To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-19 13:37:28

If Saddam had continued to control Kuwait, 9/11 would not have happened.
bin Laden got angry at the US and the Saudis after they refused to let his Afghan fighters (the ones who fought the Soviets) attempt the liberation of Kuwait.

Oh, so that's it. We hurt his feelings by rolling up the Iraqi army without him.

C'mon Bill, you know as well as I do that it isn't that simple.

And, so long as Bush attempts to stand up a secular government to balance Sistani (an anti-Iranian, more or less pacificst Shia - - whom bin Laden hates) Sistani will not rally his people to help quell the insurgency.

Again, total agreement here. If we want an "Iraqification" as soon as possible scenario, that's it.

We gives the Kurds Kirkuk and their own country and the bastard Sunni/Baath get NO oil.

Is it really wise to punish the entire Sunni population? Winning the hearts and minds doesn't apply in the Sunni triangle?

BWhite · 2004-10-19 13:44:58

If Saddam had continued to control Kuwait, 9/11 would not have happened.
bin Laden got angry at the US and the Saudis after they refused to let his Afghan fighters (the ones who fought the Soviets) attempt the liberation of Kuwait.
Oh, so that's it. We hurt his feelings by rolling up the Iraqi army without him.

9/11 was a psy-ops mission tailored to a unique set of circumstances.

Had we secretly funded bin Laden to wage an insurgency against Saddam (with no massive build up in Saudi Arabia) then NO, he would not have attacked us.

A balance of power conflict between Iran / Iraq / Saudi Arabia without massive US involvement would have kept the Islamicists quite busy at home.

clark · 2004-10-19 13:51:47

Here's the thing, no one is saying terrorism is some finite thing that can be destroyed.

President Bush is.

So how do we do that? Certainly there are social, economic and cultural factors that need to be addressed, but of equal importance is the reality that sometimes you have to kill terrorists. We may not be able to end terrorism for all time, but we can destroy a particular terrorist group that has attacked us. We can go on the offensive, tip them off balance and fight them at a time and place of our choosing, not theirs.

I agree. There were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded and created conditions conducive for them. The terroists were in Afghanistan, and we left, and they followed us to Iraq. We are making more enemies, increasing the terroists numbers by engaging in preemptive strikes based on false data.

The terroists have no strategic aims other than to wear us out. Once that is achieved, they move in to fill the vacum caused by our weakness or disappearance within the chaos we have created.

Bush led us into Iraq on the supposition that one day in the far future Iraq may give non-exsistant weapons to terroists that were not in Iraq. Of course he said there was an immediate threat, but he was misled. So, back to the former, one day in the future, Saddam might give these weapons to terroists who might use them on us.

Well, guess what, there are a lot of countries in the world, now, that hate us, just as much as Saddam hated us. And those same countries that now hate us, they can develop WMD's and give them to terroists who might one day use them on us. Are we going to invade them all?

Look, we need help in doing what we need to do. We can't do it alone because we can't just beat every one into submission. It won't work. We need people around the world to side with us, to accept our side- not be turned away from it.

We will not get that with Bush. We will continue to go it alone and pay the cost alone until the next bloody attack on our soil. We will be attacked, and the liklihood of that attack is increased because people don't care what happens to us now.

I am not arguing some intellectual point, nor am I just debating. All of our fundamental shared interests are at stake in how we proceed to improve this situation. Bush dosen't get it. Might alone won't do it. We need to change the character of how we approach this situation, and we need somebody who can exercise better judgement than has been shown.

I have no great love for Kerry, but I see little reason to follow along beating our head against the wall, expecting a different outcome from someone who will not change.

I hate using this, but Bush is a religious fanatic, and there is no compromise or making them see the light of reason when it is so plainly obvious. Faith trumps reason, and that is a dangerous situation to have right now.

BWhite · 2004-10-19 14:02:29

We gives the Kurds Kirkuk and their own country and the bastard Sunni/Baath get NO oil.
Is it really wise to punish the entire Sunni population? Winning the hearts and minds doesn't apply in the Sunni triangle?

Maybe its that, or civil war.

Okay, let the Sunni decide whether to be part of a Shia dominated Iraq, or not. No problem here.

But Bush says he is staying until we stand up a secular government (one that lacks a natural Iraqi constituency).

BWhite · 2004-10-20 05:18:16

Relative to the above, see today's http://www.juancole.com/]Juan Cole:

President Bush has said that he would "accept" an "Islamic Iraq," according to AP.
If free and open Iraqi elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Islamic government, "I will be disappointed. But democracy is democracy," Bush said. "If that’s what the people choose, that’s what the people choose."
Given that Bush has ensconced the Christian right in many of his administration's policies, I suppose we should just check with Iyad Allawi as to whether "if free and open American elections lead to the seating of a fundamentalist Christian government," he would be willing to "accept" that.Really, the president cannot help patronizing the Iraqis. A while ago he talked about them taking off their "training wheels," as though high-powered Iraqi physicists, lawyers and physicians were somehow reduced to little children just because the US has 138,000 troops in their country.
I think it can be fairly argued that the Bush "war on terror" has actually spread Islamic fundamentalism. (Bush coddling of Ariel Sharon's harsh policies in Palestine has also contributed).

Why cannot people see that this kind of talk by Bush will enrage moderate leaning Muslims who are proud of their religion even if they despise bin Laden?

Training wheels? Persia is the cradle of civilization.

Its not about being "fair" or "correct" - - its about being prudent. Don't stomp on a people's pride unless you are ready (and able) to kill them all. Since we are not ready, able or willing to kill them all, we had better start being respectful of the moderate Muslim.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 05:19:41

I agree. There were no terrorists in Iraq until we invaded and created conditions conducive for them. The terroists were in Afghanistan, and we left, and they followed us to Iraq.

Clark, your argument is infected by Democrat talking points. We did not leave Afghanistan, you know it, I know it, General Franks knows it, and the American people know it. Roughly half of them anyway. ???

The terroists have no strategic aims other than to wear us out. Once that is achieved, they move in to fill the vacum caused by our weakness or disappearance within the chaos we have created.

Wear us out to what end, that's what you have to ask yourself. What do they want? If it is merely to destroy us, as is so often stated by the Administration and others then we must crush them first. If, as both Bill and I have suggested (scary how often we arrive at the same conclusion, isn't it?) the terrorists want to establish a Caliphate of sorts, they require Jihad against someone to rally a larger segment of the population. Invading Infidels fill the part nicely, we gave them what they wanted. "Bad move", one thinks at first.

But here's the catch, if this interpretation is accurate then all those terrorist attacks through the '90's up to 9/11 were about goading us into responding, escalating the attack each time we ignored them. If we resolve not to give them what they're after they keep hitting us again and again, more devastating each time until we're forced to action. Unacceptable.

So why would anyone in their right mind pick a fight with America, the most powerful military force the world has ever seen? Because we look real scary rolling in, all those armored vehicles and helicopters, bombings falling out the sky with pinpoint precision as though Allah himself were plunking them down, soldiers stomping around in body armor pointing guns at everyone and yelling commands in a language no one there understands. Yet we have this reputation for being short-timers. When the going gets tough, we get going... the hell out of there. That's what they're counting on, that's why they fight so hard in Iraq, and that is why we have to stay the course.

If we don't respond, they keep trying by killing Americans. If we go in and chicken out because it's too hard, they win. The only viable option involves going in, kicking butt, and staying until the situation is stable enough to maintain itself, which could take years or decades. Always bearing in mind that when dealing with a country that has lived under a dictator for decades, security is of infinately greater importance in winning over the locals than democracy.

Look, we need help in doing what we need to do. We can't do it alone because we can't just beat every one into submission. It won't work. We need people around the world to side with us, to accept our side- not be turned away from it.

Yes, we need help. The British and Australians stand beside us, the Russians have begun to see what needs to be done. That alone is an imposing front, dozens of other countries stand with us as well, and in time some of those who don't will come around when it hits their homelands. Sure, a few old allies will continue to pout in the corner but so be it. Having help from our allies is entirely different from some futile quest for world unanimity.

A balance of power conflict between Iran / Iraq / Saudi Arabia without massive US involvement would have kept the Islamicists quite busy at home.

Perhaps. Or it might have been seen as justifying the need for a pan-Arabic jihad against some outside force, which would need to be drawn in.

BWhite · 2004-10-20 05:25:54

Concerning a Saudi / Iraqi / Iranian triangle balancing act:

Perhaps. Or it might have been seen as justifying the need for a pan-Arabic jihad against some outside force, which would need to be drawn in.

But we could have played on those divisions that to divide them.

Sunni hate Shia. Arabs and Persians distrust each other. If we weren't stomping around their lands, we wouldn't be the unifying element that allows them to overcome their mutual distrust.

Bush has a mission (from God!) to secularize all Islam. That threat may well allow them to set aside their internal divisions.

Exactly as bin Laden planned and played for.

= = =

I am a uniter and not a divider True. All too true. ???

BWhite · 2004-10-20 05:29:26

PS - - If we intend to secularize Islam, a Christian fundamentalist is the WRONG person to lead the charge.

PPS - - And since it will take a generation, or two, to secularize Islam, to begin the campaign under the banner of a fundamentalist Christian will set the effort back years and years and years.

Cobra, can you disagree?

BWhite · 2004-10-20 05:38:52

Shaun, Cobra, others.

I want to secularize Islam. All I am saying is that we need to replace the quarterback if we are to accomplish the task.

Lets argue about that.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 05:45:24

Bush has a mission (from God!) to secularize all Islam. That threat may well allow them to set aside their internal divisions.
Exactly as bin Laden planned and played for.

Which is what I'm trying to get across, all this terrorism is about getting us to stomp around their lands, an attempt to create that unifying threat. Even if we decide that we'd have been better off absorbing those attacks while they keep trying it doesn't matter now. We went in, we're there. If we deem it a mistake and leave, they get exactly what they wanted. The only other choice is to stick it out. That's how we need to look at this, identifying and correcting our mistakes from a long-term war and culture-building perspective, not a "we screwed up, how do we get out" perspective.

PS - - If we intend to secularize Islam, a Christian fundamentalist is the WRONG person to lead the charge.

I'm inclined to agree, only I have this nagging suspicion that any American President leading the charge will be perceived as a Crusader by the Islamic terrorists. They'd label me as a Christian fundamentalist for Christ's sake. Unless we get a Muslim President leading the charge the perception will be the same, and even then this hypothetical figure would just be seen as a puppet of the Infidel anyway.

I really wish the Dems had nominated Lieberman.

Palomar · 2004-10-20 06:10:00

Rescind previous comments in this post. Sorry...this just seems a waste of time today.

clark · 2004-10-20 06:17:08

We went in, we're there. If we deem it a mistake and leave, they get exactly what they wanted. The only other choice is to stick it out. That's how we need to look at this, identifying and correcting our mistakes from a long-term war and culture-building perspective, not a "we screwed up, how do we get out" perspective.

Arrrgggh!

Damit Cobra, I agree. Kerry agree's! The whole damn world, including the Pope, agree!

The problem though is that the person who we must rely on to correct the mistakes isn't doing it. Bush has failed miserably in his decisions so far, and shows no signs in trying to correct them. He continues to surround himself with the same people that misled him in the first place. None of this will change with Bush in charge for another four years.

I'ld gladly wave my freaking elephant flag if I thought for one moment that Bush was capable of implementing some better decisions, or putting in place advisors who didn't lead him down this road. But Bush loyalty trumps common sense.

BWhite · 2004-10-20 06:18:32

Bush has a mission (from God!) to secularize all Islam. That threat may well allow them to set aside their internal divisions.
Exactly as bin Laden planned and played for.
Which is what I'm trying to get across, all this terrorism is about getting us to stomp around their lands, an attempt to create that unifying threat. Even if we decide that we'd have been better off absorbing those attacks while they keep trying it doesn't matter now. We went in, we're there. If we deem it a mistake and leave, they get exactly what they wanted. The only other choice is to stick it out. That's how we need to look at this, identifying and correcting our mistakes from a long-term war and culture-building perspective, not a "we screwed up, how do we get out" perspective.
PS - - If we intend to secularize Islam, a Christian fundamentalist is the WRONG person to lead the charge.
I'm inclined to agree, only I have this nagging suspicion that any American President leading the charge will be perceived as a Crusader by the Islamic terrorists. They'd label me as a Christian fundamentalist for Christ's sake. Unless we get a Muslim President leading the charge the perception will be the same, and even then this hypothetical figure would just be seen as a puppet of the Infidel anyway.
I really wish the Dems had nominated Lieberman.

If we agree Sistani is the best we can do, actually, we could have left last year. Let him whack Sadr.

Whack Saddam and hand the keys to Sistani and say to the Shias of Basra, "Sorry we let you down when Saddam attacked you after we kicked him out of Kuwait. Here. Have the country."

The reason we are staying now is to avoid giving Sistani power. Prop up Sistani as a Shia semi-pacifist alternative to the Iranian Shia and especially to Sunni/Wahabi whack jobs like bin Laden.

Going more secular than Sistani is a bridge too far for this decade.

= = =

Sistani's people are the same ones George-I encouraged to revolt against Saddam only to have us abandon them.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 06:36:26

The problem though is that the person who we must rely on to correct the mistakes isn't doing it. Bush has failed miserably in his decisions so far, and shows no signs in trying to correct them. He continues to surround himself with the same people that misled him in the first place. None of this will change with Bush in charge for another four years.

Chalabi is out, more Iraqi forces are being deployed, Sistani is slowly being seen not as just another Shiite mullah but a relatively moderating influence, some mistakes are being corrected. Yes, some have yet to be rectified but the choice we have is this: Stay with Bush, slow to fix errors but committed to accomplishing the mission. Or Kerry, who's plan we really don't anything about. He's said several things, some of them contradictory, but has offered no specifics. Spin the Wheel-O-Strategy and see what you get.

If you believe that what is happening now is the worst possible outcome, I would first say you watch too much tv news, and then suggest you vote Kerry. If on the other hand you look at the present situation, realise it's in need of some changes, but also recognize that it could be much worse; Bush. The brilliant leader who will secularize Islam, bring our wayward allies to our side, usher in peace and posperity all while creating millions of high-paying jobs just doesn't exist. Not this time around anyway. I'm not gonna try to sway you from voting Kerry, but I do urge you to consider that "switching guarterbacks" isn't always the best move, even if your team's not up as much as you thought you'd be.

BWhite · 2004-10-20 06:43:49

Kerry, the man who will run us in circles, not off the cliff.

When being led by a blind man, its best to stop.

= = =

Answer B?

Diminish the importance of the Presidency in the affairs of state.

Read Shakespeare. Henry V was a great King followed by Henry VI and Richard III.

The West v Islam is a marathon, not a sprint. Bush will divide us more and weary us for the challenges that lie ahead.

clark · 2004-10-20 06:49:48

Psalm 4, line 3 of the Cobra Book of Wisdom:

Thou shalt not watch TV and consider yourself informed.

I don't watch TV tough guy, now what? :laugh:

I realize that it is in need of changes, I have gone on and on about the changes needed. You agree that changes are needed. Bush isn't doing it.

To keep on the silly sports analogy, keeping the same pitcher in the 9th inning ain't always wise either.

Kerry has laid out a plan on what he would do in Iraq. From getting NATO involved to training civil defense corps, to offering open contract bids to other countries (in exchange for them forgoing the Iraqi debt), to reapproaching the world community to gather more allies.

Bush has declared a unilateralist stance of simplistic proportions, "Us or Them". He isn't after dialogue, he is after followers on his holy crusade.

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 08:03:21

Psalm 4, line 3 of the Cobra Book of Wisdom:
Thou shalt not watch TV and consider yourself informed.
I don't watch TV tough guy, now what?

You're half way to salvation! F**kin' A!

I realize that it is in need of changes, I have gone on and on about the changes needed. You agree that changes are needed. Bush isn't doing it.

We need changes to correct errors in the current approach, not a sweeping change of course. Pestering allies and blustering at the UN isn't going to deal with the problem, and if we use military action then don't follow through we're in a worse mess.

We all have our "ideal" War on Terror approach, but they just aren't gonna happen. Some allies just won't help and neither Presidential candidate is going to implement a perfect plan. That, and the enemy always gets a vote. But I think I finally see why we keep bashing our skulls together over this issue. We both seek to protect the American people from terrorism, but I'd rather fight one big war now than drag it out into endless little ones in an effort to contain and compromise. Some people see war as the worst thing in the world, I'd rather have a few years of furious asskicking followed by a half-century of expedient-empire than a half-century of attacks on American soil, countless "limited wars" and little to show for it as those zeros roll by. There's no easy, peaceful way out of this.

clark · 2004-10-20 08:21:56

You're half way to salvation! F**kin' A!

Or half way to damnation! F**kin Yeah!

But I think I finally see why we keep bashing our skulls together over this issue. We both seek to protect the American people from terrorism, but I'd rather fight one big war now than drag it out into endless little ones in an effort to contain and compromise. Some people see war as the worst thing in the world, I'd rather have a few years of furious asskicking followed by a half-century of expedient-empire than a half-century of attacks on American soil, countless "limited wars" and little to show for it as those zeros roll by. There's no easy, peaceful way out of this.

Come on Cobra, you yourself admit that this can't be solved in a few years time. You have admitted that this will take a lot "ass whoopin", generations. You point out that the terroists are everywhere, and that it will take a long hard slog to finish the job. I wish it were as simple as fighting a war in Iraq and problem solved. Bush seems to think so, but as we all seem to agree, it's going to take a lot more than one fight in Iraq.

Kerry has stated time and time again that he will not submit US interests to another countries veto. If you believe otherwise, you've been listening to too many of the Republican talking points!

When Bush 1 went to war, he built a coalition, he did not submit to a UN veto, but he got people on board to help. I believe Kerry will be similar in such respects. Bush 2 has no interest in getting any other people involved in this fight unless they do it our way, as we say. We can't fight this long struggle with that mindset.

Regardless of who is in the whitehouse for the next four years, America or our allies will be attacked. It dosen't matter. Who ever is in the whitehouse will have to go attack elsewhere to defend ourselves and our allies. The only difference is who will make the better choices when these eventuallities come, and who is more likely to win support abraod to help in our fight.

We have seen what Bush can do, and he came up lacking. It is time for another person to try and make better decisions. Continuing as we have, in the same manner in new situations will not work long term.

BWhite · 2004-10-20 08:27:36

Whoever wins, we need to hold their feet to the fire.

Cobra, are you saying elect Bush then keep quiet and support him or elect Bush and pummel him with criticism?

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 08:39:52

Come on Cobra, you yourself admit that this can't be solved in a few years time. You have admitted that this will take a lot "ass whoopin", generations. You point out that the terroists are everywhere, and that it will take a long hard slog to finish the job. I wish it were as simple as fighting a war in Iraq and problem solved. Bush seems to think so, but as we all seem to agree, it's going to take a lot more than one fight in Iraq.

Iraq is merely an opening move, it can't work as a self-contained campaign. Iraq is not an island, so to speak. We establish a hold there, begin reshaping it. All the while the enemy pours in trying to stop us. In time a neighbor, perhaps Iran takes a more direct hand in events, justifying expanding the scope to encompass the new belligerent. Rinse and repeat. Not easy, not clean, not quick; but far preferable than a haphazard here and there when it suits them approach. That is why learning how to do this sort of thing right so vitally important.

Cobra, are you saying elect Bush then keep quiet and support him or elect Bush and pummel him with criticism?

Pummel away. Either candidate will require a severe amount of redirecting to get it right, Bush merely requires somewhat less in my estimation.

What would American politics be without the pummeling after all?

clark · 2004-10-20 08:42:34

All the while the enemy pours in trying to stop us.

They're not exactly pouring in as they are growing around us.

BWhite · 2004-10-20 09:12:15

Cobra, read this Pat Robertson quote.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/ … ...ex.html

And comment.

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "
Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."

How are we going to win the War on Terror without casualties.

clark · 2004-10-20 09:19:29

Martyrs?

BWhite · 2004-10-20 09:31:19

http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/ … 0.html]Yet another life-long Republican

Cobra Commander · 2004-10-20 10:33:12

How are we going to win the War on Terror without casualties.

???
Guess they had high hopes for Rummie's UAV's. That comment just isn't defensible, assuming the context is accurate.

But I just have to comment on this:

"I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."

Followed later by:

"the blessing of heaven is on Bush."

Is he saying that God has been convinced to tow the line?

The divisions over this war have been rather odd, conservatives backing a pre-emptive war, liberals screaming in rage at the deposing of a brutal dictator, perplexing on many levels. There are valid objections on all sides as well as the more vocalized nonsensical ones, but they overlook the real options.
1) If we only respond we can't win, not without a long and haphazrd war. Stay in Afghanistan until the next attack, then follow them into Iran or wherever, on and on.
2) Just try to catch as many of them coming in as possible and let it seethe.
3) Go on the offensive.

1 and 3 go to the same place, only on different timetables. Ours for the latter, theirs for the former. 2 is unwinnable, just delaying the day until we have to engage in one of the other approaches. Two seems ruled out for the most part...

If Kerry wins this election it isn't a lost cause, we may gain in some areas, we'll lose ground in others. Same with Bush, just different areas. That's why I'm not trying to convince anyone now, it's just a question of what get's screwed up. Things will get worse now regardless, we seem to have hit that "critical mass" that precedes those big historical "turds" I've mentioned in the past. Vote Bush, or Kerry, or Jesus. All the same to me.

Oops, I forgot that Jesus was voting Bush.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-19 13:37:28

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#27 2004-10-19 13:44:58

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#28 2004-10-19 13:51:47

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#29 2004-10-19 14:02:29

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#30 2004-10-20 05:18:16

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#31 2004-10-20 05:19:41

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#32 2004-10-20 05:25:54

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#33 2004-10-20 05:29:26

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#34 2004-10-20 05:38:52

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#35 2004-10-20 05:45:24

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#36 2004-10-20 06:10:00

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#37 2004-10-20 06:17:08

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#38 2004-10-20 06:18:32

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#39 2004-10-20 06:36:26

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#40 2004-10-20 06:43:49

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#41 2004-10-20 06:49:48

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#42 2004-10-20 08:03:21

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#43 2004-10-20 08:21:56

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#44 2004-10-20 08:27:36

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#45 2004-10-20 08:39:52

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#46 2004-10-20 08:42:34

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#47 2004-10-20 09:12:15

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#48 2004-10-20 09:19:29

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#49 2004-10-20 09:31:19

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

#50 2004-10-20 10:33:12

Re: To Cobra, and you other Righties! - More politics, ye be warned!

Board footer