Situation in Zimbabwe

[Unheard_Of]

It appears that Mugabe and his supporters have been deliberatly starving people who support his oppostion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2157949.stm
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020831-62249186.htm
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-01-11&id=2667

Why aren't any countries taking direct action to stop this?

[GentryII]

Yeah... we've known this for several years now.

[Phobas]

I read today that it was leaked that mugabe has an exit stratergy to get him out before the next election infavour of a government containing members of the oposition and with this britain is going to give a fair bit of monetary aid if it happens. So action could be happening. Doesn't help having the press baned from the area.

[RandBlade]

In not much time Zimbabwe has gone from a land of plenty, to one of mass starvation which is rapidly getting worse. He'll lose support if the starvation gets too bad, which he knows, even with the interferences last election he still only avoided defeat by massive vote rigging. The country by-and-large don't support him any more, and its going to get much more dramatic. He has to recognise this and so do his Zanu-PF colleagues. Also when he does fall, he'll be prosecuted. According to a new report he's being offered immunity from this prosecution if he goes peacefully.

Its doubtful he'll take it, but we can hope, it will be best for Zimbabwe and I hope he can see it will be best for him too. His colleagues seem to be beginning to see it too.

Although of course its being denied by Zanu-PF, we can hope though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2651687.stm

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Why aren't any countries taking direct action to stop this?

Because no one feels they have anything to gain, financially. Yeah it sucks, but watch and see NOONE come to their aid.:down:

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Loki
Are you suggesting that we should attack Zimbabwe?

No, YOU said "attack", I said AID. Not all things need to be solved with violence.

[Hazir]

Nobody does anything because there are too many people getting upset about the fact that only 'white' nations are in a position to actually do something.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Hazir
Nobody does anything because there are too many people getting upset about the fact that only 'white' nations are in a position to actually do something.

:confused: :confused:

[AR81]

One thing I’ve learned is that you can’t help someone who doesn’t want help.
In either case, what do you call “aid”?
Remember that supplies from international aid were used in Nicaragua to fill the Sandinista supermarket which had those goods for sale.
If you mean an invasion to take control of the street you’ll see another Mogadishu.
Depending on the outgoing, local politicians could end up saying that US must be blame for starvation and the antiUS people could use US as scapegoat again.
So I don’t get what “aid” could mean.
If it could become a threat just like the Taliban, then US could blast them. Else, what could US do?

[ductonius]

Steps to becoming a successful and popular dictator in Africa (or virtually anywhere for that matter).

1. Seize control claiming the country is in some sort of peril.

2. Use the military to oppress the population and maintain power.

3. If humanitarian agencies start to complain about any of this, start seizing anything owed by white poeple and give it to anyone else. That should shut them up because if they oppose you they will also be opposing taking stuff away from evil white people.

4. Seize any large estates, evict the owners (even better if they're white) and give them to your friends and family.

5. Divide up some of poorer agricultureal estates and give them to city people who dont know a lick about farming.

6. When food shortages arise, blame them on white people.

7. Call elections, dont forget to intimidate all voters and blame any violence on white people.

8. When famin strikes, blame it on white westerners who dont give enogh food.

9. Seize food aid at the docks, sell some of it abroad to "prove" that the people you gave the estates to can farm, sell the rest to your supporters , and transfer any proceeds to a swiss bank account.

[RandBlade]

May I add one between 7 and 8

8. When even your intimidation fails, simply rig the vote anyway, accuse anyone who accuses you of having done so as being agents of the evil white men.

[Emma Danger]

Superman would save them. :(

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Unheard_Of
It appears that Mugabe and his supporters have been deliberatly starving people who support his oppostion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2157949.stm
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020831-62249186.htm
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-01-11&id=2667

Why aren't any countries taking direct action to stop this?

This is not news. Why aren't we taking action? Who could take action? Anything people do through the UN would be denounced as Europe and the US trying to recolonize Africa, anything we do outside the UN will meet the same cry, and no one else outside Africa has the ability to intervene without the UN direct support. And for whatever reason *some of which are quite good, I imagine* no country or group of countries in Africa is willing to do anything about it.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
No, YOU said "attack", I said AID. Not all things need to be solved with violence.

People have been sending aid. Countries, NGO's, individuals... Mugabe's been seizing it, in the time-honored fashion of despots everywhere.

[RandBlade]

I think that if a country is being despotic and starving people, then its right for charities to try and by-pass the despot and feed the starving. However aid isn't reaching the starving, I think all aid should be cut off from Zimbabwe and sent to other nations like Ethiopia which need the aid, and are trying to improve.

[Moridin00]

Loki said:
That's the biggest problem of the third world. Instead of trying to improve, they just throw all their problems at the feet of former imperialists. I don't see how they think that will help them, but who knows.
No Loki, the biggest problem facing 'the third world' is their debt with larger countries!

Debts which they've been paying off for decades... which larger countries could easily write off but don't because it's a source of steady income.

It makes financial sense to keep thirld-world countries third-world, doesn't it Loki?

And also, when your life is so bad that you turn to your government, and they are so powerless that they can't or won't help you, then you turn to other people for help. Whether they are 'former imperialists' or not. They certainly do not throw their problems at their feet and beg. That's what international aid organisations are there for - to help human beings, whether they are poor or not!

[Phobas]

I can't help but feel annoyed about the fact than zimbabwe was agricultuarly a very bountify nation and now has people staving because of despotism. I have no problem with redisbuting land. But from what iv'e heard is that this redistribution has been a thinly vieled attempt to secure power, but putting this land not the farmers that have worked the land but to his political allies.

As to the question of whether anyone is doing anthing Britain has put forward some measure at the comonwealth meeting but have been largly slated for being "colonial" many of the surounding countries have difficultly standing against zimbabwe in these atempts because understandible they don't want to agrivate their neihbour

[Phobas]

Originally posted by Loki
Thank you for the socialist argument; I don't believe it. It has a very small amount of merit to it, but otherwise it's downright stupid.

The West would rather have the whole world advanced so it'll have a big market for its goods. Don't you think large businesses would appreciate being able to sell expensive goods to every country in the world, instead of just a select few?

It could be argued that if the whole world was advanced the the west would have more competition and so harm their economies.
Many of these country are primary producer and if they were to be advance they could process their goods in house reducing the west's manufacturing industry by having competion on gaining these goods cheaply and by the competion with the produced goods.
Many of the profits from the sweatshops would dissapear.
I think its a logical conclusion that with a fixed amount of money and resourses in the world that to increase the strength of a weaker player, let alone set the playing field at bit more evenly would put the the previously stronger players out of pocket.
And some people would object to that. (you don't need to be a rocket scientist to guess who)

Originally posted by Loki

The Western countries have been doing their best to lower interest rates in order to make it possible for the undeveloped countries to pay the loans back. Hell, it's not our fault they took the loans in the first place. Some countries already defaulted on their loans, and we didn't go around invading them.

Well a lot of the aid we gave countries had string attached
I also remember this case in madagasa (i think) where they had a good casuew nut industry. These nuts have to be processed and they had imposed some sort of tarif to prevent the export of unprocessed nuts enabling their industry grow. However, to grow their industry they did what many businesses would to and seekout a loan to improve their industry. This came with the demand to remove the the tarif on unprocessed nuts.
The result,
Intially the farmers did well with other country out bidding each other for the nuts, you may not be suprised to hear that the home grown industry could not compete.
What happened next.
With the competition gone the farmers were charged a pitence and countries processing industry was in ruins and the country still had to pay back that loan. :mad:

[Citizen Kane]

Oh great.. more of the "it's all the West's fault" arguments. No. Zimbabwe was in good shape. Then a brutal dictator took over, stole all the country's money and resources and started starving everyone who dissented. What the West is or isn't doing has nothing to do with the problems in Africa. What African leaders are doing has everything to do with it.

We send aid, it gets stolen by the leaders of these countries...

We even talk about invading and liberal idiots everywhere go ape-****.

Apperantly, seeing millions starve to detah is better than killing a corrupt leader and putting a good one in. :rolleyes:

[Phobas]

Originally posted by Loki
There is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. That thinking went away with feudalism. Wealth is ever expanding, and as long as more and more countries become more advanced, the amount of wealth in the world will continue to expand.
Im sorry but economics is not my strong point never understood the point in it just seems like we're just passing money around.

However, do you deny that increasing the strength of third world industry whould harm in at least some way the west economic dominance and there industry.

There is of cause nothing (excluding trade bariers) stoping these country from selling goods to west countries reducing their home grown industries market share in that country. Nor is there anything stoping these contries providing themselves with these expensive goods so reducing the benifit of this change to the west.
Also could you address the issue of obtaining and refining resourses from third world countries and perhaps the weakening of the wests political strength that who come with stronger competition


Originally posted by Loki

The WTO does put restrictions on what countries who take loans can do. Sometimes they do end up hurting the country. But the country is the one who took the loan in the first place. They knew what effects it would have. No one is forced to take loans.

While i agree no one forced them to get the loan it was necessary to build their country given the trade barrier it could have worked to improve the country so it was not and entirly stupid decision.
The more important question is if you are suggesting the the country knew the effects it would have, then why did not the WTO know the effects it would have. Why did the WTO hand them this poison chalice. Why did they put this proviso into the loan if they knew it would bankrupt the country.
Either they were stupid, the outcome of this result was not easily predictable for both the WTO or the country taken the loan or the WTO wanted the country to be in debt to them.
Which is it?

[Gentry]

Okay, assuming that because of some brief spell of mass stupidity and suffering from severe brain contusions, America agrees to help this country... so, okay, they're helped. Now what do we do? Wait them them to turn our aid against us? Or shall we twiddle our thumbs until the next evil dictator pops along?

[Phobas]

Originally posted by Loki
We would lose political strength, but that won't be much of an issue, since we use to enforce capitalism. If everyone is capitalist, there won't be a reason to force anyone to do anything. Don't forget that there weren't any wars between advanced countries in over half a century.

While there have been no military war that does not mean to say that there have been no conflicts. In actual fact the issue of Tarifs and trade barrier have cause a lot of problems, some countries have used their economic muscle to force their will.

I do not buy this capatalist utopia as it is in the nature of a free market economy for competitors to fight it out in the market place. If every country is capitalist there will still be conflict as people will want a bigger slice of the pie.

Originally posted by Loki

The job of the WTO is to promote capitalism. Undeveloped countries get hurt because of this, since many of their industries need time to be able to compete in the global market. Why do you think the WTO gives the loans in the first place? They're trying to ensure stability and capitalism, if some industries fail, then so be it. They could do a better job than they're doing now, but not by much.
We i don't see wreaking some countries economy as a good way to promote stability or capitalism.
"If some industries fail so be it?!!" It was this industry they were trying to grow that was to be the backbone of their countires growth and hopeful progresion into prosperous nation. WTO got it wrong big time and to say if some industries fail so be it is to miss the point on why these countries can never reach the advance state that you say will be good for every one.

CK I don't believe that zimbabwes problems are all the wests fault, they are being run by a despot who uses quite ligitimate grievances over colonial times as a bases of his popularity ( a bit of an over simplification ) However, I believe there have been times where we haven't help the situation and a lot of big business are doing well out of the stasis quo and might be upset is we disturbed the scene

[Citizen Kane]

So, how can we help?

We give aid, it gets stolen and bolsters the power of those who ought to be removed.

We tariff/embargo, it does nothing, since the dictators don't give a f*** about thier own people, as long as they get filthy rich.

We do nothing, millions die.

We solve the problem with our military and public opinion both at home and abroad explodes against us because of stupid anti-war hippies who think the solution to all of life's problems is talking it out over a nice, refreshing joint and the dumbassed "everything in the world is the West's fault" crowd.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Phobas
Im sorry but economics is not my strong point never understood the point in it just seems like we're just passing money around. You can say that again, it certainly isn't. I am finishing my economics degree at the moment, so I certainly do see the point of it and understand it, and you are so mistaken in so many ways!
However, do you deny that increasing the strength of third world industry whould harm in at least some way the west economic dominance and there industry. Harm in some slight way? Very, very slight yes. Along the lines of how much taking a vacine hurts compared to getting a major disease. We would gain in so many ways if the third world became first.

We partake in international trade because all parties benefit from it. Approximately 97% of the worlds trade is done between developed nations. We gain massive amounts from that, all parties do. Trade with the third world is approx. 3%, we gain nothing from that. Having more strong economies to trade with would benefit us to an extraodinary extent. Thats why the west does all it can to help, giving hundreds of millions of dollars away each year in developmental aid. We lose out from having these nations poor, as it prevents any serious trade.

If these poor nations weren't so perpetually corrupt, the aid would have made massive differences to. There are many nations in the world now which in the last half-century have taken giant strides to developing, especially in the far east. Elsewhere it is corruption which needs to take nearly all of the blame, and there's little we can do about that.

And if you want to look into the effects of how the wests capitalism effects nations then there's case studies out there tp show you. Before WWII Germany was unified, with the eastern part being wealthier. Germany was then devastated during WWII. Following the partitioning of Germany into Western capitalist and Eastern communist the differences couldn't be greater. Eastern Germany was absolutely devastated. The former Western Germany is now very well off and being forced to spend millions each year trying to help the former Eastern Germany.

Following the Korean war, it was split into two. South Korea is fairly well of, while North Korea is starving. That difference like the one above is just because one side embraced capitalism.

When nations have embraced capitalism, democracy and openness, they've always done well. We gain from that, just like they do. When nations have rejected capitalism and democracy, been corrupt etc they've failed. Thats not our fault. We do our best to help, but there's only so much we can do when the other nations causing its own problems.

[Unheard_Of]

Interesting attitude CK. I don't remember throngs of protestors when we intervened in the former Yugoslavia.

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Unheard_Of
Interesting attitude CK. I don't remember throngs of protestors when we intervened in the former Yugoslavia.

I do. They wouldn't STFU on campus for weeks. I came very close to beating one to death with my laptop. I think the realization that my laptop is more valuble than her head is what saved my laptop from irreversable harm.... or maybe it was the campus cops. Well, anyway, she got lucky I wasn't carrying a baseball bat.

Either way, Yugoslavia is not Africa, and the political climate in America has changed for the more "anti-war dumbassedness" lately.

Remember Somalia?

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Loki
Off topic: Did you ever have 15 credits of classes on one day (well two days, but I have all the classes on each of the two days)?:bulb: I'm not going to commit suicide, am I?:confused:

Nah, just get used to grinding it out and you'll be fine. I have 17 credits of classes every MWF this term... I haven't taken *just* 15 credit hours a term in ages... my average as of last quarter was slighty over 20... then I slacked off this quarter and only took 17.

But, yeah, you get used to it. Work like a dog during the week, drink like a fish on the weekends, and it works itself out nicely.

[RandBlade]

Whats a credit in America? 6 month long modules here are only worth 10 credits for us, I imagine you must have some massively different scale.

I was in Australia during the Kosovan interventions, and didn't see any protests about that at all really. And now regarding Iraq there's next to no protest too at my uni. There was a mass protest organised at my campus. From the amount of publicity around you'd think there was loads of people behind it. Everyone in the uni must have known about it, and there's around 25,000 of us (discount ~5,000 who don't live near campus still leaves 20k). Of the 20,000 people who'd have known about it and could have gone, less than 50 people went to it. It was a major flop, I found it hilarious after that.

[Citizen Kane]

Yeah, the anti-Iraq protests haven't gotten much support since Bush got the UN onboard... there was a similar situation on... the 6th (?) here at OSU. Our campus has 50,000 students, a city of one million people who eat, sleep and breath OSU and I don't know how many faculty and staff, but it's a lot, and the anti-war protest I walked by would have been lucky to have 200 people at it, in my estimation. And usually, you can get 1,000 idiots here together to protest ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYTHING.

The way credits work at OSU is that a credit is one hour of class time per week. In theory. Usually that means one hour of lecture a week, plus any recitation or lab classes they wanna tack on, plus a whole lot of classwork out of class. And sometimes, they'll just be total ****** for no good reason and undercredit your class... (the classes they do this to tend to be required for the more popular majors too :mad: ) like my current math class, which is 6 hours of lecture a week for only 3 credits... and it's also one hell of a mind bender, being a high level programming logic math class.

So in theory, 17 credit [hours] should mean that I have 17 hours of class time a week.

[RandBlade]

So 1 credit = 1 hour teaching time? How many credits do you get a year?

Thats roughly what its like for me. I have to do 120 credits annually, between 2 semesters. Each semester is 10 weeks long for teaching. In my first two years core modules were 20 credits with 2 hours a week and optional ones were 10 credits with 1 hour a week. Now however in my final year all modules are optional and 10 credits, but its 2 hours each, except for my dissertation which took 20 credits, so I've got 10 hours a week now for lectures.

[Citizen Kane]

I average ~80 credits a year. The average at Ohio State was 36, last I checked. (OSU, home of the six year bachelor's degree.)

At OSU, most degrees are ~200 credits, which includes ~50 credits of "general education ciriculum" courses where you basically have to take intro level course on just about everything... a few intro level scinece course, a few intro level humanities, etc.

[Unheard_Of]

Originally posted by Citizen Kane
I do. They wouldn't STFU on campus for weeks. I came very close to beating one to death with my laptop. I think the realization that my laptop is more valuble than her head is what saved my laptop from irreversable harm.... or maybe it was the campus cops. Well, anyway, she got lucky I wasn't carrying a baseball bat

Really?

Morons.

Shame you weren't carrying a gun, you could have shot them, saved the world a problem. EDIT: Yes you humourless gits, I am joking.

I never heard those reports. Were they just in America? I certainly don't remember anything other than public support over here.

[Lewkowski]

Whats wrong with attacking again? Oh yeah we piss off more people.. gee whats new they already hate us remember?

You know kiling this ******* and bringing about regime change would save thousands of lives. Remeber folks violence is the best way to deal with violent people. Dictatorships should not be tolerated.

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Unheard_Of
I never heard those reports. Were they just in America? I certainly don't remember anything other than public support over here.

Dunno... might have been just protests in the US... since Milosovich was in the EU's backyard, Europe cared a lot more about getting rid of him than, say Sadam, for example... wheras the peacenick morons over here didn't care as much because he wasn't killing people in California.

[Moridin00]

Interesting viewpoints, especially from Loki who labeled my argument 'socialist'.

Here's an example of why the developed countries want to keep thirld-world countries that way: Did you know that the wheat which the states exports to south africa for human consumption is graded as fit only for animal consumption? And that no-one knew this until it was exposed?

This is just one example of a commodity which has various grades of quality. The best is sold to the richest countries; the worst to the poorer. But without the poorer countries, the low quality wheat would never be bought!

There are hundreds of thousands of these commodities. This is why developed countries HAVE to keep developing countries on their client list - to ensure that every ounce of what they manufacture is sold. Hail to capitalism, and boy do I enjoy eating American-grain bread knowing that it's fit only for animals.

Conversely, developed countries get the very best fruit and veggies in the world from us, while we are left with the poorer quality ones on average. Note that I am not complaining about this, and I understand the concepts of cost and trade after all, but it is an issue that strikes a certain resentful chord deep inside me, which I'm sure any suitably empathetic human would understand and agree with. But such is the nature of world trade.

Oh, and Loki said: Thank you for the socialist argument; I don't believe it. It has a very small amount of merit to it, but otherwise it's downright stupid.
Your argument has merit to it, but it's narrow-minded and money-driven. There are more important things in life than profit Loki. Perhaps I just have a little more faith in the nature of things than you do. And I'm a democrat, not a socialist, nor anything else.

Nice arguments everyone.

[Moridin00]

Kane: wheras the peacenick morons over here didn't care as much because he wasn't killing people in California.
So? Your government has been killing people in the gulf for years! And is still doing so, despite the UN (which communicates the desire for peace on behalf of the whole world!) trying to convince you otherwise.

There's a word for that; it's 'war-mongering'. It's a shame you've got such a cowboy for a president in a country so rich with potential and good things.

[Phobas]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Harm in some slight way? Very, very slight yes. Along the lines of how much taking a vacine hurts compared to getting a major disease. We would gain in so many ways if the third world became first.
I do not dissagree that we would gain in so many ways if the third world became first world. In fact I believe it is essential for world stability.

However, I do believe that if you are to help people it should not be just when it is convient. If you are intent on helping some one it will cost you. It means giving fair wages and conditions to people in the third world ( there are practical problems that comes with this i know). It means not sampling a countries rice crop, genetically modifying. selling it back to them and sueing when they use some of the grain to plant next years Harvest. Or in the case of the UK backing debt relief and then selling a radar system that is very expensive and not what the country needs, I know the country involve can simply not acept but I doubt its that easy for them to do that.

The world will benifit if the third world develops it just costs too much for many people to do. Don't get me wrong great stuff is happening but more needs to be done and not just at our convienece.
Originally posted by RandBlade

If these poor nations weren't so perpetually corrupt, the aid would have made massive differences to. There are many nations in the world now which in the last half-century have taken giant strides to developing, especially in the far east. Elsewhere it is corruption which needs to take nearly all of the blame, and there's little we can do about that.
It is true coruption is a problem and that is why i like many of the conditions placed on debt relief. I believe coruption can be takled. If not by supporting countries who are tackleing their coruptsion ( or atempting to ) If we give help to those who are dealing with coruption then people in neighbouring countries will start to demand that the coruption is stoped and those corrupt leaders may see the advantage in not being corupt. We only need to show there is hope for their situation.
Incidently poverty and lack of any future hope can be one of the main factors that lead to polical instabity and coruption. Although it can also be said that many v rich countries show levels of coruption.

Originally posted by RandBlade

And if you want to look into the effects of how the wests capitalism effects nations then there's case studies out there tp show you. Before WWII Germany was unified, with the eastern part being wealthier. Germany was then devastated during WWII. Following the partitioning of Germany into Western capitalist and Eastern communist the differences couldn't be greater. Eastern Germany was absolutely devastated. The former Western Germany is now very well off and being forced to spend millions each year trying to help the former Eastern Germany.
The fact that west germany is spending millions to help eastern germany indicates the cost of tackling poverty. This cost of cause is being objected to by some people in west germany and I think chancellor kohl sp? lost partly due to dissatisfaction of the unification process. Not doubt bringing east germany into prosperity will strengthen the country. Its costing a lot though and while it can be done to unific a broken country. How willing do you think somepeople will be for people in another continent

[Phobas]

Originally posted by Loki
Phobas, you don’t think we tried helping the people who battle corruption? Corruption always wins in the end in third world countries.

Just out of interest why do you think that is, im not sure I have a perfect answer. But looking at makes me think that democracy is not a very stable politcal system.

As for your question I know we have tried to help the battle against coruption, (not sure if we have had some limited success) if we look to see why it did not work we might get a better idea of what to do to stop it.
to say that corruption always wins may not be true, got to keep trying until we exhaust all posibilities

[Phobas]

Originally posted by Loki
Democracy is hard to implement in countries who have a long history of being ruled by dictators. Dictatorships are an easy way out, since they do provide short-term stability. But in the long-term all dictatorships fail and democracies prosper.

How long term are we talking about from what i can remember rome left a democracy with julius ceaser and with it europe was left to dictators/emperors/monarchs until some time in 1600 with cromwells parliment although how democratic that was i don't know. Democracy was a slow thing coming in england.

Originally posted by Loki
How can you help a country with a corrupt government, when everything you give to the people ends up in the government's hands? The only way to fix that is to destroy the corrupt governments, and we know how the world loves fighting wars.:rolleyes:

Not all third world government are corrupt there are often corrupt elements in the socity and here is where help comes in. We also arn't squeaky clean when it comes to corruption. (although this is not to the extent as it is in other countries). War is not necesarily the only way to deal with a corrupt government and can agrivate the situation.

If you look to the fall of many european democracies during the 20s-30s this was catalysed by the poverty in the great depression. and in the case of germany dissatisfaction over how they were treated in the peace settlement.

I'm just saying that in some places real change is posible with out war and by hopefully increasing proserity some these problems can be resolved. There are places that are currently hard to solve. But I believe it is better to show these countries that prosperity is posible and place a certain amount of polically pressure on them, the amount obviously depending on what is approriate.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Phobas
How long term are we talking about from what i can remember rome left a democracy with julius ceaser and with it europe was left to dictators/emperors/monarchs until some time in 1600 with cromwells parliment although how democratic that was i don't know. Democracy was a slow thing coming in england. The English Civil War was in 1642, and we've been a democracy ever since then, and parliament had of course existed before that.

[Dreadnaught]

Unheard_Of- there are plenty of anti-war protests going on. They aren't extremely popular, but the larger ones tend to draw crowds. Usually people who are anti-war don't go to them because either they have no time/think it's innevitable or don't agree with or like the people who organize them, because they are mostly hardcore leftists given money by Susan Sarandon.

Originally posted by Moridin00
Kane:
So? Your government has been killing people in the gulf for years! And is still doing so, despite the UN (which communicates the desire for peace on behalf of the whole world!) trying to convince you otherwise.

Explain how the US government specifically has been killing people in the Gulf for years? You are implying that it is still going on now. The UN is not communicating a desire for peace on behalf of the whole world. To imagine that is the reality is just a farce; it's all self-interest.

To quote Hazir's "Anti-American Online College 101":

#3: The United Nations
This is your big stick of Legitimacy. This fine body is here to serve as a brake on those wild, stupid, warmongering Americans. It shall be held up as an enlightened, sober group of liberal intellectuals who serve freedom, human rights and the brotherhood of man.

UN doctrine and policy will almost always run contrary to that of the USA. As the UN are the enlightened, clever, level-headed ones. You can use this as your whacking stick.

Of course, some might protest that the UN is at best a useless, cowardly bureaucratic monolith and at worst a dangerous, obstructionist propaganda mouthpiece for every scumbag and tyrant on the planet, and that friendly mass-murderer Colonel Ghaddafi has been appointed head of their human rights body. But you can ignore them. This is the United Nations after all, and they are the good guys. They will look after the world and protect us against these rampaging american scum.

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Moridin00

Oh, and Loki said:
Your argument has merit to it, but it's narrow-minded and money-driven. There are more important things in life than profit Loki. Perhaps I just have a little more faith in the nature of things than you do. And I'm a democrat, not a socialist, nor anything else.

Nice arguments everyone.

Yes, there are more important things. But Loki was addressed an economic question, he gave an economic answer, and Econ isn''t concerned with those more important things. Econ. studies behavior in a certaion fashion. Factors outside that focus of study will not be addressed by it, nor should they be. If I'm studying yellow-bellied sapsuckers, it would be illogical for me to start discussing why people choose beige carpets over green.

[Unheard_Of]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Unheard_Of- there are plenty of anti-war protests going on. They aren't extremely popular, but the larger ones tend to draw crowds. Usually people who are anti-war don't go to them because either they have no time/think it's innevitable or don't agree with or like the people who organize them, because they are mostly hardcore leftists given money by Susan Sarandon.

:rolleyes: I was talking about when US and UK (and all the others) intervened in Yugoslavia. I am fully aware that there are protests going on at the minute.

[Dreadnaught]

Oh, whoops. :o

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Kane:
So? Your government has been killing people in the gulf for years! And is still doing so, despite the UN (which communicates the desire for peace on behalf of the whole world!) trying to convince you otherwise.

Man... the last person I met so propagandized was... damn, I can't finish tha sentence.

Furthermore, I'll bet everything I own that you can't prove that my government has killed even one person in the entire Middle East in the past 50 years.

But you're right... we should leave Sadam in power, to continue his violation of 12 UN security council resolutions, to continue torture and murder of political or religious dissenters, and to continue starving 11 million people into sumbmission.

Then every thing would be peachy keen.

Originally posted by Moridin00
There's a word for that; it's 'war-mongering'. It's a shame you've got such a cowboy for a president in a country so rich with potential and good things.

War is evil, but not the greatest of evils... that would be reserved for the hollow husks of men who are too selfish to be willing to die for something greater than themselves.

A war to save 11 million people from Sadam's rule is a mission of mercy suited best for gaurdian angels, but thrust upon those men with the ability and the selflessness of spirit to die making the world a better place for people they've never met and will never know.

[Citizen Kane]

Perhaps it's time for my favorite war quote.

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
--John Stuart Mill

HUAH. So many people could learn a lesson from these sage words, but so few will...

[Moridin00]

A war to save 11 million people from Sadam's rule is a mission of mercy suited best for gaurdian angels, but thrust upon those men with the ability and the selflessness of spirit to die making the world a better place for people they've never met and will never know.
Kane, can't you see that Saddam Hussein is a popular, and elected leader?
Why do you feel you have to save the country from someone who they actually want to be there very much in the first place? It's none of your business! Go and become a citizen there and vote against him if you feel so stronly about it, but don't start promoting your somewhat romanticised view of war... you said: War is evil, but not the greatest of evils... that would be reserved for the hollow husks of men who are too selfish to be willing to die for something greater than themselves.
I said eariler I'd die for family and my own land... but I sure won't die because some person in another country said it's my time to. And that's what war is. It's not personal, it's not 'defending your homeland'... it's an inexcusable waste of life. I mean no disrespect, but that post of yours seemed a little naieve. War is not romantic, it is horiffic. There are no two ways about that.

Man... the last person I met so propagandized was... damn, I can't finish tha sentence.
I've not used any propaganda in this forum; perhaps you don't know this but propaganda means 'information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause'. What I am doing is stating my point of view, just like you. Please don't resort to name calling, it just means you've lost the debate.

Dredanaught said:
Explain how the US government specifically has been killing people in the Gulf for years? You are implying that it is still going on now.
I don't need to imply anything; George W's Daddy started it all off, and now he's following faithfully in his ole daddy's footprints; yeehaw! :D

Loki said:
How can you help a country with a corrupt government, when everything you give to the people ends up in the government's hands? The only way to fix that is to destroy the corrupt governments, and we know how the world loves fighting wars.
War is certianly not the only option. And corruption exists much closer to home than you'd expect; it's just better-hidden in your countries. Need I mention Watergate? Or Blair's wife's new apartment block which was bought very shadily? Every government has corruption; and I agree that third-world countries are rife with it; but let 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' - and you'll see no stones whizzing towards us.

Oh yeah; and Loki also said:
It would be much better for the first world if the entire world was advanced, so they’d be able to sell more expensive goods.
If that happened, who would they unload all their poor quality stuff onto? ;) (just teasing Loki)

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Kane, can't you see that Saddam Hussein is a popular, and elected leader?
Why do you feel you have to save the country from someone who they actually want to be there very much in the first place? It's none of your business! Go and become a citizen there and vote against him if you feel so stronly about it, but don't start promoting your somewhat romanticised view of war... Respect-factor Moridin00 = -10 :haha: :haha: :haha:

You can't be serious!
War is certianly not the only option. And corruption exists much closer to home than you'd expect; it's just better-hidden in your countries. Need I mention Watergate? Or Blair's wife's new apartment block which was bought very shadily? Every government has corruption; and I agree that third-world countries are rife with it; but let 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' - and you'll see no stones whizzing towards us.The problems we have are minimal and barely existant. That whole fuss over Cherie's apartments was a storm in a tea-pot. Besides its not corruption thats the problem, its the murders, usage of chemical weapons on his own people, torture (the way his forces poke the eyes out of people, and pull political prisoners arms out of their sockets etc)

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Kane, can't you see that Saddam Hussein is a popular, and elected leader?
Why do you feel you have to save the country from someone who they actually want to be there very much in the first place? It's none of your business! Go and become a citizen there and vote against him if you feel so stronly about it, but don't start promoting your somewhat romanticised view of war...

The words "hideously stupid" and "grotesquely naive" don't even scratch the surface here.

Originally posted by Moridin00
you said:
I said eariler I'd die for family and my own land... but I sure won't die because some person in another country said it's my time to.

Fine. Don't go. No one's asking you, and I for one, sure as hell wouldn't have you if you volunteered. If I got someone like you in my squad, I'd probably end up shooting him in the back of the head anyway.

Originally posted by Moridin00
And that's what war is. It's not personal, it's not 'defending your homeland'... it's an inexcusable waste of life. I mean no disrespect, but that post of yours seemed a little naieve. War is not romantic, it is horiffic. There are no two ways about that.

When did I say any different? You're the one who can't seem to get that war is bad, but there are worse things... like being forced to live under Sadam. Like being so selfish as to be unwilling to die to make the world a better place.


Originally posted by Moridin00
I've not used any propaganda in this forum; perhaps you don't know this but propaganda means 'information or publicity put out by an organization or government to spread and promote a policy, idea, doctrine, or cause'. What I am doing is stating my point of view, just like you. Please don't resort to name calling, it just means you've lost the debate.

I didn't say you were using propaganda, I said you are propagandized... as in your opinion is so shrouded in anti-war bull **** you'll believe anything anyone says, so long as it's anti-war-on-Iraq.

As to losing the debate... hey, you're the one who's saying Sadam's a popular, elected leader.

You might as well say that your tin foil hat keeps the aliens from stealing your brainwaves, because that sounds less crazy.

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by RandBlade
Respect-factor Moridin00 = -10 :haha: :haha: :haha:

That better be a typo, man... unless there are about 7 zeroes missing from the end of that -10, I might start losing some respect for you. :D

[Moridin00]

Fine, so enlighten me - what's so bad about saddam? - And I'd like proof please, not rumors or your somewhat aggressive retorts.

All I know is that he won the last elections with an overwhelming victory.

If I got someone like you in my squad, I'd probably end up shooting him in the back of the head anyway.
:rolleyes: That was pretty rude. We're debating here. No need to get personal. You also have no way of truly knowing my own internal integrity without meeting me. So give up trying to imply you can.
If saddam's as bad as you seem to think, you guys may actually share common personality traits. You ever consider that?

You're the one who can't seem to get that war is bad, but there are worse things... like being forced to live under Sadam.
If that's the worst thing for you, then it's the worst thing for you. For me, war would be worse. Not because I'm afraid of fighting, but because of the potential loss of life of many innocent people. Susan Sarandon or no Susan Surandan. I don't really care who agrees with me, that's just the way it is for me.

Like being so selfish as to be unwilling to die to make the world a better place.
Don't put words in my mouth. That's not my point at all; try re-reading my posts to understand.

Besides its not corruption thats the problem, its the murders, usage of chemical weapons on his own people, torture (the way his forces poke the eyes out of people, and pull political prisoners arms out of their sockets etc)
Sounds like any other government in the world. Including both of your own governments by the way.

Kane said to RB:
Originally posted by RB
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respect-factor Moridin00 = -10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That better be a typo, man... unless there are about 7 zeroes missing from the end of that -10, I might start losing some respect for you.
Better waych out RB - you may be out of favour with the gorilla over here. Sheesh it's like a junior-high playground in here, except with more testosterone floating around!

Chill out guys, and remember we're just having a talk. No need to get all excited. Also remember that I'm half-serious about this stuff - I'm just tossing some ideas around. I have mentioned that already in a previous post.

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Fine, so enlighten me - what's so bad about saddam? - And I'd like proof please, not rumors or your somewhat aggressive retorts.

All I know is that he won the last elections with an overwhelming victory.

You must have been living under a rock on Pluto, in a deep, dark underground cavern, with cotton in your ears and a blindfold over your eyes if you actually need proof Sadam is bad guy. If this is some lame ploy to turn the debate into the reliability of reports on Sadam, or US governmental intel techniques, or something, you can shove it... but if you're genuinly serious, read the following link. This is as of a few years ago, and only things we can prove with phyisical evidence... not including what journalists have brought back since then regarding the treatment of dissenters, and the like.

Feel free to skip the boring "how Sadam is cheating his UN agreements" parts, and skip right down to the repression of his people part.

http://fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

Originally posted by Moridin00
:rolleyes: That was pretty rude. We're debating here. No need to get personal. You also have no way of truly knowing my own internal integrity without meeting me. So give up trying to imply you can.

Rude or not, it's the truth.

I'm not trying to imply anything other than what was explicitly stated, and I really don't care about the personal traits you may or may not posess that I may or may not have been able to infer from your posts. In my estimation, you'd be a severe liability in combat and a serious threat to myself and my unit... and that's why I wouldn't want you in my unit, and if assigned, you'd be removed.

Originally posted by Moridin00
If saddam's as bad as you seem to think, you guys may actually share common personality traits. You ever consider that?

We probably do... but he's going out of his way to make the world worse for everyone, and particularly worse for 11 million people. Common traits or not, he needs to die.

Originally posted by Moridin00
If that's the worst thing for you, then it's the worst thing for you. For me, war would be worse. Not because I'm afraid of fighting, but because of the potential loss of life of many innocent people. Susan Sarandon or no Susan Surandan. I don't really care who agrees with me, that's just the way it is for me.

Great... so we'll let Sadam kill and brutalize 11 million of his own people, anyone within striking distance and maybe even us, if he decides to hadn anything off to AQ.

Much better.

Originally posted by Moridin00
Don't put words in my mouth. That's not my point at all; try re-reading my posts to understand.

I understand perfectly... that's not gonna change the fact that you're wrong and you're doing your part to make life hell on Earth for millions of people.

Kudos. :up:

Originally posted by Moridin00
Chill out guys, and remember we're just having a talk. No need to get all excited. Also remember that I'm half-serious about this stuff - I'm just tossing some ideas around. I have mentioned that already in a previous post.

Well, if you go around saying crazy stuff, you gotta expect people to look at you like you're crazy... this isn't our fault, it's yours.

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Fine, so enlighten me - what's so bad about saddam? - And I'd like proof please, not rumors or your somewhat aggressive retorts.Amnesty International is hardly an aggressive puppet of the US/UK trying to propose war: IRAQ: Systematic torture of political prisoners (http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140082001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES\IRAQ)

Search any human rights charity etc and you'll find countless articles on it.

[Moridin00]

In my estimation, you'd be a severe liability in combat and a serious threat to myself and my unit... and that's why I wouldn't want you in my unit, and if assigned, you'd be removed.
Lol, what are you, 12 yrs old? :haha: :haha: Grow up dude. You sound like a serious liability to human rights. Are we allowed to pop you in the back of the head now?

this isn't our fault, it's yours.
Here comes the playground mentality again. I really don't care who's fault it is; there is no 'fault'. I wasn't apologising, and certainly not to you. I was pointing out that you're taking this a little too far, and starting to be very offensive. Cut it out.

I read the article, and understand the views contained therein. Next, we need Iraq's point of view on the matter, or else we are simply being bigots by examining ony one side's argument. Have you even tried to find similar scientific material from the 'enemies' point of view? Probably not.

No source of information which takes a point of view which is entirely one-sided (such as the article you linked to) should be used without an equally scientific article from the other side's point of view.

Once you've looked thoroughly at both arguments, only then can you get the truth. Only then can you truly decide, completely free of guilt, who you want to 'pop in the head', as it were.

Have you done this?

I think you should have a look for articles of this type before you say such things as...
Common traits or not, he needs to die..
:sour:

[Phobas]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Fine, so enlighten me - what's so bad about saddam? - And I'd like proof please, not rumors or your somewhat aggressive retorts.

All I know is that he won the last elections with an overwhelming victory.


yes what is wrong with saddam we all know that human rights groups complain too much.

Your right he did win the election overwhelmingly and with quite a large turn out too. You would think that the lack of any opposition would make the people apathetic but no, the turn out was probably higher than most democratic nations.

The fact that He gassed a few people is not a problem as people can change and he doesn't do that any more.

so what is so bad about saddam

[RandBlade]

Originally posted by Phobas
Your right he did win the election overwhelmingly and with quite a large turn out too. You would think that the lack of any opposition would make the people apathetic but no, the turn out was probably higher than most democratic nations.

The fact that He gassed a few people is not a problem as people can change and he doesn't do that any more.

so what is so bad about saddam :rolleyes:

The vote had a 100% turnout, and 100% of people voted for Saddam. If you think that means the slightest damned thing, then you're judgement is very badly damaged sorry.

[Moridin00]

Lol, I think he was being sarcastic RB... :)

[Phobas]

Originally posted by RandBlade
:rolleyes:

The vote had a 100% turnout, and 100% of people voted for Saddam. If you think that means the slightest damned thing, then you're judgement is very badly damaged sorry.

Actually I think that result means a lot. It is the clearest indication that something is not right overthere.
Nobody wins with 100% turn out and aceptance. Why didn't the oposition vote for themselves, oh wait I forgot there is no oposition.

Sorry about the sarcasm must tag it to save confusion.

[Lewkowski]

LOL

Anyone who thinks Saddam didn't rig the election is a fool.



Everyone is forced to vote. Those who don't are tortured and/or killed.

Where is your source of info on this Loki? Not that I think Saddam wouldn't do these things, I just see no reason for him to care about the vote. If 100% of the people voted AGAINST him, he would still say a 100% voted FOR him. And well what are the people going to do? Rebel againt him and get gased again? So why would he bother taking the effort to force people to vote in a meaningless election?

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Loki
Here is the summary of Iraq's last election:

Everyone is forced to vote. Those who don't are tortured and/or killed.

Everyone who voted for Hussein gets a food card stamped. If you don't vote for Hussein, you'd starve to death.

There were troops and Iraqi spies in most if not all voting places.

The people who didn't vote or didn't vote for Hussein in the prior election, are either dead or wish they were dead.

I really want to know where you people heard that Hussein got 100% of the vote because he's so popular. I don't think even KGB would believe such a blatant lie.

I'm no fan of Hussains either, but where did get this from, hve ever been there and saw this for yourself or are relying on the boob tube again for youre "facts"?

[Lewkowski]

To show the idiots in the West that he is popular. As you can see, his plan worked quite well.

But it didn't matter how the people voted, he would of said it was a 100% no matter what. So why go to the trouble to make sure everyone in the country went out and voted? I'm sure he's a very busy man, hiding his weapon programs must be a full time job.

Plus no rational sane person in the West actually believes it was a fair election!

[-)AO(-Necron99]

You'd be surprised how many irrational, insane people exist in the West, and how many of them hold important positions.

You mean eveyone doesnt know this?

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by -)AO(-Necron99
I'm no fan of Hussains either, but where did get this from, hve ever been there and saw this for yourself or are relying on the boob tube again for youre "facts"?

Loki's account of the vote was run in just about every major newspaper, tv broadcast and web newspaper in the US as well as the ones I read based in England.

And yes, everyone did vote, because that was the only way to get your food card stamped. No stamp = no food.

And before you go on another rant about how the news is all useless, and we have to have first hand experience to know, I'd like to suggest that you go to Iraq and get some first-hand experience, if you don't believe the election account.

[Citizen Kane]

Originally posted by Moridin00
Lol, what are you, 12 yrs old? :haha: :haha: Grow up dude. You sound like a serious liability to human rights. Are we allowed to pop you in the back of the head now?

Feel free to try.


Originally posted by Moridin00
Here comes the playground mentality again. I really don't care who's fault it is; there is no 'fault'. I wasn't apologising, and certainly not to you. I was pointing out that you're taking this a little too far, and starting to be very offensive. Cut it out.

So now you're upset that you're getting flak for saying something crazy, and this hurts your feelings? Well boohoo. Let me kiss it all better. :p The solution to this problem is to think about what you say before you say it...

Originally posted by Moridin00
I read the article, and understand the views contained therein. Next, we need Iraq's point of view on the matter, or else we are simply being bigots by examining ony one side's argument. Have you even tried to find similar scientific material from the 'enemies' point of view? Probably not.

Man, how transperant can you be? In my last post, I said that if this was a lame ploy to argue over the data, you can shove it. So, please do. There is no rational basis for doubt - witness accounts, satelite photographs, piles of dead bodies, unmistable proof of Sadam's brutal policies, and you need to hear his side to know the truth... man. Yeah, you would be better off saying you wear a tin foil hat to protect your brainwaves from the aliens... that is less crazy. Why? Well, at least some sane people believe in aliens.

Originally posted by Moridin00
No source of information which takes a point of view which is entirely one-sided (such as the article you linked to) should be used without an equally scientific article from the other side's point of view.


Yeah, those bastards who used all the evidence to reach the only rational conclusion... if you're so hell bent on finding out Sadam's side, go to Iraq's homepage and read that propaganda... based on what you've said here, you'd probably swallow it whole. "Wow, I was right... Iraq *is* a paradise, and Hussein *is* popular... he said so himself!" Yeah, I'm the one who sounds like I'm 12... more great logic from you.

Originally posted by Moridin00
Once you've looked thoroughly at both arguments, only then can you get the truth. Only then can you truly decide, completely free of guilt, who you want to 'pop in the head', as it were.

Have you done this?

Yeah, I've read Sadam's propaganda... and only someone with the mind of a child would believe any of it.

Originally posted by Moridin00
I think you should have a look for articles of this type before you say such things as...
.
:sour:

You're right... someone who's killed over 100,000 people, caused misery and suffering for millions more for the past two decades and is guilty of more war crimes than Milosovich obviously doesn't deserve to be killed.

Bah... fine, you're entitled to your propagandized world view... maybe you should consider moving to Iraq, since Sadam really isn't tha bad afterall. I bet you could even get him to tell you his side of the story.

[-)AO(-Necron99]

Originally posted by Citizen Kane
Loki's account of the vote was run in just about every major newspaper, tv broadcast and web newspaper in the US as well as the ones I read based in England.

And yes, everyone did vote, because that was the only way to get your food card stamped. No stamp = no food.

And before you go on another rant about how the news is all useless, and we have to have first hand experience to know, I'd like to suggest that you go to Iraq and get some first-hand experience, if you don't believe the election account.

Uh, no rant needed, Mr knowitall, I was asking HIM a simple question and got my answer, get over it.:rolleyes:

[LittleFuzzy]

Originally posted by Moridin00
All I know is that he won the last elections with an overwhelming victory.

Guys, please. It's a troll. I mean, just look at what he said! No one is that oblivious.

[Loki]

Does anyone still think that Hussein was popular? :p

*misses CK* :sour:

[Ben Parker]

They used to call Rhodesia the 'breadbasket of Africa'. What a coincidence that it's turned into the hellhole it is now that the British don't rule.

God, it really pisses me off when people won't just WAKE UP and realise that these people CAN NOT run their own countries! Have you seen the way people act there? Absolute ****ing savages, and it's the same with EVERY sub-saharan country. Even South Africa is an absolute ghetto now.

[Lewkowski]

If the US wasn't involved in other places already I would fully support us going in and killing this dicator and those who support him.

I'm a firm believer in pax Americana. We're the biggest badest country out there, be nice to your people and we leave you alone be a murdering ******* face the wrath of a world super power.

And yeah I know this will never happen, but one can dream. :up:

[Indictus Ira]

Realise your dream, and stop dreaming them. :p

[Loki]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
If the US wasn't involved in other places already I would fully support us going in and killing this dicator and those who support him.

I'm a firm believer in pax Americana. We're the biggest badest country out there, be nice to your people and we leave you alone be a murdering ******* face the wrath of a world super power.

And yeah I know this will never happen, but one can dream. :up:

You still think this after Iraq? :o

[Dead-Metal]

Originally posted by Loki
There was an election fairly recently. The prediction was, that if Mugabe's troops didn't interfere, he'd lose by a large margin. His troops interfered. It's silly to think that the same thing won't happen again. Besides, he happens to have too many supporters in the third world. Probably something to do with being anti white people.

Lets not forget about the other African despots he isn't alone there after all. I hope Mugabe gets cancer or aids the filthy pig should die for what he's done to his country. He's starting to remind me of good old uncle Joe aka Stalin. :down:

[The Holy One]

I think that the western world should go in and kill all dictators in all countries around the world then leave so peace will reign across the lands. :heart:

[Dead-Metal]

Originally posted by The Holy One
I think that the western world should go in and kill all dictators in all countries around the world then leave so peace will reign across the lands. :heart:

If only it were that simple to create peace! :cry:

[The Holy One]

I can dream can't i. :)

[Dreadnaught]

Originally posted by Loki
You still think this after Iraq? :o

Flip flopper :o

Of course, we all know that Lewk will say that Iraq is doing fine and that they will have free elections soon.

[The Holy One]

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
Flip flopper :o

Of course, we all know that Lewk will say that Iraq is doing fine and that they will have free elections soon.
And god help us if he gets that one right then nothing would shut him up...:eek:

[Lewkowski]

Iraq is doing fine and there will be free elections on Sunday.

:up:

[The Holy One]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Iraq is doing fine and there will be free elections on Sunday.

:up:
Here we go!!!

God help us all....:cry:

[Ziggy Stardust]

Originally posted by Lewkowski
Iraq is doing fine and there will be free elections on Sunday.

:up: :D :up: