US soldier refuses to serve in ‘illegal Iraq war’

areyoushittin'me? · #**581** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Bush was DCI for less than a year,<snip>At most, Iraq would have been barely a blip on the radar, so I'm not sure what kind of "relationship" the two would have had.<snip>

You can suggest that the CIA had not much interest but I find that a bit suspect...

Quote:

Various U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials have asserted that Saddam was strongly linked with the CIA, and that U.S. intelligence, under President John F. Kennedy, helped Saddam's party seize power for the first time in 1963.

Saddam Hussein in the past was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism in the 1960s and 1970s. His first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with ousting then Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Regardless, it's not like the situation in Kuwait changed all that much, post-invasion, is it? So I don't understand what exactly Bush could have gained from it.

How about a military foothold in the region?

How about favor with the Saudi's among others?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Where was the evidence of the "proactive Iraqi attitude", though?<snip>

More from Blix...

Quote:

Recent developments

On 14 February, I reported to the Council that the Iraqi side had become more active in taking and proposing steps, which potentially might shed new light on unresolved disarmament issues. Even a week ago, when the current quarterly report was finalized, there was still relatively little tangible progress to note. Hence, the cautious formulations in the report before you.

As of today, there is more. While during our meetings in Baghdad, the Iraqi side tried to persuade us that the Al Samoud 2 missiles they have declared fall within the permissible range set by the Security Council, the calculations of an international panel of experts led us to the opposite conclusion. Iraq has since accepted that these missiles and associated items be destroyed and has started the process of destruction under our supervision. The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament - indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.

However I must add that the report I have today tells me that no destruction work has continued today. I hope this is a temporary break.

Until today, 34 Al Samoud 2 missiles, including 4 training missiles, 2 combat warheads, 1 launcher and 5 engines have been destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision. Work is continuing to identify and inventory the parts and equipment associated with the Al Samoud 2 programme.

Two 'reconstituted' casting chambers used in the production of solid propellant missiles have been destroyed and the remnants melted or encased in concrete.

The legality of the Al Fatah missile is still under review, pending further investigation and measurement of various parameters of that missile.

More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq already has declared, and some will require further study and discussion.

There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons, which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated. To date, Iraq has unearthed eight complete bombs comprising two liquid-filled intact R-400 bombs and six other complete bombs. Bomb fragments were also found. Samples have been taken. The investigation of the destruction site could, in the best case, allow the determination of the number of bombs destroyed at that site. It should be followed by a serious and credible effort to determine the separate issue of how many R-400 type bombs were produced. In this, as in other matters, inspection work is moving on and may yield results.

Iraq proposed an investigation using advanced technology to quantify the amount of unilaterally destroyed anthrax dumped at a site. However, even if the use of advanced technology could quantify the amount of anthrax said to be dumped at the site, the results would still be open to interpretation. Defining the quantity of anthrax destroyed must, of course, be followed by efforts to establish what quantity was actually produced.

With respect to VX, Iraq has recently suggested a similar method to quantify a VX precursor stated to have been unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.

Iraq has also recently informed us that, following the adoption of the presidential decree prohibiting private individuals and mixed companies from engaging in work related to WMD, further legislation on the subject is to be enacted. This appears to be in response to a letter from UNMOVIC requesting clarification of the issue.

So apparently, progress was being made...he goes on to say...

Quote:

Mr. President,

What are we to make of these activities? One can hardly avoid the impression that, after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there has been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January.

This is welcome, but the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out. This is not yet clear.

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC, as is required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002). The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions that I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following:

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

So yes, "proactive" according to Blix, perhaps not as immediate as you might wish to argue but a few months might have saved us a lot of expense in both $ and lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

In my opinion, Blix painted himself into a corner when he made this statement...<snip>

We'll never know because we didn't give Blix those "months", did we? Why do you feel there was a need to feel threatened by something we couldn't find? How can someone prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't?

Have you stopped <insert whatever here>?

Prove it.

Quote:

Published on Thursday, February 17, 2005 by Agence France Presse
Sellafield Cannot Account for 30 kilos of Plutonium

LONDON - A civilian nuclear fuels reprocessing plant in Cumberland cannot account for some 30 kilograms (66 pounds) of plutonium, enough for seven or eight nuclear bombs.

The annual audit of nuclear material at all of Britain's civil nuclear plants is expected to reveal that the quantity of plutonium at Sellafield was classified as "material unaccounted for" last year, The Times newspaper said Thursday.

Figures published by the British Nuclear Group (BNG) each year reveal an audit of nuclear material which is admitted and processed by the various plants nation-wide.

A spokeswoman at Sellafield said: "This is material that is unaccounted for, and there is always a discrepancy between the physical inventory and the book inventory. There is no suggestion that any material has left the site."

The Sellafield spokeswoman, quoted by the Press Association newswire, said the most likely reason for any shortfall was due to the complex measuring processes that are carried out.

Asked if the 30 kilogram figure raised concern, she replied: "I wouldn't say we would be alarmed by it, because we are only talking about a book figure here."

Should we bomb London?

Quote:

Official: Enough Material Missing From Russia to Build a Nuke
Nation's Top Intelligence Officials Offer Grim Threat Assessment
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2005

In his first public appearance as director of the CIA, Porter Goss gave a chilling assessment of the dangers posed by nuclear material that is missing from nuclear storage sites in Russia.

Goss and FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence about the international threats against the United States.

Responding to a question from Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., about materials missing from Russian nuclear facilities, Goss said: "There is sufficient material unaccounted for, so that it would be possible for those with know-how to construct a nuclear weapon."

Goss said he could not assure the American people that the missing nuclear material had not found its way into terrorists' hands.

A former top official at the Department of Energy told ABC News that Goss's statement understated the threat. There could be enough missing material in the Russian inventory to make hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons, but no one -- neither the Russians nor Western intelligence agencies -- knows for sure, the former official said.

How about an attack on Moscow?

<note...I made some snips to your post due to length restrictions>

StormanNorman · #**582** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Well, then that just begs the question of what the optimal action would have been, Storman. Maybe more than Clinton but less than Bush? What exactly is that Goldilocks scenario?

I don't know if there was a Goldilocks scenario, Cord....there usually isn't.

Quote:

I'm not saying that Bush was right in going into Iraq, but I do think that 2002 was a pivotal time period where it came to dealing with Iraq - the old sanctions/no fly regime was fast eroding and had to be replaced with something else... but was there a viable "middle way" alternative to the stark choice of letting Iraq off the hook on the one hand or invading on the other? If so, what was it?

You are correct that the Southern No-Fly Zone was losing popularity with the Saudis...at least in terms of using their air base. However, we (the US, UK, etc.) could've maintained sanctions enforcement in terms of a MIO and even some no-fly zone enforcement using the carriers indefinitely. And the Northern No-Fly Zone wasn't facing the same problems....I just don't see the same situation you saw. But, even if you are onto something here....and the UN, the Arab League, etc. were willing to let Saddam off the hook. Well, then you let off the hook...especially if you believe in democracy.

Quote:

Would you? Or would you have just accepted it as a fait accompli and just drawn the line at the Saudi border? Would there really have been the collective stomach to tangle with a nuclear-armed Iraq? I don't think the answer is as clear-cut as you think.

I think it is.....although it certainly would've made regime change in 2003 not quite as appealing.

Quote:

Try 30 miles from the DMZ. I see what you're saying, but I also see the difference in the US approach to the different members of the "Axis of Evil" - it seems to me that the ones with nuclear weapons seem to get a lot more deference.

That's probably true.

Quote:

Only by people who don't know the history, though... in actuality, Chamberlain only really followed the policies laid down by Baldwin.

And yet there was still no desire on the part of a lot of countries to force the Iraqis into compliance with the outstanding Security Council Resolutions. France wasn't even contributing to the enforcement of the no-fly zones anymore... if they couldn't even be bothered to even do that, then what makes you think they'd ever agree to invade Iraq outside of another Kuwait-style provocation?

I don't think France, Germany, etc. would agree to an invasion of Iraq. You're trying to equate Germany-1936 to Iraq-2003 as similar situations that required the same choice between Churchill-style bravery and Baldwin-style appeasement. I just don't quite see it that way, Cord.

Quote:

MacArthur wanted to do a lot more than that, though... he wanted to use nuclear weapons against Chinese supply bases. As far as bombing the Manchurian side of the Yalu goes, however, I'm not quite sure if that would have been allowed under the aegis of Resolution 83's "all necessary assistance" to repel the armed attack on South Korea... it could have been argued that it wasn't necessary to bomb both sides of the bridge, couldn't it?

Regardless of what MacArthur wanted or could do, using your logic above, Truman seems to have taken the "Baldwin approach" and used restraint when he could've used or at least pushed for action against an aggressive, dangerous nation with no love for the West. Was Truman's choice the prudent one?

Quote:

Storman, even Chamerberlain stood up to Hitler over Poland. Even Baldwin's hand would have been forced when Hitler invaded the low countries. The key question isn't if you would have stood up to Hitler but when you would have stood up to him. Churchill lobbied Baldwin to move against Hitler in 1936.

I would've chosen to take a stand against Hitler in 1936...after he annexed Austria. That's not a tough choice. Although I can't blame the French and British for a being a little hesitant as I don't have a recent memory of millions and millions killed in a war less than twenty years earlier. But, I would've acted against Hitler in 1936 as he was a growing, dangerous, and capable threat and he was taking what didn't belong to him.

Quote:

As Secretary of War in 1919, he argued for an active intervention against the Bolsheviks in the Russian Civil War. Hell, Churchill was even in favor of letting Gandhi die! If he was against Gandhi, what makes you think he would have drawn the line with Saddam?

I don't know, Cord....not the most relevant discussion as Churchill has been gone for a long time.

Cordelier · #**583** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

You can suggest that the CIA had not much interest but I find that a bit suspect...

I think CIA had some interest in Saddam in the mid-70's, but it's not like he was asset #1 or anything - there were probably a couple dozen Saddam's around the world at that point in time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

How about a military foothold in the region?

How about favor with the Saudi's among others?

Why would the US need a military foothold in the region?

If the US wanted to curry favor with the Saudis, why not just sell'em a couple of AWACS?

BTW - What's your source for that quote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

So yes, "proactive" according to Blix, perhaps not as immediate as you might wish to argue but a few months might have saved us a lot of expense in both $ and lives.

We'll never know because we didn't give Blix those "months", did we? Why do you feel there was a need to feel threatened by something we couldn't find? How can someone prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't?

Have you stopped <insert whatever here>?

Prove it.

Nice selective highlighting... How come you didn't highlight the whole sentence?

Quote:

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as "active", or even "proactive", these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute "immediate" cooperation.

I agree that Saddam was essentially put into the position of having to disprove a negative... (When did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Hussein?), but that was why so much stock was put into his WMD declaration. If he had submitted a document that met the "accurate, full, final, and complete" standard, not only would he have been in that position, but he would have also signalled the true degree of his willingness to cooperate with the inspections regime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Should we bomb London?

How about an attack on Moscow?

Of course not... but neither the UK or Russia are operating under exisiting Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions mandating that they provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete" disclosure of their WMD programmes.

The Security Council doesn't bandy around Chapter VII lightly - the situation needed to be taken far more seriously than Saddam took it.

Cordelier · #**584** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

You are correct that the Southern No-Fly Zone was losing popularity with the Saudis...at least in terms of using their air base. However, we (the US, UK, etc.) could've maintained sanctions enforcement in terms of a MIO and even some no-fly zone enforcement using the carriers indefinitely. And the Northern No-Fly Zone wasn't facing the same problems....I just don't see the same situation you saw. But, even if you are onto something here....and the UN, the Arab League, etc. were willing to let Saddam off the hook. Well, then you let off the hook...especially if you believe in democracy.

What does democracy have to do with it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

I think it is.....although it certainly would've made regime change in 2003 not quite as appealing.

How appealing would it have made the Gulf War, though? Remember that Bush's authorization for use of force in 1991 only passed the Senate 52-47. Don't you think it's pretty likely that the prospect of having to fight a nuclear conflict over Kuwait would have swung 3 Senate votes from "yea" to "nay"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

I don't think France, Germany, etc. would agree to an invasion of Iraq. You're trying to equate Germany-1936 to Iraq-2003 as similar situations that required the same choice between Churchill-style bravery and Baldwin-style appeasement. I just don't quite see it that way, Cord.

Really? Why not? If anything, I'd have to figure the memories of The Great War would have made the Allied powers even more gunshy in 1936 than they were in 2003.

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

Regardless of what MacArthur wanted or could do, using your logic above, Truman seems to have taken the "Baldwin approach" and used restraint when he could've used or at least pushed for action against an aggressive, dangerous nation with no love for the West. Was Truman's choice the prudent one?

Was China's intervention aggressive or defensive in nature, though? Don't you find it curious that China didn't enter the conflict until UN forces approached the Yalu?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

I would've chosen to take a stand against Hitler in 1936...after he annexed Austria. That's not a tough choice. Although I can't blame the French and British for a being a little hesitant as I don't have a recent memory of millions and millions killed in a war less than twenty years earlier. But, I would've acted against Hitler in 1936 as he was a growing, dangerous, and capable threat and he was taking what didn't belong to him.

Austria was 1938. So you would have gone to war with one German-speaking fascist country for annexing another German-speaking fascist country? Don't you think you would have looked pretty foolish when Hitler was greeted by Chancellor Seyss-Inquart and all the cheering crowds of Vienna?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StormanNorman

I don't know, Cord....not the most relevant discussion as Churchill has been gone for a long time.

Perhaps, but I think it puts an interesting perspective on Iraq. Everyone just blindly condemns Baldwin and Chamberlain as weak-kneed appeasers. Churchill is always the hero. And yet, if you translate their outlooks and attitudes to present-day circumstances, you find very few Churchills.

Look beyond all of the veneer of Churchill's rhetoric and charisma and get to the core of the man and I'll think you'll find that President Bush has been the most "Churchillian" US President for at least the past 50 years - if not ever.

areyoushittin'me? · #**585** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I think CIA had some interest in Saddam in the mid-70's, but it's not like he was asset #1 or anything - there were probably a couple dozen Saddam's around the world at that point in time.

More than a blip...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Why would the US need a military foothold in the region?

Seems that is what so many argue as the justification for the current mess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

If the US wanted to curry favor with the Saudis, why not just sell'em a couple of AWACS?

I'm thinking it's more personal than that...and a bigger control issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

BTW - What's your source for that quote?

Saddam Hussein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Nice selective highlighting... How come you didn't highlight the whole sentence?

What are you suggesting? I highlighted the part that was in response to that quote of yours which I was addressing...I also mentioned the subsequent part...come on now, it's not like I snipped it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

I agree that Saddam was essentially put into the position of having to disprove a negative... (When did you stop beating your wife, Mr. Hussein?), but that was why so much stock was put into his WMD declaration. If he had submitted a document that met the "accurate, full, final, and complete" standard, not only would he have been in that position, but he would have also signalled the true degree of his willingness to cooperate with the inspections regime.

But, did he or didn't he eventually...you argue no but perhaps he figured he had per his knowledge of the subject...perhaps not but even still...being in violation gets us back to paragraph 11 and 12 and doesn't automaically lead to pre-emptive war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cordelier

Of course not... but neither the UK or Russia are operating under exisiting Chapter VII Security Council Resolutions mandating that they provide "an accurate, full, final, and complete" disclosure of their WMD programmes.

The Security Council doesn't bandy around Chapter VII lightly - the situation needed to be taken far more seriously than Saddam took it.

Of course not...Ahhh...but...how can you allow that a country that hasn't been all war torn can't account for such material and yet you expect Saddam to provide a complete and accurate accounting?

noneof yourbusiness · #**586** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 06:48 PM

How many of these threads gohave onge on and on. Fist off Both Rice and Powell said they were not a threat just months before 9/11. There is no way even with these weapons to establish any threat. The Un would not condone war. You can play smeantics with these useless resolutions but theres just no way the wold is ever going to side with the Americans especially when war is involved.
The Americans will ingore the UN whever it suits them so whats really the point in argue it anyway? No war can be justified. No war makes sence. This war is eve more senceless and unessecary for one reason beyond all others. One of the Majjor (THE Magor if you ask a dopey American) modern western allied powers screaming to a internationla body it holds high contempt for that a tiny country that alread got its ass kicked once is a big threat. Its beynd absurd. Ac ountry that cant build its own cars isnt not going to pull an ICBM out of its ass. That is the only weapon that can hurt the Americans. As far as military matters go one Nuke isnt even that much of a Military threat as the countrys military could still sustain itslef in a effective way. Either way Abdual and his 122mm Howitzer battery means abolsutly fuck all to the US Military in The Middle East and elsewhere.

You cna find a mountain of Bullets but if there is no gun they arent worth jack. Finding any of this NBC stuff would but no means conclude a threat to any nation anywhere. Other conflicts are so beyond the scope of this piddly waste of time that no real similiarity can be found.

The weapons Hussien had that could fire Chemical weapons were

1. Surface to Surface missiles. Nobody found one. They were gone. Either destroyed in the war or dismantled by Inspectors.

2. Artilery. None around. The first priority during the 91 grouind advance was to amke the Artilery go away. US Army and Air force did that effiecently and fast. MLRS is money well spent folks..it worked.

3. Aerial Bombs..Ever seen a Iraqi Airplane in flight??? Niether did we. The last one I can think of flying in "combat" is the motherfuucker that shot at the "Stark"

The weapons claimed to be there by the US goverment was battlfield weaponry. Where was the Battleflefiled? An handful of crossroas manned by some rear guard jag offs with a ouple of mortars and macvine guns? The 10 Antigue T-55 that were nothing more then manned target drones for the US Cavalry? Baghdad Bob?

The cicle jerk that was the INvasion n 2003 should be suffincet enough to indicate that the whole thing was complete bullshit. resistance was sporadic un organzied and rarely any mroe then half hearted. yeah they were just like the Germans in France....what the fuck ever.

areyoushittin'me? · #**587** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noneof yourbusiness

How many of these threads gohave onge on and on. Fist off Both Rice and Powell said they were not a threat just months before 9/11. There is no way even with these weapons to establish any threat. The Un would not condone war. You can play smeantics with these useless resolutions but theres just no way the wold is ever going to side with the Americans especially when war is involved.
The Americans will ingore the UN whever it suits them so whats really the point in argue it anyway? No war can be justified. No war makes sence. This war is eve more senceless and unessecary for one reason beyond all others. One of the Majjor (THE Magor if you ask a dopey American)<snip>

That's as far as I got in your post...you may have some valid points but when you have such little respect for your thoughts that you can't even be bothered to express them in a lucid manner you really have little credibility in dunning our exchange.

I have no delusions regarding making much progress in any concession from Cordelier and I'm sure he shares the same sentiment regarding me but at least we are able to share in a civil discourse which quite honestly is rather refreshing around here.

If that bothers you then you are welcome to ignore us.

Cordelier · #**588** (**permalink**) 06-01-2008, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

More than a blip...

...but less than a bang

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Seems that is what so many argue as the justification for the current mess.

I've never heard anyone argue it was a justification... only more along the lines of a probable necessity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

I'm thinking it's more personal than that...and a bigger control issue.

How much "control" do you figure the US has over Saudi Arabia?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

What are you suggesting? I highlighted the part that was in response to that quote of yours which I was addressing...I also mentioned the subsequent part...come on now, it's not like I snipped it out.

Fair point - in the interests of balance, I just wanted to make sure you took account of both sides of Dr. Blix's statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

But, did he or didn't he eventually...you argue no but perhaps he figured he had per his knowledge of the subject...perhaps not but even still...being in violation gets us back to paragraph 11 and 12 and doesn't automaically lead to pre-emptive war.

I thought we laid paragraphs 11 and 12 to rest, though? Didn't they only obligate the Security Council to meet and consider the situation? Was there anything within those two paragraphs that indicated that the Security Council was required to issue a final final opportunity before they could use force?

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

Of course not...Ahhh...but...how can you allow that a country that hasn't been all war torn can't account for such material and yet you expect Saddam to provide a complete and accurate accounting?

It's not like the UN didn't give him the time or opportunity to comply - he had 11 years and every opportunity to cooperate with UNSCOM and yet repeatedly delayed, obfuscated, and, ultimately, expelled the inspectors. Even when the Security Council gave him one final opportunity to comply, he essentially threw it back into their faces.

Cordelier · #**589** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

I have no delusions regarding making much progress in any concession from Cordelier and I'm sure he shares the same sentiment regarding me but at least we are able to share in a civil discourse which quite honestly is rather refreshing around here.

Oh, I dunno Areyou... *L* I've still got hope you'll come around.

With enough coaxing, of course.

I agree with you, though - if someone isn't ready to argue and engage in civilized discussion, maybe they're just not in the right place. From the tone of his post, I'm guessing NOYB was just hitting the cool-aid a little hard today, that's all.

noneof yourbusiness · #**590** (**permalink**) 06-02-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by areyoushittin'me?

That's as far as I got in your post...you may have some valid points but when you have such little respect for your thoughts that you can't even be bothered to express them in a lucid manner you really have little credibility in dunning our exchange.

I have no delusions regarding making much progress in any concession from Cordelier and I'm sure he shares the same sentiment regarding me but at least we are able to share in a civil discourse which quite honestly is rather refreshing around here.

If that bothers you then you are welcome to ignore us.

Ya know Fuck you. If you simply cant reead it tough shit,. Thenn ignore. But If your in the mind of cenortcing things with yoru ranting shit. Then why come to place thats avbout free exchgange of gifts.

I think your little ego just cant hadnle not being the center here. You seem to ver often self congratualte yourslef on some dumbshit victory over people in a palce that has nothing to do with debtate irregardless of what your deluded minds think.

The fact is YOUR A LAIR if your claiming you cant read it. And I will post it again and again and aagain. I hate fucking like you, You nazi cunts. You specficwsly Attempt. to Slience otherws with shit like this. Fucking Anti Free speweech pice of shkt.

If you Two IQ fuckwards are so stupid to think typing is the nly gauge of inteligence then play mavis beacon Typing game and piss off.

Nothing can be more stupid then your ranting. If you have to use that Fod dman spell cherke then you put My post through.