Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Zapatero and Dubya
addi Posted: Wed Mar 17 14:27:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  By ANDREW SELSKY, Associated Press Writer

MADRID, Spain - Spain's new leader intensified his criticism of the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq on Wednesday, saying it was "turning into a fiasco."
Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero also refused to reconsider his pledge to pull his 1,300 troops out of Iraq by June 30, in a sharp break with the Bush administration.
Zapatero had signaled his dislike of President Bush's policies during the Spanish election campaign when he said he hoped Democratic challenger John Kerry would win in November.

The International Herald Tribune recently quoted Zapatero as saying, "We're aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our allegiance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration."
In the hourlong interview Wednesday on Onda Cero radio, Zapatero said that "fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to defeat terrorism. ...

"Terrorism is combatted by the state of law. ... That's what I think Europe and the international community have to debate," he said.

Zapatero said the Iraq occupation "is turning into a fiasco," noting that "there have been almost more deaths since the end of the war" than during last year's U.S.-led invasion, and the United Nations still is not in control.

________________________________________

OUCH!
Oh, well... all the good folks in the United Kingdom still love Mr. Bush!


 
FN Posted: Wed Mar 17 14:37:42 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I don't like that Kerry guy either, seriously.


 
Iamjustdancing. Posted: Wed Mar 17 14:54:12 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I like how he thinks the UN can solve the worlds problems. The UN is more gutless than a mormon in a strip joint.

In the hourlong interview Wednesday on Onda Cero radio, Zapatero said that "fighting terrorism with bombs ... with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to defeat terrorism. ...

Ok so how DO you fight terrorism? He probably thinks that if he holds the terrorists hands and says i love you a few times that this will all go away. Granted, i don't know the best way to fight terrorists, but i much rather see them dead then us.

(oh i should post the article about how people are protesting the new socialist government in Madrid)


 
Iamjustdancing. Posted: Wed Mar 17 14:57:13 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Demonstrators protest against Spain's new leader

Wednesday, March 17, 2004
2004 Associated Press

URL: sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/03/17/international1251EST0639.DTL


(03-17) 09:51 PST MADRID, Spain (AP) --

Thousands of protesters accused Spain's new prime minister of being "the president of al-Qaida" in demonstrations Wednesday to support the defeated party of outgoing leader Jose Maria Aznar.

About 5,000 people gathered outside the conservative Popular Party's headquarters in downtown Madrid. Waving Spanish flags and banners, they were protesting the upset win by Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in Sunday elections that were shaken by terrorist bombings three days earlier.

"Zapatero, president of al-Qaida," "Zapatero with terrorism" and "Zapatero resign," they chanted.

The protesters dispersed about 30 minutes after the Popular Party's defeated candidate, Mariano Rajoy, appeared and applauded at a balcony.

Evidence increasingly points to Islamic extremist involvement -- possibly al-Qaida -- the bombings that killed 201 people on March 11.

The attacks refocused attention on Aznar's decision to back the U.S.-led war in Iraq, hugely unpopular in Spain. At protests on the eve of the election, demonstrators accused Aznar of making Spain a target for terrorists. The anger among voters helped tip the election for Zapatero, who had trailed in polls before the bombings.

2004 Associated Press




 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 17 15:38:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe, it's going to be Kerry or Bush. Take your pick, there are no others.

and dancing dave, you make it sound like the only 2 choices for dealing with terrorists is to bomb the hell out of every single one them, or to hold their hands.
it's (once again) an "either or" senario. there couldn't possibly be any alternative strategies to this could there be.

either you're for killing every fundamentalist muslim in the world, or you want to sleep with them.

either you were for the invasion of Iraq, or you were an unpatriotic American

if you're not a conservative leader in Europe, then you have to be a commie "socialist" leader(there's that nasty word again)

vowing to exterminate every al queda cell in the world will be as feasable, and successful, as our war on drugs has been for the past 30 years.



 
marsteller Posted: Wed Mar 17 15:39:05 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  kill the camel jockeys, no more terrorism. seems like a good plan to me.


 
FN Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:05:27 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>kill the camel jockeys, no more terrorism. seems like a good plan to me.


Yes, if you're a simplistic redneck prone to populistic propaganda.


 
casper Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:42:41 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:


>
>either you're for killing every fundamentalist muslim in the world, or you want to sleep with them.


I agree...enough of this either or bullshit...lets do both :)


 
casper Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:43:16 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>marsteller said:
>>kill the camel jockeys, no more terrorism. seems like a good plan to me.
>
>
>Yes, if you're a simplistic redneck prone to populistic propaganda.

bet you can't say that 3 times fast...


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:48:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Yes, if you're a simplistic redneck prone to populistic propaganda.

nah man...get rid of all those assholes that are causin shit all over the place...slap some new people in place that aren't gonna go startin jihads over every little thing...so everyone but the assholes get it pretty sweet


 
marsi Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:49:17 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:
>addison said:
>>either you're for killing every fundamentalist muslim in the world, or you want to sleep with them.
>
>
>I agree...enough of this either or bullshit...lets do both :)

You mean like those spiders (black widdows) do.


 
casper Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:49:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsi said:
>casper said:
>>addison said:
>>>either you're for killing every fundamentalist muslim in the world, or you want to sleep with them.
>>
>>
>>I agree...enough of this either or bullshit...lets do both :)
>
>You mean like those spiders (black widdows) do.

yeah! oh wait....maybe not...


 
casper Posted: Wed Mar 17 16:55:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  marsteller said:
>Christophe said:
>>Yes, if you're a simplistic redneck prone to populistic propaganda.
>
>nah man...get rid of all those assholes that are causin shit all over the place...slap some new people in place that aren't gonna go startin jihads over every little thing...so everyone but the assholes get it pretty sweet

it's not that easy in iraq...you'd have to get rid of the whole country just about. to the north you have the kurds to the south you have the shiites and in the middle you have the sunni (not sure how to spell that actually...) and not only does none of these groups like eachother none of the surrounding countries can get along with all of them either...so you have the turks not wanting the kurds in power and the kuwati not wanting the shiites in power and nobody wanting the sunni...

in all seriousness i think it was important to get saddam outta there simply for the fact that he was doing some atrocious things...but we will never be able to cause peace in the country (not only impossible but also not our job) its about time we get out now and get on with blowing other things up. i still have too many friends over there for my peace of mind. waking up to shelling is not my idea of a good time.




 
marsteller Posted: Wed Mar 17 17:06:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i think we just need to build some giant scary desert prisons, like the gulags in russia but way hotter. scare those bitches into peace.


 
marsteller Posted: Wed Mar 17 17:07:00 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  oh, and death squads. lots of death squads.


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 17 18:09:39 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>in all seriousness i think it was important to get saddam outta there simply for the fact that he was doing some atrocious things...

no doubt about that. Any sane mind can see that he did things that were horrific.
I just wish one year ago the justification to go to war in the first place had been explained soley for that reason, instead of trumped up BS about nonexistant WMDs. and it begs the question why Saddam? if horrific human rights abuses is now our justification for invading a country there were/are a whole slew of them to choose from.
I think some of the food the English have to eat is a violation of human rights. Maybe we should invade them. lol


>but we will never be able to cause peace in the country (not only impossible but also not our job)

it's our job to bomb the hell out of a country, invade with ground troops, dispose of the evil ruling party, and then get the hell back out. let those poor native SOB's and the rest of the world worry about the aftermath. Ya know, like we did in Afganistan.

> i still have too many friends over there for my peace of mind. waking up to shelling is not my idea of a good time.

if only you still didn't have friends over there, casper. If they were people you didn't know it would be a lot easier on your peace of mind.




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 17 18:22:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If i hear or read "trumped up WMD's" one more time, I'm gonna go ballistic.
Just who the fuck Trumped them up ?
Everybody on the planet knew or thought they knew he had them. How is that "trumped up" ?
And there are vast amounts of evidence that he did in fact sponsor terrorism all over the world.
Hell the fact that he sponsored an assasination attemp on a sitting US president is enough justification to vaporize the mutherfucker.


 
Maya Posted: Wed Mar 17 18:28:14 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hold on, Aznars supporters think the sun shine out of his arse so, their criticsm of Zapatero is expected if not a little pathetic. 90% of the spanish people were AGAINST the war, Zapatero is merely doing what is RIGHT for the country. United Kingdom DOES NOT like Bush, Blair has his dick rammed too far up his arse to realise that WE DID NOT WANT TO BE IN A WAR! We DONT LIKE Blairand hopefully, next year he will be out!


Bush, Aznar and Blair ASESINOS!!!! simple as!


 
addi Posted: Wed Mar 17 19:04:23 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>And there are vast amounts of evidence that he did in fact sponsor terrorism all over the world.

there is very little verifiable information that al queda and saddam had any significant ties. Most of the experts believe that because of Saddams secular regime they despised him in fact. They were the culprits of 9/11, not Saddam. We should have concentrated all our efforts on Bin Laden and company, and not the Saddam sideshow.

>Hell the fact that he sponsored an assasination attemp on a sitting US president is enough justification to vaporize the mutherfucker.

Lord knows we've never tried to assinate any leader of another country. oh wait, we have. well, I guess when we do it it's okay : )


 
iggy Posted: Wed Mar 17 19:19:28 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  they should all bloody vote me, christophe and mat J for president


 
DanSRose Posted: Wed Mar 17 19:44:25 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>If i hear or read "trumped up WMD's" one more time, I'm gonna go ballistic.
>Everybody on the planet knew or thought they knew he had them. How is that "trumped up" ?
There was no hard evidense (shipping info, parts, containers, scientists who it would be 5, 10, or 15 years until completion though they were off the project for months and years, etc)

>Just who the fuck Trumped them up ?
The Bush administration said frequently last year and the previous summer that Iraq was a world threat because of its nuclear, chemical (only proven to 'exist' as they were dismantled 10 years ago), and biological arsenal. If there is no evidence for their existence, it's called "trumping up the charges". Alot of what they went on was faulty and uncorroborated evidence from Nigeria (or a different african nation; can't quite remember), which Britain obtained from a bad intelligence source. The CIA tried investigating the claims but never found anything substantial.
>And there are vast amounts of evidence that he did in fact sponsor terrorism all over the world.
Only with the Palestinians. Al-Qaeda and Sadam did not agree on most issues, like him being an infidel or not.

>Hell the fact that he sponsored an assasination attemp on a sitting US president is enough justification to vaporize the mutherfucker.
No it doesn't. See the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) (essentially it says the military cannot be used as an assaination force)



 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Mar 17 21:03:56 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>If i hear or read "trumped up WMD's" one more time, I'm gonna go ballistic.
>>Everybody on the planet knew or thought they knew he had them. How is that "trumped up" ?
>There was no hard evidense (shipping info, parts, containers, scientists who it would be 5, 10, or 15 years until completion though they were off the project for months and years, etc)
>
There was plenty of hard evidence. the wmd's were documented by hans blix and associates before they were expelled in the late nineties ?
If he did destroy them, where is the evidence of that ? That in itself was a violation of the UN resolutions.

>>Just who the fuck Trumped them up ?
>The Bush administration said frequently last year and the previous summer that Iraq was a world threat because of its nuclear, chemical (only proven to 'exist' as they were dismantled 10 years ago), and biological arsenal. If there is no evidence for their existence, it's called "trumping up the charges". Alot of what they went on was faulty and uncorroborated evidence from Nigeria (or a different african nation; can't quite remember), which Britain obtained from a bad intelligence source. The CIA tried investigating the claims but never found anything substantial.

It doesn't matter about the intelligence, the whole world believed he had these weapons, not just America and the UK, that being the case, then how can you say we "trumped them up" ?

>>And there are vast amounts of evidence that he did in fact sponsor terrorism all over the world.
>Only with the Palestinians. Al-Qaeda and Sadam did not agree on most issues, like him being an infidel or not.
>
Really ? Saddam provided money, support and shelter to a league of extraordinary terrorists. Abdul Rahman Yasin, the chemist for the first World Trade Center bombing, was given sanctuary in Baghdad after his U.S. indictment. Abu Nidal, the terrorist mastermind who killed hundreds including 10 Americans, lived in Baghdad from 1999 until he was murdered in 2002. Abu Abbas, the architect of the Achille Lauro hijacking that resulted in the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, was captured in Baghdad by U.S. forces.

>>Hell the fact that he sponsored an assasination attemp on a sitting US president is enough justification to vaporize the mutherfucker.

>No it doesn't. See the Posse Comitatus Act (18 USC 1385) (essentially it says the military cannot be used as an assaination force)

Don't care what that document says, we did not use our military as an assination force, we used it to topple a government that sponsored terrorism around the world and was most definitely a threat to us through that terrorism.
As for the assasination attempt on our prez, would you not agree that to be an act of war ? and that being the case a military response would be required ?
duh ?
>


 
zander83 Posted: Wed Mar 17 22:58:34 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Just for you hif:
"trumped up WMD's" hehee

anyways, the thing i find ridiculous that i heard recently is spain wants to move there troops out of Iraq to avoid further blood-shed...

Am I the only who sees the ultimate stupidity in this logic. I mean what do the french think they're immune to terrorist attacks cuz they didn't invade iraq???? If any watched the daily show with John Stewart, one of the "reporters" made a great comment that while its true that extremists want spanish troops out of iraq they also want spaniards out of... spain. Take back a territory they lost in war 500 years ago, reverse it if you will... or as they like to call it... a mulligan hehe great stuff


 
iwonder Posted: Thu Mar 18 00:12:45 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I don't like that Kerry guy either, seriously.

Kerry's not taking himself seriously either


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 18 02:36:11 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  i love how dogmatic opinions are

you suck


 
casper Posted: Thu Mar 18 09:18:32 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
>
>>but we will never be able to cause peace in the country (not only impossible but also not our job)
>
>it's our job to bomb the hell out of a country, invade with ground troops, dispose of the evil ruling party, and then get the hell back out. let those poor native SOB's and the rest of the world worry about the aftermath. Ya know, like we did in Afganistan.
>
>> i still have too many friends over there for my peace of mind. waking up to shelling is not my idea of a good time.
>
>if only you still didn't have friends over there, casper. If they were people you didn't know it would be a lot easier on your peace of mind.
>
>

Hmm..i seem to detect a note of sarcasm...

like we did in afganistan? we still have troops over there, just because they are not on cnn everyday doesn't mean they are not there. I'm not saying we shouldn't help rebuild their internal structure i just believe that we should let them, for the most part, police themselves up.

and as far as my "peace of mind" you obviously never served in the military or else you'd know that we are all family and therefore we worry about everyone over there. I don't appreciate the insinuation that just because I don't know their names mean I don't give a shit about them. Maybe if you stop hanging out with the salvation army, standing on your street corner ringing your red bell, going down to KFC and taking orders for COL Sanders and pick up a rifle and join the real army and stand your post you'll know better than to make comments like that. Until that time i'd appreciate it if you kept your opinions about us to yourself


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 18 09:53:40 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>like we did in afganistan? we still have troops over there, just because they are not on cnn everyday doesn't mean they are not there. I'm not saying we shouldn't help rebuild their internal structure i just believe that we should let them, for the most part, police themselves up.

we fucked up in afganistan. did i ever say we didn't have any troops there? we don't have enough committed to do the job right. We blew the fuck out of a place that was already fucked up, but haven't commited enough resources to the second, and in some respects, the most important aspect of the job, cleaning the place up, making it secure, rebuilding the infrastructure. Now they feel resentful and angry at us there because we didn't finish the job. More breeding ground for U.S. haters and al Queda suicide bomber wannabes. these invasions are two fold. we're very good at the first half, but seem to be lacking in the critical second part of the plan.

>and as far as my "peace of mind" you obviously never served in the military or else you'd know that we are all family and therefore we worry about everyone over there. I don't appreciate the insinuation that just because I don't know their names mean I don't give a shit about them. Maybe if you stop hanging out with the salvation army, standing on your street corner ringing your red bell, going down to KFC and taking orders for COL Sanders and pick up a rifle and join the real army and stand your post you'll know better than to make comments like that. Until that time i'd appreciate it if you kept your opinions about us to yourself

ouch! At ease, Soldier!
i guess i touched a hawkish nerve here, eh? Why do i keep getting the feeling that those us us who never served in the military aren't worthy to have opinions about our military policies? Do i have to know how to clean an M-16 and spit polish my black boots to earn your respect?
My brother was in Nam. My nephew is a marine now. I respect our soldiers, Casper, whether you think so or not. I will feel free to comment on any statement that implies a soldiers life is any more important or valuable than a Iraqi's life "because they're friends of yours". We need to get out of there whether they're friends of yours or not.
We're all in the same boat, friend.
Now go shoot something. You'll feel better.


 
casper Posted: Thu Mar 18 10:19:02 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>casper said:
>
>
>we fucked up in afganistan. did i ever say we didn't have any troops there? we don't have enough committed to do the job right. We blew the fuck out of a place that was already fucked up, but haven't commited enough resources to the second, and in some respects, the most important aspect of the job, cleaning the place up, making it secure, rebuilding the infrastructure. Now they feel resentful and angry at us there because we didn't finish the job. More breeding ground for U.S. haters and al Queda suicide bomber wannabes. these invasions are two fold. we're very good at the first half, but seem to be lacking in the critical second part of the plan.

yeah because the average civilian in afganistan was sooo much better off under the taliban...riiiiight. you remember the taliban right? they were the same ones who admittedly harbored terrorists, the same terrorists who blew up the world trade towers. I'm just wondering if you recall the incident because it seems most of my fellow americans tend to have ADD when it comes to remembering the atrocious things that were done to us by the same people that we must now appearently make their life better than it ever was before or else we are not doing our job.
>

>ouch! At ease, Soldier!
>i guess i touched a hawkish nerve here, eh? Why do i keep getting the feeling that those us us who never served in the military aren't worthy to have opinions about our military policies? Do i have to know how to clean an M-16 and spit polish my black boots to earn your respect?
>My brother was in Nam. My nephew is a marine now. I respect our soldiers, Casper, whether you think so or not. I will feel free to comment on any statement that implies a soldiers life is any more important or valuable than a Iraqi's life "because they're friends of yours". We need to get out of there whether they're friends of yours or not.

you can comment on military policies all you want, hell I disagree with a lot of the policies that are put forth. But what I don't appreciate is getting harrassed because I hold my life and those of my fellow soldiers above that of someone who is out to kill us. In normal conditions I would have no problems with anybody, but once they start shooting at me I tend to take offense to that and shoot back. Silly me. Like I said before, I don't believe that we shouldn't help rebuild, I'm merely saying that rebuilding the government is the job of a politician not a general.


 
FN Posted: Thu Mar 18 10:28:01 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Both bush and kerry are members of Skulls and bones, so no matter who gets elected one clubmember gets to be president.




Does anybody have any reactions to that?


 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 18 11:09:53 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Actually, even though you probably think i'm a major dink, Casper, we probably agree on a lot more things than meets the eye. I can see where you took my comments about your soldier friends wrong, and i apologise for not being more clear about where i was coming from in my response. didn't mean to disrespect you.

Of course things were bad for the Afghani people under the Taliban. No dispute there. My point was that it hurts our ultimate goal of securing peace and creating allies when we bring in a military presence, but fail to stick it out until things are relatively secure for the inhabitants of that country. To say we got rid of the Taliban, now you deal with the aftermath of complete chaos by yourself seems like a half baked foreign policy to me, and counterproductive to long term peace strategies. If you read about the current situation in Afghanistan it's pretty sad, and there is a lot of hostility towards the U.S. there, that i feel could have been averted.


 
zander83 Posted: Thu Mar 18 11:11:50 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  only in america is there no concern that the product's of the most elite environments run the country... dean went to an exclusive highschool(similar to bushes) etc. I can imagine the uproar in britain for example if both nominees for prime-minister were from eton(in fact not since churchill has there been an eton prime-minister).

Something to chew on i guess


 
casper Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:02:46 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>Actually, even though you probably think i'm a major dink, Casper, we probably agree on a lot more things than meets the eye. I can see where you took my comments about your soldier friends wrong, and i apologise for not being more clear about where i was coming from in my response. didn't mean to disrespect you.
>
>Of course things were bad for the Afghani people under the Taliban. No dispute there. My point was that it hurts our ultimate goal of securing peace and creating allies when we bring in a military presence, but fail to stick it out until things are relatively secure for the inhabitants of that country. To say we got rid of the Taliban, now you deal with the aftermath of complete chaos by yourself seems like a half baked foreign policy to me, and counterproductive to long term peace strategies. If you read about the current situation in Afghanistan it's pretty sad, and there is a lot of hostility towards the U.S. there, that i feel could have been averted.

you know...i don't believe I've ever called anybody a dink in my life...i think i kinna like that word..dink dink dink.... :)

I totally agree that the way we are handling things may not be the best way, the only problem is that no matter what we do it's going to be a long, drawn out process. This isn't like WWII where we can just take over and say they can no longer have a standing army and start rebuilding everything ourselves. Who's to say any other way to do it wouldn't have been just as bad or worse? Everybody has complaints about how badly someone did but nobody has any better ideas about how it should have been done.





 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:08:38 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  how the hell do any of you know what the conditions were like in afghanistan while the taliban was in control? were you there? how do you know what it's like there now?

we sit here and argue about heresay evidance, all of it. ya know if there isn't a first hand witness for a crime, the defendant cannot be convicted? not to mention a trial needs to be had where the defendant is present. If we're going to be policing the world, we should at least grant others the same rights as we believe every human deserves, as says the declaration of independance. the fucking OJ simpson trial was deliberated over more than our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.



on a side note: it bugs the hell out of me when people say, "they support the men in the military, but not the cause." if someone is fighting for a cause that I do not agree with I hope they lose.




 
addi Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:20:07 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  you suck


 
casper Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:28:43 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>how the hell do any of you know what the conditions were like in afghanistan while the taliban was in control? were you there? how do you know what it's like there now?
>
>we sit here and argue about heresay evidance, all of it. ya know if there isn't a first hand witness for a crime, the defendant cannot be convicted? not to mention a trial needs to be had where the defendant is present. If we're going to be policing the world, we should at least grant others the same rights as we believe every human deserves, as says the declaration of independance. the fucking OJ simpson trial was deliberated over more than our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
>
>
>
>on a side note: it bugs the hell out of me when people say, "they support the men in the military, but not the cause." if someone is fighting for a cause that I do not agree with I hope they lose.
>
>

how delightfully simplistic...


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:42:26 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>you suck

no, you suck


 
Asswipe Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:44:30 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  casper said:

>how delightfully simplistic...

if by simplistic you mean broad in understanding and meaningful than i thank you.

The biggest problem w/ humans is this oversized brain of ours. vonnegut said something similar in Galapagos.


 
casper Posted: Thu Mar 18 12:57:10 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>casper said:
>
>>how delightfully simplistic...
>
>if by simplistic you mean broad in understanding and meaningful than i thank you.
>
yeah...that's what i meant....riiiiight

>The biggest problem w/ humans is this oversized brain of ours. vonnegut said something similar in Galapagos.


I remedy that problem by killing vast amounts of brain cells with alcohol...



 
mat_j Posted: Thu Mar 18 15:03:31 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Asswipe said:
>casper said:
>
>>how delightfully simplistic...
>
>if by simplistic you mean broad in understanding and meaningful than i thank you.
>
>The biggest problem w/ humans is this oversized brain of ours. vonnegut said something similar in Galapagos.

Seal boy


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Mar 18 15:23:24 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Vonnegut's dead


 
mat_j Posted: Sat Mar 20 07:48:57 2004 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hifasaurus are you making a nietzche like comment or is Kurt Vonnegut really dead cause if he is i'm going to vry


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]