush - about bush

#372 2003-01-01 15:16:40

Re: President Bush - about bush

#373 2003-01-01 16:40:02

Re: President Bush - about bush

#374 2003-01-01 16:44:29

Re: President Bush - about bush

#375 2003-01-01 16:52:57

Re: President Bush - about bush

Board footer