Taking Care Of Your Friends...

[cbacon 0]

...alright then.

 

re: Justice

 

let me oversimplify.

 

If you're going to bomb the fuck out of a country based on the fact that they might be going for weapons of mass destruction, you better have the balls to do it to every country that be doing the same thing.

 

Or just stop with the lying.

 

Because otherwise, your apparent righteousness disappears in a wash of easy. Easy being if you attack Iraq, things suck for a bit, if you were to attack Saudi Arabia (based on the exact same convictions) you would be at the business end of a war that would make vietnam look like a picnic.

 

With pie.

 

And for the record, I'm completely against any sort of "police action" against a sovereign state.

 

They didn't have anything, you know it, I know it, and a shitload of innocent people (on both sides) have died and will continue to die to prove that point.

 

And finally, I'm trying to create a wmd, come and get me. Cause you know I've said that now, and given a few heavily biased months I'm sure the reports will agree.

 

Cause if a UN sanctioned report said otherwise, I'm sure you would disagree with it.

 

Inconvienience and all.

 

Do your research and stop waving your flag.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

In regards to the bashing of the US, the logic is simply that the states went into a country on the grounds that it was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. Everyone knows that's bullshit now, but the fact that one of their close friends has shown an interest in the exact same thing, and that said state has more to do with supporting terrorism than Iraq ever did is pretty revealing.

 

And really, I would like to know how "pressure" is defined.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, way to twist stuff.

 

We aren't exactly 'friends' with the House of Saud. We tolerate them because, quite literally, we can't just remove them. If they are against us, they make things that much harder for us to do anything in that reason. We are gonna have to change the Muslim world around Saudi Arabia to put pressure on the Sauds to change.

 

Secondly, every report confirms that they were trying to create the weapons. The problem was that they no longer had any. If you ever bothered to actually read things like the Kay report you'd realize that he was still pursuing stuff and that the programs were still fully intact, we just never found any completed projects. So technically, under your reasoning, this information isn't enough to go to war over. Oops.

 

Thirdly, whatever pressure is, it probably wouldn't be enough for you because, well, you don't care how much pressure the US puts on anyways. You just stated that the entire article was basically a way to bash the US. If we were demanding to bomb them if they didn't, you'd still think it wasn't enough because it's not about how much pressure we put on them, it's just about finding another way to attack the US with you. You trying to question what 'pressure' is is just your way of trying to cover up your mistake.

 

And finally: Your solution to this, because, as per usual, you critize without giving any thought into what you would do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're argument is a totalitarian unapologetic view from the west, and flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It resorts to a malicious use of war against the "Muslim" world and validates the authority of American influence in a region alien to Western traditions.

 

It's fucking sickening.

 

C-Bacon contradicts his use of terms, because there's no "logic" to impose war unilaterally, as for the war in Iraq post-2004 a.d. If there wasn't any use of nuclear weapons to be found in Iraq, therefore the war is unjust. There's no logic behind the invasion to suggest that logic existed. C-Bacon has no primary knowledge as his argument is moot.

 

Justice on the other hand, irrelevantly makes an argument that supports a war on C-Bacons faulty reasoning and illogical value.

 

Therefore, Justice's bias is parallel to the notion that the US invasion of Iraq is purging all counter arguments that exist... even though there are no "logical" grounds for unilateral invasion of Iraq. Justice is exploiting the inferences drawn from something absolutely baseless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Lets also not forget that everytime this admin is undone the P.R. dept has to two step carefully over to a NEW REASON for us being over there. They SAID they knew where WMDs were. The SAID they would find them. They SAID there was a connection between Saddam and 9-11. These are things I have seen and heard them say. The last time I saw the Sauds they were HOLDING HANDS with the president of the United States. Did I mention how careful their P.R. dept. is in sending messages out about what they believe? About WHO the bad guys are and who the good guys are? Yet I am supposed to believe that when it comes to putting pressure on these assholes that Bush is actually going to come through? That they are NOT going to sweep this under the rug? "WE" are indeed NOT friends with the Sauds, that is if you are refering to americans. But the president sure as hell IS friends with a group of people that so many of us believe were somehow involved with the worst attack we have ever experienced here. Considering the circumstances they cannot be trusted to do what is right. But it is nice to know that apparently SOME people have faith that BushCo. can turn the Saudis around.

[Justice 0]

You're argument is a totalitarian unapologetic view from the west, and flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It resorts to a malicious use of war against the "Muslim" world and validates the authority of American influence in a region alien to Western traditions.

 

Wow, talk about moral relativism here. Oh, what are we ignoring? Oh yeah: The oppression of women, the abject poverty the populations are forced to live in, the absolute power and control by theocratic governments to stop new and modern reforms and, of course, the propagation and acceptance of the islamofacist terrorist culture by the governments.

 

I suppose by asking for all those to end, I'm simply imposing Western culture values on them, right?

 

Sorry, this is moral relativism at it's worst. To try and say that "We can't change this because this is how this culture is and it's wrong to enforce our values" is simply a wishy-washy way of playing to the status quo. Sorry, but the Middle East has to change: It's political structure is destabilizing to the entire world, it's view on human rights is atrocious (Even if you don't like the US's record, there is no comparison here), and it's governments refuse to change any of it.

 

It's fucking sickening.

 

No, your ignorance of what's wrong with the Middle East is. I don't mind the Muslim culture, but there is a more modern and tolerant version of it out there. To try and defend reasons for these governments to abuse and warp it with archaic views does more to destroy the Muslim culture than anythign else.

 

C-Bacon contradicts his use of terms, because there's no "logic" to impose war unilaterally, as for the war in Iraq post-2004 a.d. If there wasn't any use of nuclear weapons to be found in Iraq, therefore the war is unjust. There's no logic behind the invasion to suggest that logic existed. C-Bacon has no primary knowledge as his argument is moot.

 

This is logically flawed due to hindsight bias. What makes the war just or not is not the reaction judged against information we have later, but the information available at the time the decision was made.

 

Example: By your 'logic', a cop shooting a man committing a bank robbery is wrong because after the robbery is stopped, he finds out that the gun was a convincing toy. His action is not any less justified than it was before because he could only act on the information at hand.

 

The US acted on information not only from it's own intelligence agencies, but the UN, various international watchdog groups, and other intelligence agencies. There was no dispute that Iraq had them, even with the UN. The only dispute was how to handle the situation.

 

But... whatever. Your bias lies into the fact that you never define what makes an invasion 'logical' or 'illogical', based on your own morals. To you, the prospect of Iraq having weapons did not warrant a war, thusly the war was not warranted. So be it. But your 'logic' reeks of 'bias' just as mine 'does', because it requires you to make an arbitrary decision on the quality of the reasoning.

 

The problem is that you are trying to find definite logic in a political argument. You'll never find it because politics is completely arbitrary and the line of logic will differ from one person to another.

 

Oops, I guess that screws that argument all up.

 

Justice on the other hand, irrelevantly makes an argument that supports a war on C-Bacons faulty reasoning and illogical value.

 

Oookay. This is wrong because your own reasoning hinges on new information not available at the time the decision was made. So this is effectively moot.

 

Therefore, Justice's bias is parallel to the notion that the US invasion of Iraq is purging all counter arguments that exist... even though there are no "logical" grounds for unilateral invasion of Iraq. Justice is exploiting the inferences drawn from something absolutely baseless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"CONCORENTLY! VIS A VIS!"

 

This is like watching Will Ferrell playing the architect. You are basically trying to cover up the argument that "Well, we didn't find any WMDs anyways, so the war is unjust and you are wrong" by busting out a thesaurus and trying to baffle the fuck out of anyone reading it.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

You're argument is a totalitarian unapologetic view from the west, and flies in the face of conventional wisdom. It resorts to a malicious use of war against the "Muslim" world and validates the authority of American influence in a region alien to Western traditions.

 

Wow, talk about moral relativism here. Oh, what are we ignoring? Oh yeah: The oppression of women, the abject poverty the populations are forced to live in, the absolute power and control by theocratic governments to stop new and modern reforms and, of course, the propagation and acceptance of the islamofacist terrorist culture by the governments.

 

I suppose by asking for all those to end, I'm simply imposing Western culture values on them, right?

 

Sorry, this is moral relativism at it's worst. To try and say that "We can't change this because this is how this culture is and it's wrong to enforce our values" is simply a wishy-washy way of playing to the status quo. Sorry, but the Middle East has to change: It's political structure is destabilizing to the entire world, it's view on human rights is atrocious (Even if you don't like the US's record, there is no comparison here), and it's governments refuse to change any of it.

 

It's fucking sickening.

 

No, your ignorance of what's wrong with the Middle East is. I don't mind the Muslim culture, but there is a more modern and tolerant version of it out there. To try and defend reasons for these governments to abuse and warp it with archaic views does more to destroy the Muslim culture than anythign else.

 

C-Bacon contradicts his use of terms, because there's no "logic" to impose war unilaterally, as for the war in Iraq post-2004 a.d. If there wasn't any use of nuclear weapons to be found in Iraq, therefore the war is unjust. There's no logic behind the invasion to suggest that logic existed. C-Bacon has no primary knowledge as his argument is moot.

 

This is logically flawed due to hindsight bias. What makes the war just or not is not the reaction judged against information we have later, but the information available at the time the decision was made.

 

Example: By your 'logic', a cop shooting a man committing a bank robbery is wrong because after the robbery is stopped, he finds out that the gun was a convincing toy. His action is not any less justified than it was before because he could only act on the information at hand.

 

The US acted on information not only from it's own intelligence agencies, but the UN, various international watchdog groups, and other intelligence agencies. There was no dispute that Iraq had them, even with the UN. The only dispute was how to handle the situation.

 

But... whatever. Your bias lies into the fact that you never define what makes an invasion 'logical' or 'illogical', based on your own morals. To you, the prospect of Iraq having weapons did not warrant a war, thusly the war was not warranted. So be it. But your 'logic' reeks of 'bias' just as mine 'does', because it requires you to make an arbitrary decision on the quality of the reasoning.

 

The problem is that you are trying to find definite logic in a political argument. You'll never find it because politics is completely arbitrary and the line of logic will differ from one person to another.

 

Oops, I guess that screws that argument all up.

 

Justice on the other hand, irrelevantly makes an argument that supports a war on C-Bacons faulty reasoning and illogical value.

 

Oookay. This is wrong because your own reasoning hinges on new information not available at the time the decision was made. So this is effectively moot.

 

Therefore, Justice's bias is parallel to the notion that the US invasion of Iraq is purging all counter arguments that exist... even though there are no "logical" grounds for unilateral invasion of Iraq. Justice is exploiting the inferences drawn from something absolutely baseless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"CONCORENTLY! VIS A VIS!"

 

This is like watching Will Ferrell playing the architect. You are basically trying to cover up the argument that "Well, we didn't find any WMDs anyways, so the war is unjust and you are wrong" by busting out a thesaurus and trying to baffle the fuck out of anyone reading it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

The only one baffled is YOU.

[Justice 0]

if you're going to bomb the fuck out of a country based on the fact that they might be going for weapons of mass destruction, you better have the balls to do it to every country that be doing the same thing.

 

Excuse me? You lack the balls to do anythign to help the situation. If I remember correctly, you want us to

 

1) Completely abandon Israel in a region known for wanting to destroy it.

2) Completely leaving the region to it's own devices, because Lord knows it'll all magically change the House of Saud into a working democracy once we leave.

 

Your solutions are simply a continuation of the status quo. We invaded Iraq because everyone said they had WMDs. We wanted to invade, the UN offered more inspectors. Boy, we all know that it we'd definitely have a real answer with THEM right now.

 

Or just stop with the lying.

 

I'll stop 'lying' when you come out of Chomsky-land.

 

Because otherwise, your apparent righteousness disappears in a wash of easy. Easy being if you attack Iraq, things suck for a bit, if you were to attack Saudi Arabia (based on the exact same convictions) you would be at the business end of a war that would make vietnam look like a picnic.

 

With pie.

 

Okay, so complete ignorance of circumstance. Obviously all situations that are remotely similar demand the same action every time. Different countries require different action. This isn't hypocracy, this is political reality. Please, try it sometime.

 

And for the record, I'm completely against any sort of "police action" against a sovereign state.

 

They didn't have anything, you know it, I know it, and a shitload of innocent people (on both sides) have died and will continue to die to prove that point.

 

The fact that you continue to ignore is that people were already dying. Saddam killed over a million people abroad, and that doesn't count his own people into the number. I don't frankly care whether he did or didn't have any weapons. I wasn't a big guy on the weapons in the first place. Like many people on this board, I supported going in for humanitarian reasons. While I understood the weapons argument, my main beef with Iraq has always been Saddam's slaughter of his own people.

 

And finally, I'm trying to create a wmd, come and get me. Cause you know I've said that now, and given a few heavily biased months I'm sure the reports will agree.

 

No. I think 12 years of reports from multiple independent and credible sources and a complete and utter lack of cooperation in trying to find any real proof of such would be a cause.

 

Cause if a UN sanctioned report said otherwise, I'm sure you would disagree with it.

 

Inconvienience and all.

 

You'd have a hard time finding one of those in the last 11 years until, oh, about a week or so before we had invaded. And then, well, what are you to make of that?

 

Do your research and stop waving your flag.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I do research. I'm not the one that completely missed that the US opposed what Saudi Arabia was doing in the article.

[NoCalMike 0]

We are not "friends" with the Saudis, just like we were not "friends" with Saddam when we armed him against Iran. The web that we are tangled within, in the middle east is tricky, complicated and one hell of a big mess that doesn't look to be solved anytime soon, however I know it shouldn't take a LIBERAL to be sickened at the sight of members of the Saudi Royal Family holding hands with Bush right after 9/11.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Weeks ago, I asked y'all to click on a little "Ignore C-Bacon" link hidden as a masked URL to make shit like this go away. While some of you clicked it (I know because I actuallyreceived PMs of appreciation for it) obviously some of you didn't or are gluttons for punishment or something, because I still keep seeing bullshit arguements that run around in circles.

 

 

PS: Fuck Saudi Arabia.

[Jingus 0]

Justice: you're a more stubborn man than I, keep up the good fight.

 

The Bish: learn how to correctly utilize the English language before you try to layeth the smacketh down with a giant post full of "logical debate" that is so badly worderd I'm still not sure what exactly you were trying to prove.

 

C-Bacon and Cheesala: Saddam Hussein was an evil son of a bitch and he deserved to be removed from power. Does that justify the entire quagmire we've found ourselves in? Probably not, but jesus, are we supposed to just quit trying to help people?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Jingus I agree with you on everything you said. Saddam is an asshole. His fall from power IS a good thing. My problem is with the Bush admin. and how they run the war. They have no exit plan! I knew they wouldn't have one. Which again raises the questions about THEIR motives for being there. OK, whatever though. My biggest beef is that there were no WMDs and generally how we treat our soldiers after the war is over. These guys can walk on water while they are fighting. But once they get home they might as well get a job as toilet paper cuz they get treated like shit. Sorry to the rest of the world, but if OUR troops are not taken care of afterwards then I don't agree to send them in the first place. No matter what the threat is. Hell, I think the terrorists WANTED us to go out there. Its easier to kill americans when they are closeby.

[cbacon 0]

C-Bacon and Cheesala: Saddam Hussein was an evil son of a bitch and he deserved to be removed from power. Does that justify the entire quagmire we've found ourselves in? Probably not, but jesus, are we supposed to just quit trying to help people?

 

Last time I checked, bombing a country to the ground wasn't "helping them". Giving Saddam WMDs in the first place wasn't helping anyone either, except Saddams regieme of course. Not to mention placing sanctions on Iraq that led to the starvation of millions. Things were all chummy-chummy with Saddam till he invaded Kuwait, after his worst atrocities were behind him and nobody cared (gassing the Kurds for example). Yup, helping people alright.

 

And yeah, everything else CheesalaIsGood covered.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

C-Bacon and Cheesala: Saddam Hussein was an evil son of a bitch and he deserved to be removed from power. Does that justify the entire quagmire we've found ourselves in? Probably not, but jesus, are we supposed to just quit trying to help people?

 

Last time I checked, bombing a country to the ground wasn't "helping them". Giving Saddam WMDs in the first place wasn't helping anyone either, except Saddams regieme of course. Not to mention placing sanctions on Iraq that led to the starvation of millions. Things were all chummy-chummy with Saddam till he invaded Kuwait, after his worst atrocities were behind him and nobody cared (gassing the Kurds for example). Yup, helping people alright.

 

And yeah, everything else CheesalaIsGood covered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

C-Bacon. This is really nothing new. Saddam was fighting a proxy war for us against Iran. We did it in Afganistan as well against the Solviets. Often times its like picking the lesser of two evils. So there were definatly reasons for selling weapons to Saddam. Not GOOD reasons, but reasons nonetheless. It's like thinking: "Hey, he's a thug. Maybe he'll kick their ass for ruining that SHAH thing on us!" Instead these types of policies have come back to bite us in the ass.

 

If the Pentagon wasn't so determined to play RISK from puppet strings we wouldn't be in this quagmire to begin with. You think with positions in Iraq AND Afganistan the Russians aren't sweating just a bit? Especially in these days of Pre-emptive strikes? You know those conservatives sure do seem really concerned about those commie types.

 

Regardless, we ARE there. And we need to insure that as many of the soldiers come home safe as we can. THIS is the real prize to keep an eye on from now on. EXIT PLAN!

[Justice 0]

Damn it, you had to quote him after I finally put him on ignore. Oh well, it's not like he said anything of substance anyways. But to address Cheesala:

 

First off, I agree that an exit plan is something that should have been immediately in place. But I'm also assuming you aren't asking for us to initiate it right now, either. Just to say.

 

Secondly: Sometimes one has to pick the lesser of two evils. It's a necessity. Just because you don't pick a side doesn't mean that's the most morally correct or realistically smart one: If we didn't support Afganis, it's completely possible that they could have swept into Iran or Pakistan after that. Good reasons? Grey reasons is probably a better way of putting it: There's good, and there's bad. You have to weigh the advantages of supporting a side, and even not supporting a side. I'm sure that came across the table more than a few times. It's hard, but sometimes when two nations are gonna go to war no matter what we do, there isn't a clear-cut good outcome, but you have to shoot for the best one there is available. The situations you described would have been rough no matter what happened, and while I'm sure that many people didn't want to be involved, they probably thought it could be much worse if we hadn't.

 

And, just to be Geograhically correct, I'd say that they'd only be worried about Afganistan and it'd be Uzbek, Turkimenstan, Kyrgyikstan. And frankly, at least two of those three countries should stay worried.

 

Edit: Oh, and while I agree with your final statement, it's probably best to stay as long as we can to do it RIGHT than trying to leave as early as we can to save soldier's lives. We do more losing them now in a winning action than losing them later in a repeat.

Edited June 28, 2005 by Justice

[cbacon 0]

C-Bacon and Cheesala: Saddam Hussein was an evil son of a bitch and he deserved to be removed from power. Does that justify the entire quagmire we've found ourselves in? Probably not, but jesus, are we supposed to just quit trying to help people?

 

Last time I checked, bombing a country to the ground wasn't "helping them". Giving Saddam WMDs in the first place wasn't helping anyone either, except Saddams regieme of course. Not to mention placing sanctions on Iraq that led to the starvation of millions. Things were all chummy-chummy with Saddam till he invaded Kuwait, after his worst atrocities were behind him and nobody cared (gassing the Kurds for example). Yup, helping people alright.

 

And yeah, everything else CheesalaIsGood covered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

C-Bacon. This is really nothing new. Saddam was fighting a proxy war for us against Iran. We did it in Afganistan as well against the Solviets. Often times its like picking the lesser of two evils. So there were definatly reasons for selling weapons to Saddam. Not GOOD reasons, but reasons nonetheless. It's like thinking: "Hey, he's a thug. Maybe he'll kick their ass for ruining that SHAH thing on us!" Instead these types of policies have come back to bite us in the ass.

 

If the Pentagon wasn't so determined to play RISK from puppet strings we wouldn't be in this quagmire to begin with. You think with positions in Iraq AND Afganistan the Russians aren't sweating just a bit? Especially in these days of Pre-emptive strikes? You know those conservatives sure do seem really concerned about those commie types.

 

Regardless, we ARE there. And we need to insure that as many of the soldiers come home safe as we can. THIS is the real prize to keep an eye on from now on. EXIT PLAN!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The point I was making was in response to the notion Jingus made regarding the war 'helping people'. Regardless of the reasons why the US helped aid Saddam, using an argument like that really dosen't hold ground after all the strife the Iraqi's have been put through during the war and years before it. War apologists can use the 'protecting America' excuse to justify it, but implying that the betterment of the Iraqi citizens was of major concern to the Bush Administration is a much more ludicrous claim.

[Jingus 0]

Yes. The main reason for the war WAS to better the lives of the Iraqi civilians. All these problems would've been over a long time ago if those same Iraqi civilians would simply cooperate with us and with each other rather than committing daily acts of violence against us and each other. The problems in Iraq now are the Iraqis' fault, not America's.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Yes.  The main reason for the war WAS to better the lives of the Iraqi civilians.  All these problems would've been over a long time ago if those same Iraqi civilians would simply cooperate with us and with each other rather than committing daily acts of violence against us and each other.  The problems in Iraq now are the Iraqis' fault, not America's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not that your point wasn't without merit, but it's a little off base.

 

I think it's naive to say "Iraqi Civilians" in that context.

 

Let's say that one out of every 10 Iraqi Civilan is an insurgent(and that's a pretty conservative estimate).

 

That's still roughly 21 million Iraqis that are either:

 

A) Happy the Coalition is there

B) Indifferent

C) Bitter, but not starting any shit.

 

Im incredibly opposed to the war, but to say the problems are Iraqi's fault are a little simplistic.

 

Iraq didn't bomb any American sites. Iraq hasn't told the world that they bailed the States out and now they own them.

 

Again, and I can't say this enough, the world is better off without Saddam, there's no two ways about that. And most of your claims have, at the least, had some merit to them.

 

To be fair, Iraq was hardly Utopia in February 2003, but the mess that it's currently in is probably 60 or 70 percent the fault of the coalition.

[cbacon 0]

Yes.  The main reason for the war WAS to better the lives of the Iraqi civilians. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really?

[Jingus 0]

Thanks for sharing the completely shocking news that a big war can have a devastating effect on a country's infrastructure. I had NO idea that could happen.

 

Oh, and even the highest estimate of the war dead in this story (29,000) is a tiny, tiny fraction of the number of deaths that were directly caused by Saddam Hussein over the years.

 

So how exactly was anyone supposed to right this wrong and get Saddam and his entire power base out of power without a military invasion?

 

Also, I'm sick and fucking tired of the US being blamed for the suffering caused by the embargoes against Iraq. Those were UN embargoes, and they were a direct result of Saddam Hussein childishly refusing to do a single damn thing that he was ever told to do since the Gulf War.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The mess that Iraq is in is because of Saddam Hussein.

 

The US attempted to clean it up, but we haven't done the best of jobs with it. We didn't think it through enough.

 

NO MATTER who or what coalition tried to help Iraq, this WOULD have happened.

[Justice 0]

CG, a few things:

 

The insurgency isn't even close to 1-10, just to tell you. The largest part of the insurgency is made up of foreigners coming in from the borders, and even if you count them in... that's still way too large an estimate. That'd mean 2,000,000 Iraqis are a part of the insurgency, which is many, many times larger than the insurgency could ever hope to be. It's not a conservative estimate, it's a wildly huge one. :\

 

And assigning numbers to the mess is meaningless. How do you assign blame for something an insurgent said he did? Is that a US thing or an Iraqi thing? It's meaningless.

 

Regardless, it should be realized that we are the ones rebuilding Iraq, moreso than anyone else. You can complain that conditions aren't ideal, but after three years Europe after WWII hadn't recovered yet and was still rebuilding. And that's a reconstruction project that doesn't deal with an insurgency that prefers to blow up civil servants keeping the peace and more often than not, innocent civilians.

 

If we don't care about the Iraqi civilians, why do we care to give them a new government, rebuild their country, and provide them safety?

Edited June 28, 2005 by Justice

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Two billion insurgents! Good God!

 

I think you meant two million?

[Justice 0]

Oh come on. I think two billion is a damn good estimate.

[Prime Time Andrew Doyle 0]

Next time The Bish posts, could he please put down his fucking thesaures