posted February 28, 2008 01:14 AM              

"but surely there are better ways than insulting another member in every sentence"

u have to really be in my shoes to understand what it feels like to have faceless victims of terror marginalised so JW can IMPLY my POST is not important.not only that PID's ARMY BIMBO made a nonsensical post about " US " being impotent Becoz......well he had nothing else to demolish my Post with.
just because JW and his cronies have nothing to insult ME of they TWIST facts with no regard for those involved, who are not a part of the discussion or even here to defend themselves.

WAY TO GO LOSERS

i repeat BUD, neither disinformation artist nor his Psychological terrorist allies have anything concrete with which to divert the topic so they mess with either the self esteem of the person or vilify their culture.

and for what ????
for Americas sake ????

i hope to God America is not doing as bad as that

my point is JW has always spread his lies inside half truths about my country as well as yours to shove HIS ideas down ur throats.he is free to mess ur brains. I m NOT going to tolerate my people being used by some Fascist for lack of intellectual Ingenuity.

"You may have some very valid points that simply get lost in the name calling. If he doesn't post the truth, do it for him."

I DID post the TRUTH, this thread is over as far as TRUTH is concerned, even JWfraud. knows THAT.

Why else would he raise questions about my countrys ability or wilingness to fight the terrorists who are murdering my own people ???

wouldnt he have something to negate the facts i had posted ?

or even the ARMY Dumb, Bore the Leo.
he sidetracked his lack of arguments to divert the thread by making ME and my people " Impotent "

really is THIS how Americans debate ??
raking repressed Sexuality in the american mindset to divert topic. his wife talks about penises and virility and he lifts her own Impotency jabs to sidetrack whom he wants to shut up .

god forbid the day I start caring what Proletarian trash like THAT thinks of ME.

" people read clear cut facts as opposed to insults."

once again i had given the FACTS that end the discussion , THAT is why Boar the Leo and Jw fraud launched insults, i was merely shutting them up.

incase U are hurt by something i said as an american i apologise.

posted February 28, 2008 07:13 AM            

No one is swaying anyone's views here but there are concerns that have to be addressed in with facts and facts alone; Not unwarrented speculations. Obama made his views quite clear; independent of that of his preacher and thus until there is enough substantial proof to say otherwise, I cannot see how one can co-relate his views with that of the preacher or for that matter, the Church's magazine.

posted February 28, 2008 12:07 PM            

When shown instances of radical islamic terrorism within your nation of India, you attempt to minimize it...though before, you said there was none.

So VDI, does India claim the area of Kashmir...or not? If not, please say no and say it clearly. Then, I'll notify Pakistan and that will end the stare down over the area.

Have you even managed to get a single thing right VDI? Is it ignorance which hurts your intellectual performance...or is it just your political ideology? Any why VDI would you give a rotten damn about US politics in the first place? You're not electing anyone.
BTW, if O'Bomber is elected, expect to see a lot of those Indian service jobs disappear...back within America.

posted February 28, 2008 12:16 PM            

quote:

---

So VDI, does India claim the area of Kashmir...or not? If not, please say no and say it clearly. Then, I'll notify Pakistan and that will end the stare down over the area.

---

Jwhop you are indeed as ignorant as your republican comrades. The international line of control was already drawn and both pakistan and india has agreed to respect it. Poor Kashmiris. Perhaps you must ask them. Were they even given a choice?

posted February 28, 2008 08:32 PM            

quote:

---

Poor Kashmiris. Perhaps you must ask them. Were they even given a choice?

---

posted February 28, 2008 08:50 PM            

quote:

---

Well acoustic, it sure sounds like O'Bomber is most definitely...NOT a pacifist. Wanting to bomb friends and allies would seem to dispel his pacifist myth.

---

posted February 28, 2008 09:13 PM            

Man, he pulls 2 stadiums of crowd whereever he goes. Indeed the most exciting politician in recent times (both he and Jindal

posted February 28, 2008 10:00 PM            

quote:

---

Well acoustic, it sure sounds like O'Bomber is most definitely...NOT a pacifist. Wanting to bomb friends and allies would seem to dispel his pacifist myth. Perhaps you're just caught up in O'Bomber's promise to talk to America's enemies. You do seem ideologically drawn to any enemy of America acoustic.

---

Thanks BUD, I didn't realize he'd addressed me.

Obama is certainly a pacifist as evidenced by his desire not to put conditions on opening up dialogue with world leaders. As an adult, that's how you resolve issues. You bring all parties to the table for discussion (see also: North Korea).

With regard to "bombing friends and allies," I have two points to make:

1. It's just one country. It's Pakistan... and he's qualified the conditions under which he'd pursue that course of action, which included the condition that the Pakistani government was NOT going after Al Qaeda themselves.

2. Apparently you missed the article I posted from this week's news, which indicates the death of a "top group commander" from Al Qaeda was apparently attributable to a United States missile strike.

posted February 28, 2008 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Second of all when McCain responded that Al Qaeda is ALREADY in Iraq, Obama, instead of admitting his mistake like a gentleman chose to accuse McCain of putting Al Qaeda there...I'm sure people will say Al Qaeda did not have a strong presence in Iraq before US invaded (a strong presence...they had some)...thats because why would Al Qaeda go to Iraq to kill innocent people when Saddam was doing such a good job all by himself...Mr.Obama needs better comebacks

---

Al Qaeda is and has been in Iraq. I didn't see the exchange, but I would find it tremendously hard to believe that Obama didn't already know Al Qaeda was there.

posted February 28, 2008 10:19 PM            

quote:

---

Obama is certainly a pacifist as evidenced by his desire not to put conditions on opening up dialogue with world leaders. As an adult, that's how you resolve issues. You bring all parties to the table for discussion (see also: North Korea).

---

I have to disagree. While discussion is good and helpful it assumes that the other party is 1) reasonable 2) willing to discuss. And conditions are sometimes necessary such as in cases of terrorism or genocide. I mean it makes perfect sense to set a condition of negotiations such as "Stop the genocide and then we will discuss" because otherwise the leaders can be chatting away all they want while the atrocity continues such as in Rwanda. I feel that while dialog is important and ultimately the goal, one cannot simply sit down for discussions in all cases.

Furthermore i STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY oppose bombing Pakistan. It is absolutely unnecessary as of right now. It will make things a lot worse and I cannot believe that the people who so vehemently opposed the war in Iraq would root for the bombing of Pakistan.

quote:

---

You want to tell me the difference between what Obama said, and what this Administration has already done?

---

posted February 28, 2008 10:29 PM            

quote:

---

Al Qaeda is and has been in Iraq. I didn't see the exchange, but I would find it tremendously hard to believe that Obama didn't already know Al Qaeda was there.

---

Then I strongly recommend you watch it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXo161Iov3w

Here is the whole thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9e2csVJPxQ

I like how Obama twisting his own words...ugh...so arrogant! Further he seems to miss the point that Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan are part of the same terrorist organization with different cell locations...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQK0LLbXApo

quote:

---

Regarding his comeback, it is a fair assumption on Obama's part that the United States' presense in Iraq drew Al Qaeda into Iraq (we are Al Qaeda's enemy), so he is correct in stating that whoever authorized the war in Iraq (the presense of Americans in Iraq) effectively brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. Saddam has nothing to do with this particular equation.

---

Actually thats not quite true. Al Qaeda has been in Iraq before America invaded it just wasn't as strong. And Saddam has everything to do with it as he kept a strong leash on the militant groups.

posted February 29, 2008 02:25 AM            

Onto the first link, same thing.

Second link is merely John McCain talking.

posted February 29, 2008 02:51 AM            

You first asserted that Obama should admit his mistake with regard to the fact that Al Qaeda was "ALREADY" in Iraq. As I said, everyone knows that Al Qaeda is in Iraq. If the average citizen knows that, then how in the hell would Obama NOT know that? It would be impossible, a severely unlikely possibility.

Then you asserted that it was in some way wrong to say that McCain put Al Qaeda there. Once again, the only logical answer to this is the one I gave, which accurately summed up what Obama said:

"There was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq." - Barack Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQK0LLbXApo

Exactly. Without U.S. soldiers and citizens there, there was no purpose for the terrorist organization to do anything other than recruit (if they could) from Iraq. With Saddam's poor semblance of a military easily wiped out Al Qaeda had to step in if they wanted to give U.S. forces a hard time.

quote:

---

Actually thats not quite true. Al Qaeda has been in Iraq before America invaded it just wasn't as strong. And Saddam has everything to do with it as he kept a strong leash on the militant groups.

---

Al Qaeda may have been in Iraq for recruitment purposes (I'm not sure), but they were not carrying out terrorist missions against the country. Also, you're absolutely wrong about Saddam having anything to do with it. Saddam was a strict secularist, and as such had no use in having a relationship with Al Qaeda. You will not be able to prove your assertion that Saddam had anything to do with it.

quote:

---

What is with these people...Al Qaeda in Iraq vs Afghanistan...Al Qaeda is ONE organization with different branches.

---

posted February 29, 2008 03:09 AM            

quote:

---

I have to disagree. While discussion is good and helpful it assumes that the other party is 1) reasonable 2) willing to discuss. And conditions are sometimes necessary such as in cases of terrorism or genocide. I mean it makes perfect sense to set a condition of negotiations such as "Stop the genocide and then we will discuss" because otherwise the leaders can be chatting away all they want while the atrocity continues such as in Rwanda. I feel that while dialog is important and ultimately the goal, one cannot simply sit down for discussions in all cases.

---

Talking/listening never hurts. Talking/listening always has the potential to help. Sometimes the best way to deal with an irrational human being is to treat them as if they were a rational human being. It garners trust. From there, you can suggest hypotheticals to see where the person's mindset actually is, and further you can challenge their beliefs from the vantage of having gained that trust through listening and understanding. If a dictator asked for some sort of concession from a U.S. President, the President could tell the dictator how that action would play out with the American public. The dictator potentially starts gaining a grasp of why our country does the things it does. Mutual understanding is a two-way street. Democrats understand this.

quote:

---

If I may, I would like to do that. The difference being that one is targeting a specific individual whose location was known in advance who is in direct link with the terrorist group vs. randomly bombing the whole country...

---

Obama NEVER talked about bombing the whole country. Here's a video where he speaks to that directly right from the start of the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTzPSP1UgaA

Here's a quote from Obama on the matter:

"I understand that (Pakistan) President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

posted February 29, 2008 08:40 AM            

quote:

---

Furthermore i STRONGLY STRONGLY STRONGLY oppose bombing Pakistan. It is absolutely unnecessary as of right now. It will make things a lot worse and I cannot believe that the people who so vehemently opposed the war in Iraq would root for the bombing of Pakistan.

---

But you have to realize that Obama did not say he would "Bomb" Pakistan. Jwhops can be bit too...dramatic sometimes Lol! Though yes I do agree that he jumped the gun on that statement and he shouldn't have done that. However, his sensibility to keep his views open on forigen policies including the situation in Iraq does tells me that he is willing to work out a plan that is viable for both Iraq and the United States.

And I am gonna have to agree with Acoustic on the point he made about Obama's statement concerning the situation in Iraq.

Al-Qaidea only happened to establish a base of operation in Iraq after the Saddam Regime was toppled. Precious time was lost in establishing a strong self-sustaning govenment in Iraq and the power Vaccume left behind was quickly occupied by Al-Qaidea. Offcourse, that is fact; There is no denying that. Hussain had no connections with Al-Qaieda at all. He actually was weary of Al-Qaidea's possible future agenda and he was right to be weary.

Even the Sep. 11 panel dissmissed the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Yes its obvious now that what's done is done and that now we have to look upon solutions to the problem but it does not deny the fact that the U.S. did jump the gun in making a hasty decision in invading Iraq with no cut clear plan in establishing a strong intern govenment.

posted February 29, 2008 12:04 PM            

Yes, O'Bomber is the typical leftist, socialist twit. They never acknowledge when they are wrong...never, never, never.

So, everyone knows al-Qaeda was already in Iraq before the allies invaded. They had operational teams and safe houses in the northern...Kurdish area....which the US bombed the hell out of in the opening hours of the attack. O'Bomber might want to check out the leader...former leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq...Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

O'Bomber needs to apologize to McCain for his blunder and smart ass response to a true statement McCain made.

Hello Mannu, are you a total moron? Don't you know the main source of friction between India and Pakistan is the Kashmir region?

But that wasn't the thrust of what I was saying to VDI...who claimed there was no terrorist activity in India. I just proved VDI wrong...again.

You can't even define "anarchist" Mannu.

posted February 29, 2008 12:19 PM            

quote:

---

You can't even define "anarchist" Mannu.

---

posted February 29, 2008 12:35 PM            

Yeah JWhop surely does not seem like he knows any rational difference between a terrorist and a ordinary civilian

>>>>>Hello Mannu, are you a total moron? Don't you know the main source of friction between India and Pakistan is the Kashmir region?

Jeez, Who should know that better? There was UN mediated peace decades ago. Pakistan sponsored terrorism and its army invading indians Line of control is the problem for India. India went all the way in to Pakistan during the second war and they could have stayed there just like America is doing in Iraq now. A lot of indians are still criticising india for not doing so. But India is a socialist democracy country and I don't think they will do any of those capitalist things that US is advocating around the world. Republicans of America have maintained that image of America being skunk of the world No wonder you are a republican moron.

And dude I did define Anarchist please check your other thread. If you do not agree, its fine too. But thats a different story.

posted February 29, 2008 02:23 PM            

quote:

---

Your videos did not in any way establish that Obama wasn't aware of the situation in Iraq.

---

I don't know whether he misspoke or really did not know but either way he made a faux pas in his speech and instead of taking it like a man twisted the words...

quote:

---

As I said, everyone knows that Al Qaeda is in Iraq.

---

Clearly according to what he said, not everyone.

quote:

---

Then you asserted that it was in some way wrong to say that McCain put Al Qaeda there.

---

And I stand by it...McCain certainly did not put Al Qaeda there any more than Obama and every other congressman did. And I don't feel that the war put them there, it simply gave enough of a power vacuum for them to be more rampant than they were under Saddam...but they were there.

quote:

---

Exactly. Without U.S. soldiers and citizens there, there was no purpose for the terrorist organization to do anything other than recruit (if they could) from Iraq.

---

Woa woa woa...if the case is that the only reason Al Qaeda has anything to do anywhere is the presence of US soldiers and citizens then explain their existence in Afghanistan and a bunch of middle eastern nations long before US hit the ground.

quote:

---

Al Qaeda may have been in Iraq for recruitment purposes (I'm not sure), but they were not carrying out terrorist missions against the country.

---

Because unlike the U.S. who would catch them and jail them, Saddam would torture them (you think U.S. is bad...u should read what he would do) kill their families in front of them and then shoot them all...so yes carrying out terrorist attacks against Saddam would be highly unwise...and then why would they...Saddam shared their ideology...America is bad, and Israel is worse....he bombed Tel Aviv on a number occasions so why should Al Qaeda complain?

quote:

---

Also, you're absolutely wrong about Saddam having anything to do with it. Saddam was a strict secularist, and as such had no use in having a relationship with Al Qaeda.

---

I didn't say he had a relationship with Al Qaeda...he was simply doing something they couldn't complain about and they were probably scared of him

quote:

---

You will not be able to prove your assertion that Saddam had anything to do with it.

---

I believe I did so just fine.

quote:

---

Everyone knows this already. You're not teaching us anything new.

---

Clearly the genius reporters in the video do not...

quote:

---

Talking/listening never hurts. Talking/listening always has the potential to help.

---

It does hurt if all its doing is wasting time...all UN ever does is negotiate and negotiate while there is serious action needed...all they do is discuss whether something should be labeled a genocide or not, while people die all over the world. So no talking doesn't always have the potential to help.

quote:

---

Sometimes the best way to deal with an irrational human being is to treat them as if they were a rational human being. It garners trust

---

Not if they are irrational...thats where the quote "never argue with a fool, they will take you down to their level and beat you with experience" comes in. You cannot talk/discuss with someone who simply does not listen or pay attention. They will simply take advantage of the situation.

quote:

---

From there, you can suggest hypotheticals to see where the person's mindset actually is, and further you can challenge their beliefs from the vantage of having gained that trust through listening and understanding.

---

That only works if the person you are arguing with thinks like you. If they do not this would be flawed because challenging the beliefs of someone who won't be budged is a complete waste of time.

quote:

---

Democrats understand this.

---

Tell that to the Tutsies...

quote:

---

Even the Sep. 11 panel dissmissed the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda:

---

I don't disagree but I also feel that it was bitter of Obama to respond in the way he did to someone catching his mistake...he could have done it in classier ways

quote:

---

O'Bomber needs to apologize to McCain for his blunder and smart ass response to a true statement McCain made.

---

I would have to agree...I don't think apology would be necessary because this is politics but he should have at least admitted his mistake and not turned around and point the finger at someone else as if hes in 3rd grade.

posted February 29, 2008 02:44 PM            

quote:

---

I don't disagree but I also feel that it was bitter of Obama to respond in the way he did to someone catching his mistake...he could have done it in classier ways

---

posted February 29, 2008 04:46 PM            

quote:

---

I don't know whether he misspoke or really did not know but either way he made a faux pas in his speech and instead of taking it like a man twisted the words...

---

Once again, I have to say, "Show me." I don't believe he did misspeak.

quote:

---

And I stand by it...McCain certainly did not put Al Qaeda there any more than Obama and every other congressman did. And I don't feel that the war put them there, it simply gave enough of a power vacuum for them to be more rampant than they were under Saddam...but they were there.

---

Anyone who voted for authorization of the war did bring Al Qaeda into play in Iraq. Obama was not in the Senate for that vote.

quote:

---

Woa woa woa...if the case is that the only reason Al Qaeda has anything to do anywhere is the presence of US soldiers and citizens then explain their existence in Afghanistan and a bunch of middle eastern nations long before US hit the ground.

---

I can't believe you're putting forth this kind of non sequitur thinking. I said that Al Qaeda didn't have a purpose in Iraq outside of recruiting until the U.S. invaded, which brought their, Al Qaeda's, enemy (us) into proximity.

Al Qaeda's prior presence in the Middle East is obviously due to the fact that they live and are based there. Your point makes no sense to me.

quote:

---

Because unlike the U.S. who would catch them and jail them, Saddam would torture them (you think U.S. is bad...u should read what he would do) kill their families in front of them and then shoot them all...so yes carrying out terrorist attacks against Saddam would be highly unwise...and then why would they...Saddam shared their ideology...America is bad, and Israel is worse....he bombed Tel Aviv on a number occasions so why should Al Qaeda complain?

---

I don't believe you have the means to prove what you're saying. Saddam did torture people. That part is true. The rest about Al Qaeda, and what Saddam would do I'm pretty certain is all conjecture. Saddam didn't share their ideology on a very important level, and that's religion. Saddam was dead set against religion, and as such was weary of Al Qaeda despite having enemies in common. Al Qaeda and the other radical Muslim extremists are after world domination, and that would include Iraq. That wouldn't sit well with Saddam.

quote:

---

Clearly the genius reporters in the video do not...

---

The one defending what Obama said illustrated her knowledge of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

quote:

---

It does hurt if all its doing is wasting time. So no talking doesn't always have the potential to help.

---

You are trying to come up with excuses to justify your position.

How are court decisions decided?
How are labor disputes fixed?
How is marriage counseling helpful?

In all human experience where there is a clash, talking and listening are the best tools we have (if we have the option of using them). There is a time for action, and it usually occurs when a party becomes or is unwilling to talk. Why did North Korea start up their nuke program. What did they want? To talk about meeting the power needs of their nation. If there's no option for a discussion, then I would agree that action is warranted, but saying that talking doesn't have the potential to help I find ridiculous.

quote:

---

Not if they are irrational...thats where the quote "never argue with a fool, they will take you down to their level and beat you with experience" comes in. You cannot talk/discuss with someone who simply does not listen or pay attention. They will simply take advantage of the situation.

---

You can. It begins with listening yourself. Make the other person do all the talking. It's difficult to really hate someone who is listening to you intently. Then when they propose the outrageous, you courteously explain the situation, and make any points about your disagreement of belief or philosophy. Respect is key.

The scenario you laid out happens when two stubborn people can't bring themselves to be respectful of one another and communication breaks down. I don't think Obama is suggesting that he wants to go be stubborn on behalf of the U.S. I also don't believe he wants to go get chummy with our enemies.

quote:

---

I don't disagree but I also feel that it was bitter of Obama to respond in the way he did to someone catching his mistake...he could have done it in classier ways

---

posted March 01, 2008 02:55 AM            

quote:

---

He didn't escilate the situation.

---

Well I think he did by blaming McCain. It wasn't a question as to whether the war was bad, it was a question of Obama making a mistake to which he should have owned up.

quote:

---

Once again, I have to say, "Show me." I don't believe he did misspeak.

---

Show you how? I showed you the video where he says it...what else can I humanly do to show you?

quote:

---

Anyone who voted for authorization of the war did bring Al Qaeda into play in Iraq. Obama was not in the Senate for that vote.

---

well isn't that convenient...

quote:

---

I can't believe you're putting forth this kind of non sequitur thinking. I said that Al Qaeda didn't have a purpose in Iraq outside of recruiting until the U.S. invaded, which brought their, Al Qaeda's, enemy (us) into proximity.

---

Isn't that EXACTLY what I said like 4 times only to have people tell me that Saddam had NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda not being strong in Iraq...which is basically the same thing you are saying in different words...

quote:

---

Al Qaeda's prior presence in the Middle East is obviously due to the fact that they live and are based there. Your point makes no sense to me.

---

First of all they live everywhere...not just the middle east...second of all that has nothing to do with why they exist as an organization.

quote:

---

don't believe you have the means to prove what you're saying. Saddam did torture people. That part is true. The rest about Al Qaeda, and what Saddam would do I'm pretty certain is all conjecture

---

Errrm Saddam was a secularist who did not like religious movements, attacked Iran when they had one and was famous for torturing people who disagreed with him...what about that seems made up? What you said is exactly what I said I cannot see what the problem is...

quote:

---

Al Qaeda and the other radical Muslim extremists are after world domination, and that would include Iraq. That wouldn't sit well with Saddam.

---

Exactly why he didn't allow them to take over...and for the time he was there they had no way of taking over because his party members infiltrated every institution. But their major argument was for fighting the west. They wouldn't be able to get the support if they attacked Saddam WHO WAS at the time fighting the west's major power...

quote:

---

The one defending what Obama said illustrated her knowledge of Al Qaeda in Iraq.

---

By saying its not the same thing as Al Qaeda in Afghanistan...yes her knowledge is as vast as the sky is blue...

quote:

---

You are trying to come up with excuses to justify your position.

---

It's not my fault you cannot see any view other than your own...very few ppl will say that discussions are ALWAYS helpful...

quote:

---

There is a time for action, and it usually occurs when a party becomes or is unwilling to talk.

---

Or when their demands are unreasonable...

quote:

---

Why did North Korea start up their nuke program. What did they want?

---

My best guess is a nuke because that gets a nation power in today's day and age.

quote:

---

but saying that talking doesn't have the potential to help I find ridiculous.

---

I said it doesn't ALWAYS...ALWAYS...not never but ALWAYS, because you said that talking is helpful in ALL situations...which it is not...It is helpful in some, maybe even most but sometimes it is detrimental to the situations that is why saying that it helps in all cases is simply not true.

quote:

---

You can. It begins with listening yourself.

---

Yes and say while you listen 100 more kids get slaughtered...real nice...

quote:

---

Then when they propose the outrageous, you courteously explain the situation, and make any points about your disagreement of belief or philosophy. Respect is key.

---

And then when they laugh in your face and call you a fool you can explain to them how impolite that is....not very useful in politics...

quote:

---

The scenario you laid out happens when two stubborn people can't bring themselves to be respectful of one another and communication breaks down.

---

Yes well that is life 95% of the time...especially in the world of politics...the UN is very very good at discussing things, too bad they aren't too effective....they have their bonuses but when it comes to upholding world peace they are quiet useless with all their lovely eloquent conversations.

quote:

---

Still wondering what mistake you're talking about.

---

posted March 01, 2008 03:34 AM            

"As Commander In Chief I will always reserve the right to make sure that we are looking out for American interests, and if Al Qaeda is making a base in Iraq then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."