How do you feel about Iraq?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

What I don't get, is in posts like the above, people make Bush out to be an idiot...but then the same people will turn around and say Bush in an evil mastermind who faked 9/11 and manipulated the nation into going to war with Iraq?

 

You can't have it both ways.

More of the leftists here need to educate themselves on the opposition, and watch "The Dark Side," a Frontline documentry about the roots of the Bush administration. It's freely available to watch online, so there's not really any excuse.

 

When you watch this and see who really operates things, you can almost feel sorry for Dubya. He is essentially a big-picture guy who just instinctively trusts the words of the operators who tell him what to do. His total trust in his staff to the point where he outright refuses to investigate anything himself is ultimately his real failing.

[Art Sandusky 0]

You can't possibly tell me that the Right wasn't raising all kinds of hell about Kosovo. Everyone does it when the other side does something, good or bad.

 

Comparing the current war to WWII is absurd too. As hard as it may be to admit for supporters of the effort, you can't deny that we're the aggressors in this case. In 1941, another country attacked us. Big ol' difference. While there was a sizeable neutrality movement before Pearl Harbor was attacked, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who didn't support what we were doing afterward.

 

Progress has been made, and it's wonderful to see a young democracy form and figure itself out. The dissent now stems from the realization of how poorly planned the whole thing was, and how it was executed with astounding impotence once the invasion was over and it was time to rebuild and clean up.

 

This was what we were seeing in May of 2003. The American people are feeling a little conned now that it's July of 2006 and Iraq is still a mess. Can you really blame them? It's got organization now, but no stable place has daily bombings and political officials being attacked or killed on a regular basis. If the nitwits that decided to do this would just admit they fucked up and just wanted a fight instead of trying to sugarcoat everything, there wouldn't be nearly as much dissent.

 

And it was barely reported in different news outlets, but the special CIA task force assigned to find Osama bin Laden (remember him?) has been disbanded and the agents assigned to different duties. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Guest Hemme]

What would you have done? Held a peace conference with Osama bin Laden where we could have talked about our feelings, and how sorry we were for helping him kick the commie-atheist Soviet Union out of Afghanistan? Then, maybe George W. Bush and Osama could have joined hands and engaged in a stirring rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine", right before bin Laden headed back to Afghanistan to thank Allah and plan how to cut our throats next.

No, to be fair Afghanistan was a good start, taking down the Taleban regime & going after Osama was a smart move & most people saw the logic in it.

Sadly the fucked it all up by starting shit with Iraq, since when has Iraq been at the forefront of global terrorism? When was the last time the US was attacked by Iraq?

 

There are so many near sighted pussies on this board that dont see the big picture, its ridiculous. If there's a draft, I hope you do move to Canada.

Ah yes, "America, love it or leave it!" thankfully I dont have to make that decision as I'm English.

It's not that Im Anti-American, because I'm not, I blame the actions of my country & it's goverment just as much, it's just I can't understand why people get so blinded by patriotism they fail to see how wrong attacking Iraq was.

 

And by the looks of it, we are gonna invade north korea in a couple years.

God I hope not, look at the shambles the Iraq war was, just imagine if we went up against someone who, y'know, can actually fight back, we'd be proper fucked.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Even when Clinton was in office, its not like the GOP said "hey, dont send troops to Kosovo", the GOP realizes it takes force to extract agressive hostile regimes.

 

Hi. You're an ass =)

 

President Clinton is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.

 

-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

 

No goal, no objective, not until we have those things and a compelling case is made, then I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That's why I'm against it.

 

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/5/99

 

American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.

 

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

 

If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.

 

-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush

 

I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning...I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.

 

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

 

You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam is nothing next to Kosovo.

 

-Tony Snow, Fox News 3/24/99

 

Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years

 

-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

 

I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly h

ow many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles.

 

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

 

I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A mo

nth later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today

 

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

 

I don't know that Milosevic will ever raise a white flag

 

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

 

Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?

 

-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

 

Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.

 

-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

 

This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem.

 

-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

 

The two powers that have ICBMs that can reach the United States are Russia and China. Here we go in. We're taking on not just Milosevic. We can't just say, 'that little guy, we can whip him.' We have these two other powers that have missiles that can reach us, and we have zero defense thanks to this president.

 

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

 

You can support the troops but not the president

 

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

 

My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do.

 

-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

 

For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce.

 

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

 

Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.

 

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

 

Once the bombing commenced, I think then Milosevic unleashed his forces, and then that's when the slaughtering and the massive ethnic cleansing really started

 

-Senator Don Nickles (R-OK)

 

Clinton's bombing campaign has caused all of these problems to explode

 

-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

 

America has no vital interest in whose flag flies over Kosovo's capital, and no right to attack and kill Serb soldiers fighting on their own soil to preserve the territorial integrity of their own country

 

-Pat Buchanan ®

 

HEY IT'S SOMEONE WHO'S INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT, GO PAT~!!!

 

These international war criminals were led by Gen. Wesley Clark ... who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton.

 

-Michael Savage

 

This has been an unmitigated disaster ... Ask the Chinese embassy. Ask all the people in Belgrade that we've killed. Ask the refugees that we've killed. Ask the people in nursing homes. Ask the people in hospitals.

 

-Representative Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

 

It is a remarkable spectacle to see the Clinton Administration and NATO taking over from the Soviet Union the role of sponsoring "wars of national liberation."

 

-Representative Helen Chenoweth (R-ID)

 

By the order to launch air strikes against Serbia, NATO and President Clinton have entered uncharted territory in mankind's history. Not even Hitler's grab of the Sudetenland in the 1930s, which eventually led to WW II, ranks as a comparable travesty. For, there are no American interests whatsoever that the NATO bombing will either help, or protect; only needless risks to which it exposes the American soldiers and assets, not to mention the victims on the ground in Serbia.

 

-Bob Djurdjevic, founder of Truth in Media

 

Again, you're an ass.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.

 

Ala'a Makki, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Iraq's main Sunni political movement -- said the victims included women and children.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07...main/index.html

[Guest Hemme]

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen roaming a Baghdad neighborhood on Sunday killed at least 40 unarmed Iraqis as soon as they identified them as Sunnis, emergency police said.

 

Ala'a Makki, a spokesman for the Iraqi Islamic Party -- Iraq's main Sunni political movement -- said the victims included women and children.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07...main/index.html

 

Yup! No Civil War here, Y'all.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Well, with North Korea, it very well may be necessary to invade eventually. Iraq, in retrospect...we should not have invaded (at least not so soon, and with such poor planning). Iraq truly is a result of Bush's obsession with Saddam.

[Timmy8271 0]

Iraq has had democratic elections for the first time in forever.

To call this mission a failure, just proves how uninformed you are.

Iraq fell in like 3 weeks.

 

It's true. I am uniformed but i have been trying to become more informed. From what i hear, The iraq parliment is having problems getting together because they disagree so much. Kinda like the senate.

 

 

 

There are so many near sighted pussies on this board that dont see the big picture, its ridiculous. If there's a draft, I hope you do move to Canada.

 

Why would i want to die for something i don't beileve in? Call me a "pussy" if you want but i refuse to. I respect the people that do but it's not for me.

 

Geez, I honestly feel better about myself after reading some of this nonsense.

 

Good, i hope you do.

 

 

Most of you libs could never have lived through WWII.

 

None of us would. Even you.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles.

 

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

 

He says that like it's a bad thing. Better to run out of missiles than soldiers.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm on the Senate Intelligence Committee, so you can trust me and believe me when I say we're running out of cruise missles. I can't tell you exactly how many we have left, for security reasons, but we're almost out of cruise missles.

 

-Senator James Inhofe (R-OK)

 

He says that like it's a bad thing. Better to run out of missiles than soldiers.

I'm curious what he thought we were doing with them?

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Saleh Muhammed, an Amiriyah resident, told a Post special correspondent that he dialed 130 into his cellphone, Baghdad's emergency number. "The Mahdi Army has attacked Amiriyah," he told the Interior Ministry dispatcher.

 

"The Mahdi Army are not terrorists like you," said the dispatcher at the ministry, which is controlled by a Shiite party and operates closely with militias. "They are people doing their duty. And how could you know that they are the Mahdi Army? Is it written on their foreheads?" He hung up the phone.

 

If you didn't know, The Mahdi Army is al-Sadr's militia that the US military has clashed with in the past and, as I understand it, is fighting with now.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071100235.html

[2GOLD 0]

Saleh Muhammed, an Amiriyah resident, told a Post special correspondent that he dialed 130 into his cellphone, Baghdad's emergency number. "The Mahdi Army has attacked Amiriyah," he told the Interior Ministry dispatcher.

 

"The Mahdi Army are not terrorists like you," said the dispatcher at the ministry, which is controlled by a Shiite party and operates closely with militias. "They are people doing their duty. And how could you know that they are the Mahdi Army? Is it written on their foreheads?" He hung up the phone.

 

If you didn't know, The Mahdi Army is al-Sadr's militia that the US military has clashed with in the past and, as I understand it, is fighting with now.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071100235.html

 

Man, Baghdad's emergency number operators act alot like employees for AT&T.

"Sorry, it's not really happening, you are imagining things. If you weren't a liar and bad person, you wouldn't have called. Thanks, bye!"

 

Part of me is kinda sorta hoping they eventually do have a Civil War and just settle this. They are going to need one anyway to sort out all their differences so maybe this is the only way.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

What happened to "winning their hearts and minds?"

 

See, this is why Bush needs to be accountable...it's not even the fact that we invaded Iraq, it's that it has gone so poorly due to poor planning, etc. I know our troops are doing good, and making progress, etc...but when is enough, enough? If the current administration thinks we can wait 'til Iraq is a mini-USA to pull out, Bush is mistaken.

[cbacon 0]

Ultimately, it should be up to the Iraqis whether the US leaves or not. And the US has the responsibility for paying reperations.

[SuperJerk 0]

Reparations?

 

The U.S. is already rebuilding the place. We handed them a better form of government on s silver platter, and are helping them maintain it. This is after we got rid of their dictator for them.

[cbacon 0]

The US has the responsiblity (as the invader) to pay reperations for the amount of damage they caused. They should pay reparations for their crimes in Iraq which include the invasion (estimated between $50 and $100 billion by the World Bank) and the devestating effects of the sanctions they forced with the UK in the early 90s.

 

The US have provided nothing for the Iraqis except for a war torn nation with unstable government (the result of elections that the US adamently fought against until they were forced to allow them following Sistani's protest).

 

The "noble" removal of Saddam is a bit hard for Iraqis to swallow since Shiite rebels were asking for assistance to overthrow Saddam before the Gulf War. Instead, the US helped to strengthened his regime. Yes, it's obviously good that Saddam is no longer in power, but this certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons and it was done under the worst of circumstances. To try and paint the result of this war in any positive light is ludicrous, as Iraqis are in a far worse situation than they were before the invasion, and compensation is necessary. Unfortunatly, the US record with paying reperations stressed by the international community is less than steller (i.e. Nicaragua).

 

87% of Iraqis want the US to leave. That should be enough reason to end this occupation.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Iraq has enough oil to easily pay for its own rebuilding. The difference is that this time some of the money might actually go to the Iraqui people, where before it was just lining the pockets of Saddam and his cronies.

[cbacon 0]

Iraq shouldn't have to clean up the mess the US made. Hell, Iraq is currently paying reparations to US corporations for Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Iraq has enough oil to easily pay for its own rebuilding. The difference is that this time some of the money might actually go to the Iraqui people, where before it was just lining the pockets of Saddam and his cronies.

 

 

So as long as it is not Saddam is the real point? Instead having that money line the pockets of Bush and HIS cronies is that much better?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Whenever people talk about money "lining (insert leader) and his cronies' pockets" it sounds so simplistic, like a TV plot. It's the real world, think three-dimensionally.

[SuperJerk 0]

The US has the responsiblity (as the invader) to pay reperations for the amount of damage they caused. They should pay reparations for their crimes in Iraq which include the invasion (estimated between $50 and $100 billion by the World Bank) and the devestating effects of the sanctions they forced with the UK in the early 90s.

 

I'll say this again: The U.S. is already rebuilding the place.

 

The "noble" removal of Saddam is a bit hard for Iraqis to swallow since Shiite rebels were asking for assistance to overthrow Saddam before the Gulf War.

Except we didn't invade to make the Shiites happy, so what they asked for and when they asked for it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

 

Yes, it's obviously good that Saddam is no longer in power, but this certainly wasn't for humanitarian reasons and it was done under the worst of circumstances.

Since we don't have a time machine, we can't go back and fix the invasion. I'm talking about making the best of the current situation, instead of concentrating on stuff that we have no control over.

 

To try and paint the result of this war in any positive light is ludicrous, as Iraqis are in a far worse situation than they were before the invasion, and compensation is necessary.

 

I refuse to accept this premise based on the lacvk of evidence you have to support it. Yes, there's more terrorism in Iraq than there was before 2003, but Saddam wasn't exactly keeping the Iraqi body count at 0 himself.

 

87% of Iraqis want the US to leave. That should be enough reason to end this occupation.

 

I don't know where you got that number from. If its even close to being true, its probably because of resentment over civilian casualties during the invasion, and not an assessment of what the country would become if the U.S. suddenly left.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'll say this again: The U.S. is already rebuilding the place.

 

No, I don't think we are anymore.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6010200370.html

 

 

87% of Iraqis want the US to leave.

I don't know where you got that number from...

 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...65&lb=hmpg2

 

He's right on. If you excluded Kurds, I'm certain the numbers would be even more abysmal.

 

The "noble" removal of Saddam is a bit hard for Iraqis to swallow since Shiite rebels were asking for assistance to overthrow Saddam before the Gulf War.

Except we didn't invade to make the Shiites happy, so what they asked for and when they asked for it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

 

I think you're both a little murky on this point. There was a Shi'ite uprising (and a Kurdish uprising) AFTER the defeat of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. George (H.W.) Bush did encourge Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands", and then, from my understanding, didn't do anything to help out once the rebellion began (he may have even worked actively against it). As a result, you had a whole, whole bunch of dead Shi'ites and Kurds as Saddam ruthlessly put down the rebellion.

[SuperJerk 0]

The "noble" removal of Saddam is a bit hard for Iraqis to swallow since Shiite rebels were asking for assistance to overthrow Saddam before the Gulf War.

Except we didn't invade to make the Shiites happy, so what they asked for and when they asked for it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

 

I think you're both a little murky on this point. There was a Shi'ite uprising (and a Kurdish uprising) AFTER the defeat of Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. George (H.W.) Bush did encourge Iraqis to "take matters into their own hands", and then, from my understanding, didn't do anything to help out once the rebellion began (he may have even worked actively against it). As a result, you had a whole, whole bunch of dead Shi'ites and Kurds as Saddam ruthlessly put down the rebellion.

I'm not murky on anything. Since I was rejecting his entire premise, picking apart his timeline of events was a waste of time.

 

87% of Iraqis want the US to leave.

I don't know where you got that number from...

 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...65&lb=hmpg2

 

He's right on. If you excluded Kurds, I'm certain the numbers would be even more abysmal.

 

You left out an important part of what I was saying.

 

I don't know where you got that number from. If its even close to being true, its probably because of resentment over civilian casualties during the invasion, and not an assessment of what the country would become if the U.S. suddenly left.

 

Does the poll shed any light on my observation? Yes, it does.

 

Your source says:

A large majority favors setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces, though this majority divides over whether the timeline should be over a period of six months or two years.

 

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/art...65&lb=hmpg2

 

Do the Iraqis favor us immediately leaving? Not according to your source.

 

And here's another question for you: do opinion polls decide policy, or do governments? The last I'd heard, the officially recognized government of Iraq (the people who were actually elected to lead the country) wanted us to stay. When the government of Iraq says its time for us to leave, then we should leave.

[iggymcfly 0]

I could give a fuck about what the Iraqi government wants. I don't live in Iraq. What I do know is that American soldiers are dying every day in order to work toward some distant ill-defined objective that may not even be possible to accomplish. As far as American interests go, this war has been wantonly destructive and has accomplished nothing except for increasing the profit margin of a few multi-national corporations, most of which are "coincidentally" led by close associates of the Bush administration.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I'm not murky on anything. Since I was rejecting his entire premise, picking apart his timeline of events was a waste of time.

 

But his point was cogent. He was arguing that the "removal of Saddam/saving the Iraqis from a dictator" justification for the war was a canard and, if that was the goal, it could have ostensibly been accomplished back in '91 (saving a lot of lives in the process). He certainly never argued that the US invaded at the request of the Shi'ites.

 

I'm not saying that such a sentiment (save the poor Iraqis!) didn't exist in the war's planning, but that, if it did, history would seem to suggest that it wasn't that important.

 

You left out an important part of what I was saying.

 

Because I wasn't arguing with your premise. You said that you didn't know where he got that number from, so I showed you.

 

Does the poll shed any light on my observation? Yes, it does.

 

I never said that it didn't.

 

And here's another question for you: do opinion polls decide policy, or do governments? The last I'd heard, the officially recognized government of Iraq (the people who were actually elected to lead the country) wanted us to stay. When the government of Iraq says its time for us to leave, then we should leave.

 

Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

 

CNN, 11/05

 

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations. Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/

[SuperJerk 0]

A timetable for withdrawal of occupation troops from Iraq. Amnesty for all insurgents who attacked U.S. and Iraqi military targets. Release of all security detainees from U.S. and Iraqi prisons. Compensation for victims of coalition military operations. Those sound like the demands of some of the insurgents themselves, and in fact they are. But they're also key clauses of a national reconciliation plan drafted by new Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who will unveil it Sunday.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13521628/site/newsweek/

 

You left out the part of the article where it says this wasn't the final verison of the plan, and that it hasn't been approved by the national assembly.

 

 

I could give a fuck about what the Iraqi government wants. I don't live in Iraq. What I do know is that American soldiers are dying every day in order to work toward some distant ill-defined objective that may not even be possible to accomplish. As far as American interests go, this war has been wantonly destructive and has accomplished nothing except for increasing the profit margin of a few multi-national corporations, most of which are "coincidentally" led by close associates of the Bush administration.

I'll be curious to know if your opinion changes once gasoline is $10 a gallon and Iraq as turned into a full-blown terrorist state because we didn't give the Iraqi democratic government enough time to stabalize.

 

Like I've said before, if we had it to do all over again, we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. However, we did and there's no changing that. We now need to make the best of a bad situation and stay until the country is stable and not an immediate threat to the rest of the world.

 

Yes, having American casualties suck. However, those brave men and women KNEW THE RISK when they volutarily signed up to be in the military. Over 2500 Americans are dead because of the president's faulty WMD intelligence, but I'd hate to think their sacrifice was in vein. A democratic Iraq is a better option than the alternative.

 

President Bush may have completely screwed this entire war up from the beginning, but cutting our losses will just make a bad situation worse.

[cbacon 0]

Why do you believe that the US has the right to decide when to leave rather than what the Iraqi people want?

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Why do you believe that the US has the right to decide when to leave rather than what the Iraqi people want?

 

Would you let a 10yr old drive a car if they didnt know how to drive?

 

OF course you wouldnt.

Democracies take time to rebuild.

Just because someone wants something (and I'd never govern by poll numbers bc poll numbers are ADD), doesnt mean you just give it to them if you dont think they can handle it.

 

The US is pretty good at developing democracy. We've had ours for over 200yrs. I think giving a beginning country some assistance is a good idea.

 

This is an aside, but C-Bacon has the biggest Anti-American attitude on this board. I hope if the US invades Canada, they can enslave C-Bacon. You'd think from listening to this freedom hating hippy, that the US akin to the British Empire of the 1700's. Get a life dude. No one believes your bull shit.

[Slayer 0]

I wonder what will happen first:

 

C-Bacon saying something pro-American or Cheesala saying something intelligent

[Guest Felonies!]

I'll go off the board and take "JustPassinBy comes out of a thread not looking like a gimmick poster"