President Bush should step down

[Jenos Ridan]

The only reason the UN can be qualified as worthless is because their edicts have no teeth.

The UN is entirely dependent on the US, if you don't believe me maybe you should visit their headquarters in New York City. If they were to align themselves with the World Court in The Hague, then maybe we'd see some progress. Until that happens, they're going to continue to be an international, glorified, blue ribbon commission.

Honestly, you'd think that the World Court would be part of the UN now. Guess not, but that might just need to be.

[Jenos Ridan]

I wasn't involved in that thread. Hard to clamour for anything when I wasn't there!

I'll take it back then. Too bad...you missed another wonderful Spuzzelism.

My larger point remains, Guis. Sarcasm and other forms of banter are used quite frequently here against those who don't bow down and worship at the altar of Hegel, Marx, Darwin, Huxley, Engels, Voltaire, and Nietzsche. Let one conservative get up and do it for awhile to blow off a little steam and the cries of "stop it" come out.

They do have those tendicies, don't they?

[Guiscard]

Alright alright Guis...

I've read the report now (well, parts of it, it gets a bit dry after a while).
It states throughout the report Saddam's desire to obtain & develop WMDs.
It also confirms the use of the same in both the Iran/Iraq war, AND after the Gulf War in 1991.
In the years following Iraq’s war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief through the appearance of cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Saddam’s initial approach under sanctions was driven by his perceived requirements for WMD and his confidence in Iraq’s ability to ride out inspections without fully cooperating. Interwoven into this basic fabric of Iraq’s interaction with the UN were equally significant domestic, international, and family events, all influenced by and reflective of Saddam’s strategic intent. These events can be divided into five phases that cover the entire period 1980 to 2003.

Then it goes into defining the 5 phases.

The report also states:
Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that he made a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.Wishing to develop WMDs at a later date bears no relation to him having them when we invaded. it is not a crime to want WMDs but it is a crime to develop them if forbidden. Saddam’s primary concern was retaining a cadre of skilled scientists to facilitate reconstitution of WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, according to former science advisor Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far Hashim.


And:
Baghdad reluctantly submitted to inspections, declaring only part of its ballistic missile and chemical warfare programs to the UN, but not its nuclear weapon and biological warfare programs, which it attempted to hide from inspectors.

Now here's a good one:
Saddam initially expected the sanctions would last no more than three years, and many Iraqis doubted the sanctions would be so comprehensive, according to several detainee interviews. Following unexpectedly thorough inspections, Saddam ordered Husayn Kamil in July 1991 to destroy unilaterally large numbers of undeclared weapons and related materials to conceal Iraq’s WMD capabilities. Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction. Again, we all know Saddam wanted WMDs. Iraq was under UN inspection specifically because we KNOW he wanted WMDs. Again, wanting does not mean he has them. It is not a valid reason for invasion.
These are not the only assertions outlined in the report.

Now couple those statements with this:
From 27Jan06:
An Iraqi air force general with information on Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction is scheduled to meet with Senators Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) next week. It seems that the Iraq WMD controversy is about to crack open once more. In a book titled Saddam’s Secrets, Gen. Georges Sada claims that Saddam Hussein moved weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) to Syria prior to the American invasion. According to Sada, two cargo aircraft made 56 flights to Syria. They were carrying “yellow barrels with skull and crossbones on each barrel.” There was also a truck convoy.

Sada is not the first person to make this claim. On 23 December 2002, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon publicly stated, “Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria.” Last month, former Israeli Defense Force chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, claimed that Saddam Hussein moved chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before American forces entered Iraq. I'm not denying that many people do think they were transported. What I am saying is that, after intense and in depth investigation by the US government, who wants more than anything to find WMDs, they came to the conclusion that, based on all the available evidence, they were not transported.

Now I will not deny what you're saying, I can't find it in the report, but I assume you're not making it up.
But I will also not deny my contention that they were there (WMDs), we did not find stockpiles (even though we did find caches of over 500 chemically armed artillery shells), and that it is not that unreasonable to assert that they were moved out of the country, most likely to Syria.

Can we now agree to disagree?
My apologies for taking a long time to respond to your legitimate question. I admit I had to do some research to give you an educated response. We can debate the U.N. if you like. I think it would be best to start it in another thread though.

Here's an idea. How 'bout Luns & I team up against you and (pick your lefty partner ) in a no cards doubles game in the Middle East? All in fun.
Strictly for bragging rights.

I've addressed some issues in the quote in blue.

I don't believe this is an answer, to be honest. The extracts you have posted are valid, and I have always maintained that our governments considered the issue of transportation in depth. The conclusions they reached, however, were that it did not happen. Chemically armed artillery shells are not the WMDs we went in to stop. What the report says is that it IS unreasonable to argue that they were taken to Syria, even taking into account Israeli claims and statements by Iraqi military figures. I don't mind that you believe they were transported, but the report categorically states that they were not and so I'd still like to know why the government apparently lied.

But I'm obviously not gonna get an answer.

[Iz Man]

I don't believe this is an answer, to be honest. The extracts you have posted are valid, and I have always maintained that our governments considered the issue of transportation in depth. The conclusions they reached, however, were that it did not happen. Chemically armed artillery shells are not the WMDs we went in to stop. What the report says is that it IS unreasonable to argue that they were taken to Syria, even taking into account Israeli claims and statements by Iraqi military figures. I don't mind that you believe they were transported, but the report categorically states that they were not and so I'd still like to know why the government apparently lied.

Once again, WMD's were not the sole reason for eliminating the Saddam regime. Even if I were to concede to your point concerning WMD's (which I'm not), would you be willing to let Saddam continue his research and eventual production of WMD's? Would you let him continue to defy these U.N. resolutions?

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

These resolutions he repeatedly violated, with no recourse from the toothless U.N.
SOMEONE needed to stop him, and the U.N. was obviously not going to enforce its own resolutions.
It is a good thing he is gone.

[Guiscard]

Once again, WMD's were not the sole reason for eliminating the Saddam regime. Even if I were to concede to your point concerning WMD's (which I'm not), would you be willing to let Saddam continue his research and eventual production of WMD's? Would you let him continue to defy these U.N. resolutions?

He was not developing Nuclear weapons, and the UN inspectors reported this. He WAS breaking resolutions, and I believe the UN was exerting sanctions which fitted the 'crime', as it were. There was no need for military action at that point, and when that time came - when UN inspectors believed there were WMDs or at least a program which could produce them (which categorically there was not, and had not been since 1991), they would have authorised military action. We jumped the gun on this one. They have authorised military action in the past, the first Gulf War for example, but in this case, with the benefit of hindsight, we KNOW there were no WMDs and we KNOW the UN was right when it said 'No WMDs, we don't invade yet.'

We can see the same thing with Iran at the moment. They obviously have a desire to create a nuclear arsenal, and the UN imposes economic sanctions to make it as hard as possible for progress to be made. If and when it looks like they are beginning the processes of making WMDs the UN will authorise military action. We cannot invade because someone WANTS to do something in the future. Invasion must be based on concrete facts, and ours were wrong.

The UN WAS enforcing resolutions, but it just hadn't made one regarding military force yet. It may well have done in the future, but it hadn't yet.

If we keep thinking that it is OK to plough on unilaterally without the assent of the International community then it undermines the whole system of international justice and reason. If we can act unilaterally, why do we even need to bother with a reason? Who are we responsible to? THAT is why we cannot ignore the UN. We need an international organisation with the power to regulate and enforce, and part of that power involves powerful countries (the US and Russia) working WITH it not AGAINST it when it doesn't suit them. An example would be the Apartheid movement. The US was the sole opposition to pretty much a decade of resolutions which were trying to act to stop apartheid in South Africa. Every other country acted for the benefit of the international community, but the US acted out of self-interest. The UN may seem toothless, but it would not be if the US committed fully to making it work.

You formed the fucking thing after all...

[Anarchist]

Well said Guiscard,

However I do want to know.. What is stopping America from becoming the international dictatorship that America is claiming to be protecting us against?

Also the fact that if it was the right thing to do by invading Iraq, Why then is it more dangerous in Iraq and around the world now that America has illegaly occupied a foreign country to supposedly protect world interests?

Giving you then benefit of the doubt that it wasnt for the interests of those proffiting by it-(in the billions)

[Cheesemore]

He was a president at the wrong time, I think that's why people hate him, he was there and he took the blame (wait it out though, he's got one more year, and you wouldn't want Chenny running the country would you?)

[Anarchist]

I dont want any democrat or republican running this country!

Id rather vote for Oprah and Willie Nelson!

We have enough criminals in this country, why should we allow them to run it too? Pretending like they are actually doing something important besides banning flag burning,declaring english the american language,banning gay marriage, giving Anne Frank honorary citisenship.
All of them need to be fired!

[Jenos Ridan]

And what do you suggest? Some sort of neo-marxist police state? I just can't see how that would be any better, seeing as how such a system would lead to stagation, economically and socially.

Anarchism? Yeah, right. That will last all of one day before people being to complain about the lawlessness.

Theocracy, as Jay would seem to like? No, No and NO. AND I MEAN NOOOOOO AND NO MEANS NO! Need I remind everyone about the Papal States of the 14th-Early 19th centuries? Or the modern day equevalent, Iran?

Did Bush make some errors in judgement? Apparently so. Is he the worst President ever? Can't tell, too soon. Should he step down? No, not unless you really like Cheney.

[5th SS Pz. Jat]

You people must (a: Not think things through, or (b: Be insane. If Bush steps down, Dick Cheney will take over. He is basically a Nazi. We need Bush to stay where he is.

[Anarchist]

I think we should get rid of all of them and elect some guy who has slept on the street for atleast a week. You know someone who actually cares about the people he rules over, not someone who has been an elitist all his life and has never spoken to a commoner.

Neo-Marxist Police State? (like China?)
How would that be different from the Neo-Conservative Police state we live in now?

No, why not a socialised one? You know the one that has never been tried before in large communities, we would ofcourse prevent it from evolving into communism through the right to bare arms. Democratic rule is also something that hasnt truly been tried before.(without provisions)

Yes its true that the lower class would no longer have to work 50 hour work weeks and that need would be placed before wants, fortunately the reduction of private jet sales will open the doors for things such as universal education and healthcare. Everyone being given access to what was formerly considered privilage. Yes, the upper class will suffer. ofcourse If I had a mansion I probably wouldnt be wasting my time complaining about the inequalities and flaws in your perfect economic system. Which fails to look at the world in color and insists that its black and white.

An Anarchist state?
- We could only be so lucky! To imagine a world where people are no longer being told what to do! That every person may govern his own life!
I could finally go to the middle east without a passport and no worries of being shot for being an imperialist.

Which laws would they miss first? I doubt that taxes and the draft be one of them. The legalisation of drugs perhaps that would cause an outrage!
Ofourse then comes the inevitable, the need to stand up for justice like a real man.

However I see a rise in the homicide rate a likely outcome, I still say eliminating the cause would be much better then finding a temporary cure.
Ofcourse if the world had three laws we would enjoy far more freedom then we do now with our millions of laws which don't even protect our freedom only inhibit it further by causing conformity. I find it funny that laws are past to protect the freedoms of the few who wish to control the rest. yet it is we Anarchists who are the supposed menace to society

-what will we do with all the prisons?

It was the fascists who commited the holocaust and not the Anarchists, just like it has been with every other war and genocide, who are you protecting us from really? All your precious laws....

[Iliad]

What about typing normally?

[Jenos Ridan]

You people must (a: Not think things through, or (b: Be insane. If Bush steps down, Dick Cheney will take over. He is basically a Nazi. We need Bush to stay where he is.

Basically, yeah. I already said that much before, repeatedly.

[spurgistan]

Seeing as how any attempt to impeach Bush and remove him from office would implicate Cheney beforedhand, it wouldn't be hard to kick him out first.
Also, the reason Cheney is the veep and not pres is because nobody wants him to be president, the Republicans just know Bush couldn't handle it on his own. If Bush is somehow removed from office in the next 600 days, there is going to be tremendous pressure on Cheney to step down from all sides.

[unriggable]

Seeing as how any attempt to impeach Bush and remove him from office would implicate Cheney beforedhand, it wouldn't be hard to kick him out first.
Also, the reason Cheney is the veep and not pres is because nobody wants him to be president, the Republicans just know Bush couldn't handle it on his own. If Bush is somehow removed from office in the next 600 days, there is going to be tremendous pressure on Cheney to step down from all sides.

Agree.

Problem is how defiant and sometimes arrogant some members of the republican party (specifically the bush admin) can be, I'm thinking paul wolfowitz, alberto gonzalez, etc.

[spurgistan]

Seeing as how any attempt to impeach Bush and remove him from office would implicate Cheney beforedhand, it wouldn't be hard to kick him out first.
Also, the reason Cheney is the veep and not pres is because nobody wants him to be president, the Republicans just know Bush couldn't handle it on his own. If Bush is somehow removed from office in the next 600 days, there is going to be tremendous pressure on Cheney to step down from all sides.

Agree.

Problem is how defiant and sometimes arrogant some members of the republican party (specifically the bush admin) can be, I'm thinking paul wolfowitz, alberto gonzalez, etc.

Also agree (fervency, powerful stuff) but I feel like nobody except for the true believers would want to see a Cheney presidency, if he wasn't already implicated in whatever s..tstorm finally forced Bush out.

[unriggable]

Seeing as how any attempt to impeach Bush and remove him from office would implicate Cheney beforedhand, it wouldn't be hard to kick him out first.
Also, the reason Cheney is the veep and not pres is because nobody wants him to be president, the Republicans just know Bush couldn't handle it on his own. If Bush is somehow removed from office in the next 600 days, there is going to be tremendous pressure on Cheney to step down from all sides.

Agree.

Problem is how defiant and sometimes arrogant some members of the republican party (specifically the bush admin) can be, I'm thinking paul wolfowitz, alberto gonzalez, etc.

Also agree (fervency, powerful stuff) but I feel like nobody except for the true believers would want to see a Cheney presidency, if he wasn't already implicated in whatever s..tstorm finally forced Bush out.

Only one in 6 people support cheney.

[Nobunaga]

... Chevez has been in the press a great deal lately.

... Be glad you don't live in Venezuela.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... RSS&rpc=22

[unriggable]

... Chevez has been in the press a great deal lately.

... Be glad you don't live in Venezuela.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... RSS&rpc=22

Ouch. Blows.

[Anarchist]

... Chevez has been in the press a great deal lately.

... Be glad you don't live in Venezuela.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/ ... RSS&rpc=22

and heres the other side of the story

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/venezu ... nswers.htm

http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/rctv_h ... ezuela.htm

The overall goal is for Venezuela to belong to the people of Venezuela,
Which would obviously spark American outrage

[Guiscard]

The only reason the UN can be qualified as worthless is because their edicts have no teeth.

The UN is entirely dependent on the US, if you don't believe me maybe you should visit their headquarters in New York City. If they were to align themselves with the World Court in The Hague, then maybe we'd see some progress. Until that happens, they're going to continue to be an international, glorified, blue ribbon commission.

Going back to the UN stuff (although my argument was more with Iz):

BBC NEWS
US sanctions 'won't help Darfur'
World renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs has condemned the US decision to impose fresh sanctions on Sudan over Darfur.

Mr Sachs said this would do little to address the underlying causes of the four-year conflict, which he said was a squeeze on natural resources.

The ban on companies trading or banking with the US would do little to achieve peace in "one of the most desperate places in the world", he said.

More than 200,000 people died in the conflict and 2m have fled their homes.

'No real resolution'

Mr Sachs made his attack on President George Bush's decision to impose tougher measures on Sudanese individuals and businesses doing trade with the US while on a visit to Nairobi.

Until we face the development challenge... I'm afraid we are not going to have real resolution to this crisis
Jeffrey Sachs

The BBC's Karen Allen in Nairobi says Mr Sachs, a professor at Columbia University and an adviser to the UN secretary-general, has long been a critic of US foreign policy.

"Until we face up to the underlying reality that at the core, Darfur is a hungry, water-stressed, impoverished area that needs economic development as its real hope for finding long-term peace," he said.

"Until we face the development challenge and make clear that we're ready to help on the development challenge, I'm afraid we are not going to have real resolution to this crisis."

He rejected suggestions that more economic aid for Sudan would in effect be sanctioning impunity.

Sudan's government and the pro-government Arab militias, known as the Janjaweed, are accused of war crimes against the region's black African population


SANCTIONS ON SUDAN
30 Sudanese firms targeted
Mostly firms in oil business
Three individuals listed
Barred from US banking system
Barred from business with US

Mr Bush wants Sudan to allow more United Nations peacekeepers into Darfur and to stop backing the Janjaweed militias.

Mr Sachs said sending in more peacekeepers, the hybrid force which the international community is pushing for, would serve little purpose until a coherent economic development plan is built into a strategy for bringing stability to Darfur.

Sudan denies supporting armed groups and says the suffering in Darfur has been exaggerated for political reasons.

After Mr Bush's announcement, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the bloc was open to considering new sanctions against Sudan.

Last Friday, the Security Council endorsed proposals to let a combined UN-African Union peacekeeping force protect civilians and use force to prevent violence.

The existing AU force has been unable to stop the conflict.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/w ... 704203.stm

Published: 2007/05/30 12:38:30 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Which way round was the toothless santions / armed intervention thing again?

[zomboli]

Can you say WW3?


-Go away BUSH you Wanna be Dictator...He needs to go to like Africa to be the ruler of some random place. Hes a mini Hitler

[Guiscard]

Can you say WW3?


-Go away BUSH you Wanna be Dictator...He needs to go to like Africa to be the ruler of some random place. Hes a mini Hitler

Yeh those blacks really are much more deserving of brutal dictators than good god-fearing Americans...

[unriggable]

Can you say WW3?


-Go away BUSH you Wanna be Dictator...He needs to go to like Africa to be the ruler of some random place. Hes a mini Hitler

You're fucking stupid.

[vtmarik]

Can you say WW3?


-Go away BUSH you Wanna be Dictator...He needs to go to like Africa to be the ruler of some random place. Hes a mini Hitler

\

Godwin's Law.

You lose.

Bye.