|
| Thread: Is America Stupid, is it the president, or what? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted February 09, 2004 02:29 PM |
|
|
I think they ditched that reason and replaced it with:
The French said we shouldn't, and we all know the French are never right don't we? 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 09, 2004 06:45 PM |
|
|
The reason I asked about nationalism is beacause where I live, in Northern Ireland we have the Nationalists who want Ireland to be united as a nation with it's capital in Dublin, or Loyalists, who want to stay as part of the United Kingdom.
For 30 odd years there was war - bombs everywhere, armed soldiers patrolling the streets, was terrible, it's now calmed down quite a bit and life can nearly be called normal.
I was born into the Nationalist side, and as such, because I was raised in that community, think of myself as Irish, I was born on the island of Ireland. But I don't think of myself as a nationalist as in 'I hate the British' type of nationalist. I couldn't care less about territorial disputes, at the end of the day it's just a piece of bloody rock in the Atlantic.
I'm proud to be Irish, that Irish people can be found everywhere, like germs, and usually working in/propping up the bar. I like our myths and legends (Leprechauns/Banshees/fighting the Vikings etc.)
But the situation here is just one example of how Nationalism - the word, has been corrupted. So if you say 'I hate right wing bigots' it's fine. If you say 'I hate nationalists' then you're just perpetuating the corruption of a word that should be seen as a good thing. I expect people from france to be proud of their 'french-ness'. Americans can pledge allegiance to whatever the hell they want and it's fine. It's when the term nationalist is hi-jacked by ethnophobic idiots that the problems start.
BTW, i met a smart American the other day, so I'm changing my mind from my last post 
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 09, 2004 11:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
America,
Your president is dumb, dishonest, greedy, & inconsiderate.
Where the hell are the WMDs?!
Until now they still haven't found any?
We've been tricked!
He's not dumb, not the smartest president, not the worst either. Not the worst in the least.
How is he dishonest? For acting on faulty intelligence that most if not all intelligence services had around the world? Greedy, how? Inconsiderate, again how?
We've been tricked? Have we, and how is that Bush's fault? If every country had this intelligence, how did Bush trick you?
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 09, 2004 11:35 PM |
|
|
Blissful Paranoiya
Quote:
We've been tricked!
LoL, This is the sort of thing that will ignite X-File fans and Conspiracy Theorists around the world. Yeah they didn't say it was only president Bush. In fact Tony Blair is defending himself as we speak over in the U.K. It's more than an american failure of intelligence. This is big, way bigger than one single country.
PrivateHudson, Have a go at it will yah? What's the word over there? Is Blair going to be de-throned or what?
As for claiming that a country's ruler or elected leader is to blame for intelligence failure, that's a highly debatable subject. We need to find out where these people who called Iraq an imminent threat got their info from. Did they make it up so we could go to war? It's a good question and I, for one, would like to find out.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 09, 2004 11:38 PM |
|
|
Tony's gotten a fair roasting in the last week, and he'll get it for a while still. But I don't think it'll be enough to de-throne him. After all, he's only as good as his intelligence sources.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 09, 2004 11:56 PM |
|
|
I think it's safe to say that whilst the entire knew he had WMD's in the past, and that most believed he still had some capability, an awful lot didn't whole-heartedly agree with the level of threat that the Anglo-Americans portrayed him to have, or the mass of WMD's we claimed either. We here much about this "45 minutes" readiness for chemical warheads in British governmental circles. What they didn't tell the public was that said warheads were purely battlefield warheads, severely limited in range and therefore ability to hit out at either his neighbours or specifically Britain.
The opposition here made a fair bit of a point on it all, they asked Blair why he did not inform the British public that this was the case, to which he replied something like "I did not know myself" You'd think if a PM is taking his country to war he'd check these things right? Then it was known that Geoff Hoon (Defense Secretary) DID know, in which case, is it really that believeable that he wouldn't tell Blair? (and if not he deserves to be sacked frankly for doing a poor job) Further questions revealed that Blair simply didn't bother to ask.
I guess that puts both Blair and Bush in a slightly awkward position. Since some of the evidence they presented for WMD's (the Niger fake) was blatantly known to be a fake by at the bare minimum British intelligence, and the fact that not one realistic piece of evidence has ever been found in Iraq to support WMD's, it leaves a number of conclusions:
1) Sadam and co hid them so damned well no-one can find them.
So why didn't he hide there as well? Ok seriously, doubtfull given US teams on the ground have combed Iraq b now
2) He destroyed them before the invasion, be it long or just before.
Plausible, in which case obviously the WMD reasoning for war has just been shot away
3) He sold them on
Unlikely unless done long before the war as moving such equipment would be time consuming and probably quite visible to allied intelligence. In that case again, the WMD reason was shot away, but some strength is added to the morality of the war as he'd probably sell to rogue nations
As for the misleading charge, I'll say this as my own personal opinion and conjecture. I have come to believe that Bush and Blair were determined for whatever reason (which I won't go into here) to invade Iraq. As part of that I believe both looked to justification in doing so. In a large part prior to the war, Bush mainly used the reasoning of regime change, and Blair that of WMD threat to the region and British interests (cyprus in the main). I think though that both realised that regime change would not be enough, so needed to push the claims of WMD's.
Now I don't know if he was planning WMD production or had that many dangerous ones (ie beyond battlefield use). If he did I strongly suspect they were either destroyed or removed from the country before the war, possibly by quite some time so that traces have left the area.
I personally believe Bush and Blair told their respective intelligence agencies to search for proof, and to some degree they found some, mainly circumstansial. This clearly most intelligence agencies globally knew. But crucially I don't think the intelligence gathered was sufficiently checked, nor was it sufficient alone to prove WMD's were either in the country or being planned.
BUT I believe it was enough for Blair and Bush. Clearly they felt the poorly checked (in places) and weak evidence supported their cause enough to make the claim. Unfortunately (or otherwise depending on how you look at it) no WMD's seem to have been in Iraq at the time of the invasion. It seems like Blair and Bush lied to their respective countries.
Now here's the shock, I don't think they did
I think if they're guilty of anything it's hurrying along the intelligence agencies and not checking their facts enough. Some of the intelligence gathered was fake, other weak, and some sloppy. I believe given time to iron this out, that the agencies would have produced a much better and more precise case for or against Sadam having WMD's. I believe they should have waited for this, it's their duty to their people to be absolutely sure about these things before leaping into a war.
But then again, I don't think for Bush certainly that WMD's ever really mattered, it was about regime change officially. WMD's were only ever part of the US argument to support this change, not the main reason for war. Still though it was the US that presented the report that was so hasty (IMO), so they catch some flak.
Blair is "lucky" enough to have handed the report on the whole issue and David Kelly (a WMD inspector and advisor to the government who allegedly told the BBC that the Government ordered the British dossier on the war "sexed up", Kelly killed himself after his name was released to the press as the man who made the accusation) to a certain Lord Hutton. Hutton has a history of whitewashing in favour of the government (he defended the paratroopers responsible for the Bloody Sunday massacre in N.Ireland) and proceeded to find them totally innocent, blaming the BBC for everything.
Thanks to that he will probably ride out this whole mess reputation mostly intact. I personally think though that he let down the country by using such poor evidence without making 100% sure. It's good that we have been involved in removing a dictator, but he should not have pinned his reasons to a set of intelligence that was so faulty. And a set he either did not read, or more likely ignored certain points (such as the 45 minute weapon thing). It's his duty to be certain about these things, and it's to his detriment that he was not.
Bush I doubt will be touched by much of this. Again though since his government went before the UN based on such dossiers of information that was both unchecked and hurried, though he may not have knowingly "mislead" your country, perhaps the more accurate remark would be that he did not, like blair do his job properly. He should IMO have made sure that the intelligence was correct, whatever the source, whatever the motive.
So not mislead, more let down. In times when leaders bring their country to war they owe a duty to be sure why they are doing it, and be sure that the reason is solidly backed. I don't think either did that, and that IMO is damaging to their respective causes. I also don't think that all the sources were made up, just not checked.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Blair and Bush should personally have checked each and every document, but they should have ordered their agencies to do so.
And that ladies and gents is about as balanced a Blair/Bush post as you'll ever be likely to get out of me!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 10, 2004 02:56 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 9 Feb 2004
|
Time Will Tell
Quote:
Bush I doubt will be touched by much of this.
Time will tell my friend. President Bush is currently being hammered by an unlikely political tactic aimed at his military experience in the national guard. We shall see if it all ties in with the "I based my decision on what I was told" claim.
We shall see if any news comes to light on this matter of misinformation.
Personally, I question any government that goes to war solely based on information gathered by the intelligence community. Then again, cloak and dagger was never my forte'. It's an entire world of spies and counter spies and as the leader of a country I would think you must ask yourself how reliable the information truly is. Historically speaking, intelligence should be used during wartime and during peacetime. It's simply information that's all. Pre-emptive wars rarely, if ever paint the agressor as correct. Some of the human contacts of this deranged world are quite unsavory, very sketchy, and I wouldn't use information drawn from a dirty well to start a war if you get my meaning.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 10, 2004 08:33 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 10 Feb 2004
|
Quote:
BTW, I met a smart American the other day, so I'm changing my mind from my last post
Really? And where did you find this unique example? (joking)
I can’t believe that you guys actually trust your leaders when they say they attacked Iraq because their intelligence reports said there are WMD. They are not stupid to have believed unconfirmed indications of WMD, and that be the only reason for attacking Iraq.
When they claimed there are WMD in Iraq, you defended that stance. Now when they blame the intelligence reports, you trust them again. (and all that mass media propaganda, may God help us)
I think it’s because you have full trust in your institutions, which of course is a very good thing, but I think it doesn’t give you an objective perspective on foreign affairs.
privatehudson, you and I actually (though partially) agree in something. It’s true that unreliable intelligence reports are no excuse for Bush and Blair to attack Iraq.
But, in my opinion, both of them knew there are no WMD in Iraq and both of them had much better reasons than that (or regime change) to attack Iraq (I think power and money). However, neither if them felt that the public was going to go for one of these, so here’s when they put in the WMD threat. Now, when there is clearly no evidence of WMD existence (even Bush admitted it), they are trying to put the blame on someone else. Some key figures in the intelligence agencies are gonna get thrown out of job (maybe even jail) and Bush and Blair are gonna run the elections and win them probably.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
ProudAmerican
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted February 10, 2004 11:46 PM |
|
|
You people do realize that the United States tried to play the game by the rules setup by the international community. The U.S. went to the United Nations asking for them to grant the OK to go into Iraq, only to be denied by countries that were in business with one of the worst dictators on the plant, and remember all this business was in violation of their own UN resolutions. Speaking of resolutions, Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions, dating back to the treaty signed at the end of the first Gulf War, and the last 1441, passed by the UN months before the U.S. went in.
The UN has recognized that Saddam had WMD’s; the entire world recognized that Iraq had WMD’s, 2 former Presidents recognized that they had WMD’s. Saddam had months to get ride of these weapons. Most likely he moved them into Syria, or maybe he buried them in the desert somewhere. Who cares, he had them, he used them, and he openly funded terrorist. He was a threat to the people in his country, people in the region and free people all over the world.
Thank God President Bush is not as weak as some of the people who want to lead this great nation.
It seems to be OK with the rest of the world when America goes in and saves some other countries ass, but it is a problem when we try to root out the evil terrorist who hates our free way of life.
Well guess what, Americans could care less what the rest off the f***ing world thinks of us. We are the only Superpower left in this world, and we are the only ones capable of leading the War on terror.
Death to all terrorist!
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 11, 2004 01:03 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Feb 2004
|
You Don't Speak For Me
Quote:
Well guess what, Americans could care less what the rest off the f***ing world thinks of us. We are the only Superpower left in this world, and we are the only ones capable of leading the War on terror.
Excuse me Sir or Madamn, but you don't speak for me. I am an American and I care a great deal about what the rest of the world thinks about us.
We are not the only superpower left. China, Brittain, France, and India are superpowers. That is not to mention other smaller countries that also have nuclear warheads and weapons like Pakistan and North Korea. I wonder what you consider to be a "superpower"? Is it defined by any country that has nuclear weapons or any country with a third of the world's population in it? If you chose the latter then China would be the top superpower. Is it any country at the top of the stock market in the world economy?
As for us being the only ones left in this world capable of leading the war on terror then I must ask what you consider to be the guidelines for such an undertaking. You seem to have a strong opinion in one political direction but are your theories backed by tangible evidence?
I don't speak for the rest of the members here but I don't think you made anyone feel any better towards the U.S.A.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Zero
Hired Hero
of Hyrule
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 01:06 AM |
|
|
I agree it didn't make me feel better at all
____________
I am the one who will lead you to the Final Destination
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 01:08 AM |
|
|
Yup, it just pretty much hammers the nail in the coffin of America's reputation hearing stuff like that.
Germany probably felt like that around 1944.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Zero
Hired Hero
of Hyrule
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 01:19 AM |
|
|
All americans now feel stupid because the french were right about going to iraq and we said they were wrong
____________
I am the one who will lead you to the Final Destination
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 02:29 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You people do realize that the United States tried to play the game by the rules setup by the international community. The U.S. went to the United Nations asking for them to grant the OK to go into Iraq, only to be denied by countries that were in business with one of the worst dictators on the plant, and remember all this business was in violation of their own UN resolutions. Speaking of resolutions, Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions, dating back to the treaty signed at the end of the first Gulf War, and the last 1441, passed by the UN months before the U.S. went in.
I'd be suprised if they were not aware of such things. Still though the question often put is "What makes Iraq different?" Israel has many a resolution against her, and yet US policy has almost always stood dead against action in any form, let alone realistic action for change. Talking about your criticism of countries like France and the Germans is intruiging also as the same charge can be levelled at the British in some respects. That kind of charge also raises the notion that with Britain arming or trading with many a rogue nation, will that rule us out of moral action now?
Quote:
We are not the only superpower left. China, Brittain, France, and India are superpowers
That's an extremely loose defenition of superpower. Britain and France is a shadow of it's past power, and the UK especially is all but the slave to US policy that Blair has continued to make us. Combined perhaps all of those could force the US to avoid action in the same degree Russia could in the past, but apart, none of them alone could do so. I guess if I had to define it I'd say none of them have alone the power to deter American attitudes that Russia had.
Quote:
The UN has recognized that Saddam had WMD’s; the entire world recognized that Iraq had WMD’s, 2 former Presidents recognized that they had WMD’s. Saddam had months to get ride of these weapons. Most likely he moved them into Syria, or maybe he buried them in the desert somewhere.
LOL! No offense, but Syria mysteriously only ever got the blame for the dissapearance now that they can't find them in Iraq... Sounds like the Anglo-Americans casting around for someone to blame for their own mistakes. I still strongly think that WMD's on the scale we accuse them of having could not have realistically been moved prior to the war unless either the US noticed or the movement was so long before that the issue was irrelevant.
Whilst we're on the subject though, isn't it nice to remember that whilst the US and UK were so damned busy accusing Iraq and North Korea of selling nuclear weapons/WMD's/plans for either, it was neither in fact, but the US' own allies in Pakistan... Well the scientist claims he acted alone, but who knows how much official backing he really had? Some allies our friends turned out to be in the war on terror....
Quote:
Who cares, he had them, he used them, and he openly funded terrorist. He was a threat to the people in his country, people in the region and free people all over the world.
The British people care now that Blair has openly been vague and misleading about the whole issue of WMD's. You can't make an entire case for war based on the WMD issue and then when you don't find them go "Who cares!". Blair chose badly and failed to check his facts before he did so.
Quote:
It seems to be OK with the rest of the world when America goes in and saves some other countries ass, but it is a problem when we try to root out the evil terrorist who hates our free way of life.
Unfortunately there's quite a good theory that blasting the hell out of someone's country will half the time cause more terrorism than anything else. Combine that with an intense arrogance by the USA, or a section of it's population (percieved wrongly to be the main section) and you really don't have to figure to hard why your country is disliked...
Quote:
Well guess what, Americans could care less what the rest off the f***ing world thinks of us. We are the only Superpower left in this world, and we are the only ones capable of leading the War on terror.
Enter stage left one member of that section
Actually you are wrong on this comic-book atttitude to the war on terror. There's a number of countries in the world that have been dealing with their own "war on terror" since long before America finally showed it's face, and many of them employ completely different attitudes. Take the British, 40 odd years of terrorism in N. Ireland (for whatever reason), a war we have brought relatively close to ending without the need to invade Ireland*, which ironically your country would have argued constantly against anyway. France has been and continues to be heavily involved in her former colonies fighting terrorism there and quite effectively. What they don't do is send a few hundred thousand very visible troops though, so no-one notices, but they get the job done, which is a little bit more important I'd say than being seen to be fighting terrorism.
You see, you might find this unpopular, but there's more than 1 way to fight terrorism, and the way the Anglo/US alliance has chosen is merely the most obviously visible form. Whether it will gain more than we loose by doing it is anyone's guess, but others do not use such forms, but still have been fighting terror for decades, sometimes quite effectively. So whilst you may think you're the only ones capable, what the reality is you are the only ones being obvious about it.
Throw in the fact that we even support nations involved in such things (Uganda and Zimbabwe anyone?) and others that are quite nonchalant about human rights (Saudis and Pakistan?) and your argument starts to loose ground.
*Not suggesting we should of, but following US principle over Iraq, that would have been the relevant action.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 03:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
We are not the only superpower left. China, Brittain, France, and India are superpowers.
Nope, the US is the only superpower. China and India have the spots for top two countries in terms of population, but they are still third world countries. I know India is, whether they like it or not. Not positive on China, but I know I have heard of that before.
Quote:
No offense, but Syria mysteriously only ever got the blame for the dissapearance now that they can't find them in Iraq...
Where ya been? That theory has been on the table since the whole thing started.
Quote:
Whilst we're on the subject though, isn't it nice to remember that whilst the US and UK were so damned busy accusing Iraq and North Korea of selling nuclear weapons/WMD's/plans for either, it was neither in fact, but the US' own allies in Pakistan... Well the scientist claims he acted alone, but who knows how much official backing he really had? Some allies our friends turned out to be in the war on terror....
Personally, I never considered Pakistan as an ally.
I heard about him, he was pardoned no questions asked, that’s insane. I wonder what would happen to him if he was selling them to India…
Quote:
Unfortunately there's quite a good theory that blasting the hell out of someone's country will half the time cause more terrorism than anything else.
That’s why there are people enjoying their new freedom and democracy in Iraq, right? There is a minority of insurgents, who have tried to send a letter to Al Quaida asking for help. The letter was confiscated today.
Quote:
Combine that with an intense arrogance by the USA, or a section of it's population (percieved wrongly to be the main section) and you really don't have to figure to hard why your country is disliked...
Intense arrogance of the USA? There are many other countries who have a perceived arrogance, like Britain, France especially France, Germany, mostly Western Europe on the whole. I didn’t say they were arrogant, but that’s sure how it seems. That was a “you’re doing it too” thingy that you said you don’t like.
Quote:
Actually you are wrong on this comic-book atttitude to the war on terror. There's a number of countries in the world that have been dealing with their own "war on terror" since long before America finally showed it's face, and many of them employ completely different attitudes. Take the British, 40 odd years of terrorism in N. Ireland (for whatever reason), a war we have brought relatively close to ending without the need to invade Ireland*, which ironically your country would have argued constantly against anyway. France has been and continues to be heavily involved in her former colonies fighting terrorism there and quite effectively. What they don't do is send a few hundred thousand very visible troops though, so no-one notices, but they get the job done, which is a little bit more important I'd say than being seen to be fighting terrorism.
You see, you might find this unpopular, but there's more than 1 way to fight terrorism, and the way the Anglo/US alliance has chosen is merely the most obviously visible form. Whether it will gain more than we loose by doing it is anyone's guess, but others do not use such forms, but still have been fighting terror for decades, sometimes quite effectively. So whilst you may think you're the only ones capable, what the reality is you are the only ones being obvious about it.
The war on terror started long before the “War on Terror” started, one could say it started in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s. At that time the US attacked Tripoli and the other Barbary States, that I guess would be the first major battle in the ongoing war on terror. Countries have been doing things to fight terror to it’s citizens for hundreds of years.
A major blow to the ongoing fight would be the passing of the Torricelli sp? Principal passed by former president Clinton and pushed for by then senator Torricelli. Before the Torricelli principal was passed, the CIA would pay people in other countries for information on other factions in dispute of territory, at least in Afghanistan. Torricelli was upset when one warlord/general was caught committing Human Rights atrocities and was still under the payroll of the CIA. There were other instances of these types of things and Torricelli wanted to change it. The idea was good, but just like communism, only on paper. The Torricelli principal stopped the paying of any non-US citizen abroad for information. In effect, it dried up the well of information available to the CIA. That’s a problem, the CIA has turned into almost a worthless agency, much like the KGB today I suppose.
____________
|
|
zero
Hired Hero
of Hyrule
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 03:50 AM |
|
|
i'm proud to be american but i'm not proud of being under bush
____________
I am the one who will lead you to the Final Destination
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 11, 2004 04:50 AM |
|
|
Oh Dear Wolfman
Hey Wolfman I love yah and all but when PrivateHudson sees this he's going to have a field day with you. It's a bit loose and I can find lots of holes in the argument. I'm just glad I didn't type it up myself. Let me tell you in advance my friend, I feel your pain. However their might be a chance to lighten his disagreement if you go back and edit your post to close some holes and tighten it up making it very focused in one direction. Debating in a single direction is much easier than debating in many.
Those are my humble words of advice and I perfectly understand if you want to tell me to go to hell though. I just want to help. I understand that everyone learns at their own pace. I've been shot down so many times in the past that I've lost count and now I try to focus my debates on single directions or theories.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 04:55 AM |
|
|
No thanks, I was just interjecting my thoughts into the fray. PH always has a field day with my posts anyway. WOuldn't want to take that fun from him. 
Get rid of that flag on your signature! It's so confusing scrolling through this stuff and seeing it, I think it's sonmething I posted at first...
I can give you the website for it if you want...and you could put a different color in the background...
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 11, 2004 05:01 AM |
|
|
Heh Heh Heh LoL Wolfman
Hehehehe Wolfman consider it stolen fair and square! I totally stole it because I'm an american and I totally love it!
You'll have to force me to give it back and I don't accept bribes! Hehehe IT'S MINE FOREVER MWAHAHAHAHA
LoL, over the top bud, I'm just kidding. I'm actually waiting for my signature to be sent to me from a friend. Until then I'd like to ask permission to use yours. I'm feeling a bit patriotic lately.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
redhawk
Known Hero
Gaurdian Supreme
|
|
posted February 11, 2004 05:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
i'm proud to be american but i'm not proud of being under bush
Hey zero, I'm proud to be an american to, I'm also a soldier and a patriot. your statement however was very humorous, Cause some of us still like Bush. !!!
____________
It's better to burn out, Than fade away !!!!!!!!
|
| |
|
|
