Civil War In Iraq Feared
Even I, an often negative person, was shocked to read that above headline about Iraq spinning truly out of control. Over the last few week I began thinking that the real threats of violence were coming from Dick Cheney's gun blasts and that we were at war with the United Arab Emirates. Well, I guess not. A mosque attack that killed over 100 Iraqis has really caused chaos.Even the guy that is supposedly the President of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, says Civil War is just steps away. Talabani has instituted a curfew and called an emergency summit to discuss the violence. However, Sunni leaders told Talabani to screw himself......not so good.
President Bush responded, "the world must stand united against them (terrorists), and steadfast behind the people of Iraq." Are there any Republicans that are sick of his stale rhetoric, in the face of mounting problems?
Somewhat Related: In 1999 the US, had Osama Bin Laden. They knew where he was, and could have taken him out. However, Clinton decided against the strike, because half the UAE Royal Family would have been killed. This is because the UAE Royal Family, the very same people that OWN the now infamous Dubai Ports World (its a state-owned company), were spending some quality time with Bin Laden.These clowns over in the UAE, the same people that openly embraced the Taliban's existence and laundered money for al Queda operations, were openly friends of Bin Laden.....now Bush trusts those very same guys to run our ports. I would say I'm surprised, but, remember, Bush's dad was having breakfast with Bin Laden's freaking brother during the 9/11 attacks.....no one found that strange, so this port deal must be no big deal.
By Chuck - 2/24/2006
60 Comments:
Note: In hindsight, Clinton probably made the wrong move. However, killing half of the leaders in that family probably would have caused a shit storm of problems. Maybe even attacks from the very rich UAE.
Also, there is no way Bush vetoes this thing. His support for this thing reminds me of the Harriett Miers nomination....he is acting tough now, because he won't act like a flip-flopper.....and then he will flip flop. Maybe Dems should run a windsurfing add about Bush on this.
I find it funny that the repubs use the defense that Clinton had his chance to kill Osama. But they fail to realize that the world body would not accept the U.S. killing the government of a country. Talk about uniting the arabs against the U.S.. That would have done it.
What do all you repubs have to say about the Clinton thing now that you know the whole story?
Paul
Jalabani is a weak president. Not what the US wanted.
That article said they did not target bin Laden once - the time he with the UAE. It is my understanding they had other chances
We had every chance after 9-11-2001.
One report was that the military actually had him in the point blank sights of a robot hellfire missile plane. one word from W and POOOOOFFFFF - bye bye Bin Laden but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The other reported by numerous military persons said at Bora Bora - He was cornered. Insufficient assault forces and units were ordered after him to comolete the job so...POOOOOOF - He just slipped away through Pakistan. Massive bribes were reported paid to sneak him out. I wonder who ELSE benefitted for Osama's $$$$$$$$$ to just let him get away...and I say he got away -NOT BY COINCEDENCE BUT WAS ALLOWED TO GET AWAY!
Bin Laden got away with 9-11 and the US (leader) FAILED us.
No two ways to cut that mustard!
I'd bet the UAE will get a modified deal passed. Arab governments are excellent at lobbying the U.S. Congress.
Especially since alot of Bush's cabinet have alot to lose if this deal doesn't go through.
Ben,
I am talking about the same time and date that Rightys talk about. What other times are you talking about? I was talking about this one instance. Do you at least acknowledge the fact that there is a connection between the UAE and Osama?
Paul
Yeah, today the front page of the Akron Beacon Journal had a headline with the words "Iraq" and "civil war" separated by a few prepositions.
Civil war use to be the type of defeatist nonsense that only Chomsky readers babbled about (because the liberal media had distorted their reality).
For those of you still wearing rose-colored glasses...the rose-colored shit is about to hit the rose-colored fan.
Ya, well some guys returning from Iraq have told me that the 'civil war' (i love that term ...its like killer nuns) has been ongoing for a year or so. News Flash:::: the Kurds have already made arrangements for their own State.
The whole situation is more like the name of the nefarious terrorist:
Isheetz Me'Drawers
I guess the Turks are going to pissed at the U.S. too. The U.S. told them there would not be a Kurdish state. I do think that the country would be much better off if they did form 3 seperate governments.
Paul
You guys should stop claiming that Bush senior was having breakfast with bin Laden's brother. First of all, he was reported to be his brother-in-law, which he denies. Every reputable source retracted all negative claims they made about this man. Please try to find a source that is not another liberal blog- one that didn't later retract their statements or get sued for libel. Here's an example of one of the many site retractions:
"Talk:Khalid bin Mahfouz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello,
I have been contacted by Kendall Freeman, a law firm in the UK, regarding this article. They say they are acting on behalf of Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. They take serious exception to significant parts of this article. Apparently we have gotten some facts wrong, probably derived from news sources which have since been corrected. We need to follow suit and correct this article as well.
I will try to find a way to scan their complaint and put it online for editors to review, but in the meantime, some specific points to research include:
1.1 Sheikh Mahfouz claims to have no association with al-Qaeda at all, nor has he even been under investigation by Saudi authorties for this. Neither the UN, EU, US, nor any other government has ever indicated that he is involved with supporting terrorism.
1.2 It is denied that any audit of NCB exists which uncovered transfers to charities linked to terrorism. In 28 October 2001, the Chicago Tribune quoted an NCB official saying "I can tell you absolutely, categorically there was no such audit..."
1.3 Sheikh Mahfouz has never been placed under house arrest by the Saudi Government.
1.4 Another article of ours, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States claims that Mahfouz is the brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden. This is denied.
1.5 Regarding this allegation of him being brother-in-law of Osama bin Laden, leading publications have printed corrections... Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Fortune Magazine, L.A., Times, etc.
1.6 The stuff about BCCI needs to be investigated more carefully. BCCI as an organization got in a lot of trouble, but not Mahfouz personally.
1.7 Sheikh Mahfouz has never had any ownership interest in Delta Oil.
1.8 We are asked to report accurately on the recent settlements between The Mail on Sunday and Pluto Press/Michael Griffen. I think this was a libel case in the U.K.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Khalid_bin_Mahfouz for more).
The next time Bush say something like " hey ...stay the course..mission is being accomplished"
"those naysayer - DEMOCRATS"
answer
8::::::::::> >8
Mustaf Herod Aypur Poupr
Bush sure catered to the whole damn Bin Lade family ,Like they were his own kin, right after 9-11.......flying those dummies right out of the country before the FBI could even ask the and questions.
I bet he is actually related to the Bin Ladens.....Bush daddy sneaking around the Harem maybe????
Julia,
You do know that Wikepedia was just sued for having false and inaccurate information on thier site? How can you claim that as a reliable source? This is a complaint. No case has been filed.
Do you have any major articles related to this? Do you know which news story was retracted?
George Tenant acknowledged that the UAE and Osama were together. I guess he was lying. He should retract that. Or is this a case of false info coming from our government.
Paul
This is a complaint from person, not a case has been filed that I am aware of.
Paul
Yeah, come on all of you, big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again.
He's got himself in a terrible jam
Way down yonder in Vietnam (Iraqland)
So put down your books and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lotta fun.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam (Bagdad, Man!);
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Well, come on generals, let's move fast;
Your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those reds —
The only good commie(raghead) is the one who's dead
And you know that peace can only be won
When we've blown 'em all to kingdom come.
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam (Iraqland);
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Huh!
Well, come on Wall Street, don't move slow,
Why man, this is war au-go-go.
There's plenty good money to be made
By supplying the Army with the tools of the trade,
Just hope and pray that if they drop the bomb,
They drop it on the Viet Cong (Sunnis, Man!).
And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Vietnam (Iraq, Man!).
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Iraqland.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.
And it's one, two, three
What are we fighting for ?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is Iraqland.
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
I retract my statement that Wikepedia was sued. They were told that they had false and inaccurate info. So apparently they do not make sure that the info is accurate.
Paul
Sudan offered him to Clinton. It has been cited by many people who worked in that admin.
What the hell are you talking about - Bush could have taken bin Laden out with a drone post 9-11.? If he could have he would have and to say that because of money or whatever reasons is borderline outrageous. Or to say he let him slip away. That is absolutely crazy.
Paul,
It has been mentioned several times on this site before that Wikipedia is not a reliable source because anyone can go in and alter entries. That is both the beauty and downfall of it.
Ben:
I never heard that Sudan offered Bin Laden to us.
Can you give me a link/article or something about it?
Ben,Watch it with the crazy accusations! - on the History Channel, It was reported in interviews that one of those unmanned drones had Bin Laden in the sites with the remote cam on the plane.
They didnt use the weapon aboard, nor did they call in an airstrike because they were ordered NOT TO.
In more interviews , others said that we had ample chances to get him!
I leave it up to you to decide why the order was NOT given.
cc: MJ
Ben, You are propagating false info about Sudan/BinLaden/Clinton
just google: Sudan Bin Laden Clinton
Come on, don't ditto propaganda like this - we are all here to inform each other ---not mislead !
Side Note: Wikipedia is somtimes unreliable as others have said ...For a real kick....try www.urbandictionary.com
I am not misleading anyone. Everyone knows that Sudan offered him to us. I did google "Bin Laden Sudan Offer". You can do it too and choose from anyone of the links that are from reliable new sources (like the Wash Post). It is not false information. You can choose not to believe it. Thats fine. All US Presidents from Carter to present did not do enough in this area. I am not blaming Clinton for what happened at all. But when you come on here and say that Bush had the chance to kill bin Laden post Sept 11 and chose not to, i cant let that slide.
FInd me a reliable source somewhere on that and I will relent and say I was wrong. Until then, I cant and wont.
I dont come on here to mislead anyone. More than maybe anyone here I go out of the way to critizce my party.
I have never seen you criticize anyone but the democrats who by the way aren't the ones make all these horrible mistakes. And just as you claim about Clinton's administration...People in Bush's administration said that we had Osama in our sights in the mountains of Afganistan. But it was more important to invade Iraq. I mean they attacked us didn't they. Good one!
Paul
Hannity again falsely claimed Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton
Pakistan makes deal to let Bin Laden Go
Osama bin Laden was able to elude capture after the US invasion of Afghanistan by paying bribes
CIA operative says Bush, military leaders let bin Laden escape
There is plenty of reading material about how Bin Laden got away.
A major item to also consider is the fact the Bush opened up a second front (poor military move!) while the primary objective of killing Bin Laden and El Queda was in progress - thus diverting much needed recources from the task at hand.
Face it Ben - Bush is a poor CMdr in Chief
Ben,
Please read the 9-11 Commission, Hearing 8, Item 4- Sudan
9-11 Commission, Hearing 8, Item 4- Sudan
Correct link:
9-11 Hearing 8
Julia, I am unaware if Bush or Shafiq Bin Laden had any food that morning of 9/11, so maybe I shouldn't say they had breakfast.....but it is well verified that they were together.....so you should quit trying to claim otherwise
One comment on the Sudan debate. I googled: "bin laden" Sudan offer clinton. I got a bunch of conservative links, then an article for Madeleine Albright saying it is false......I am going to believe Albright over Matt Drudge. Sorry.
paul no one is disputing he got away at tora bora. they messed that up big time. i would never say otherwise. but making a strategic mistake is a hell of a lot different than purposely allowing him to get away or they were ordered not to shoot on a seperate occasion. your link is testimony of richard clarke. not an actual finding by the commission.
and if you have only seen me critize democrats than you are a very selective reader. I criticize both sides, sure I am a Republican but I still call them out. to say i dont is flat out wrong.
chuck you can google Sudan Bin Laden Offer and youll see "mainstream" articles about it, including the Washington Post.
i did that search. the first like 20 articles are like i said. so i quit searching.
Ler,
Sorry to ripe on you some more but your comment of "Jalabini is a weak President. Not what the U.S. wanted." Lets not forget that the U.S. wanted Saddam back in the 80s.
Like Petey said, read the 9/11 commision report, you will find alot of information that proves that GW is a horrible president. He is the head of this bunch and should take responsiblility. Good work on that portion of the hearing Bananas. Have a good weekend!
Paul
Come on Ben,
Sworn testimony to the 9-11 Commission by Sec Advisor Richard Clarke saying that Sudan DI NOT offer Bin Laden to the US
VS
A propaganda slur fabricated by Sean Hannity????
Now which do you really think is the truth??
Please Get WISE - the Nation depends on smart truthfully informed young citizens like you!
As for me, I have NO political agenda to feed you or anyone else...I am sworn to the truth as principal....without which our Nation founders ...as you may come to realize is happening presently.
But Please, Please pay cautious heed to propagandists like Sean Hannity who twist and warp reality.
Best of Regards,
Petey
Iraq had the strongest president, and probably the only guy that could keep it together: Saddam. Sure, he was nuts, but it probably takes a nut to keep together that country.
In regards to the Sudan thing, or other Clinton faults.....Let's assume that Clinton did fuck up (maybe even this Sudan thing happened, despite the contrary evidence).....
1) I think its clear that EVERYONE underestimated the threat of Osama. I personally think (based on A LOT of evidence), Bush has underestimated him more
(notes: Bush never met with his anti-terrorism czar, but Clinton met with his DAILY. also, the bush folks got memo saying "bin laden determined to strike in US"....bush stayed on vacation and did not request a meeting with his terrorism folks).
2) Okay, but that is not the big point. The big point is, so what if clinton underestimated him. BUSH HAS ADMITTED TO UNDERESTIMATING THE PRE-9/11 THREAT!!! So it is really stupid for any of us to be debating whehter Clinton did.
(note: its not stupid to debate the sudan thing, if people are siting matt drudge as authority over madeliene albright).
Anyway, my main point: not sure. Just think we are getting away from the fact that Bush is CURRENTLY making an apparently foolish decision with our ports. These Republicans are trained to evade and change the topic. We (myself as guilty as anyone) cannot keep letting it happen.
I guess are googles are different. i still see the wa.po. article on the first page of results. but not all that importnat
petey i dont think i have mentioned sean hannity here so dont wrap up what i said with him. i never said your yet to be proved "history channel" allegations were something al franken said. i never tried to evade the port issue. I came here and said it was a bad idea. i said i didnt blamne clinton for sept 11. i said all presidents from carter on did a bad job on terrorism until sept 11 including bush. so really i dont think any of us are in disgareement here ovet the major points.
i will have to say chuck that I am not sure Clinton met with anti-terrorism czar daily - i am not aware he even had one. did he? i know he wouldnt meet with the CIA. if what you said is true i would like to read about it.
go buckeyes 10 min.
Richard Clarke was Clinton's terrorism czar. According to Clarke, a man that your side hates for nothing more then his statements of fact, Clinton met with Clarke often. Bush, not so much.
Go Bucks
Yes, Chuck we might as well drop the Sudan debate because we would be serving propagandists prime mechanic 1.) to project away from the MAIN issue and 2.) Project blame onto others (Clinton)
I stand by 9-11 testimony of Clarke...
On the 9-11 Commission Report:::::
Everyone should read it and and the accompying testimonies. I just read testinony of Spec. Prosectuter Fitzgerald and it very damning of many activities in the UAE.
Its posted for all to see:
www.9-11commission.gov
Am presently reading 9-11 Report some more ----will check in later...
Some reports say that the UAE/Dubai Ports advocates are very very busy in DC *lobbying (*read bribing) govt officials and reps.
Hey this is the beast of corruption that we now are living with ----- the UAE surely thinks its "The American Way"
My associates of all persuasions: Its way past time to drop all the petty crap and focus on curing the corruption that allows Govt to the HIGHEST BIDDER
Like Bill Maher said, "what happened to bush's 'everything changed after 9/11' talk". But now its more important to look nice to foreign nations
(bush is talking about the "bad message" it will send to foreign nations if we block the UAE......what a joke)
This guy talks out of both sides of his mouth, and anyone with a brain knows it.
By the way, I am giving Peter the benefit of the doubt and assuming he is very busy studying.....however, his silence, and the silence of other war supports is deafening. Not a word of rebuttle to the fact of this civil war chaos.
Chuck,
All in the know (some returning GI's and family members)that I have talked to about the Iraq situation have said that exactly what we are realizing was already happening.
I was astounded that many war supporters had such a rosy outlook - which just absolutely contradicted what I was hearing thru veterans networks.
I bet that (right now)the Pentagon is making plans to pull out or at least pull back. And Bush's keepers are making hasty PR excuses to schmooze it over with their "base"
Incidently, doesnt Al Queda mean "Base"
No doubt we are pulling out. We have no other choice. However, we will keep those military bases and a lasting presence.....which will keep us as the constant enemy.
You can thrash and wail all you like.
The fact is, we're winning this thing, and you leftards can't stand it.
Recent pilgrammages to Nasiriyah and Najaf were peaceful.
And this recent bomb explosion at the Mosque is going to drive a wedge between the insurgency and the Sunni regulars. The Sunnis are finally going to come to their senses, disown the insurgency, and join the government in earnest. Shi'ites and Sunni will come together, out of enlightened self-interest, and build a model for other neighbors in the region to follow. Their elections are already the envy of the Mideast.
OK Rick,
Define 'Winning" ...what are we winning ? Cheap oil?
The Iraquis loving & Supporting America?
Just what?
Returning GI's say that they have "won" if they got the hell out of that hellhole in one piece.
30,000+ maimed American GI's - what win?
Rick, if you have some insight that went over my head like an Iraqui RPG , please tell me about it.
Rick,
You realize that in all likelihood the Shias (who are part & parcel married to IRAN!) will beat the sunnis - the Kurds in the north have already made arrangements for an independent state.
Do you think thats a 'win" with Iran Nutsy Clerics controlling Iraq?
Come on, Tell me about this "WIN"
There is one way to "win"(I think this is your definition???) : in the short term as demonstrated during the first months of the war in Mar-Apr 2003--
Untethered Military Force - I mean some BIG stuff here buddy, B-52's, Tomahawks, unmentionables.
But as before and as always happens.. the populace just crawls out of the rubble, meek momentarily, then just comes back hating us more than ever.
Study the sitreps some and you will see that invading Iraq was a mistake
Guys, save your breath on dillusional people like Rick. He sounds like Steven Colbert, except he's serious.
But how can you explain the recent peaceful pilgrammages to Nasiriyah and Najaf, if you say we're losing?
We're going to win, we just have to wait this thing out. The whole "Stay the Course" thing.
Yeah, I have been awfully busy with school, and I was travelling this weekend, but there's not much here to respond to anyway.
Despite what you say about "rose colored glasses" nobody in the Administration was deluded about the fact that establishing democracy in the Middle East will be a long hard struggle. The recent violence is simply evidence of that. Sadly, it seems to inspire a lot of useless finger pointing, and not a lot of productive suggestions.
Today's WSJ: "Democracy offers the possibility of greater liberalism and greater moderation, possibilities that have been opened with the courageously pro-American governments of Hamid Karzai, Jalal Talabani and Saad Hariri. And as we stand with them, it seems to us that America's bets are better placed promoting democracies- even if some of them succumb to illiberal temptations- than acceding to dictatorships, which already have."
True. But Chuck suggests that Saddam is the only one who could keep Iraq together. It is exactly this attitude that led tot he rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the intifada in Israel, WTC bombing, 9/11, etc. Like I said...not much to respond to here.
Wall Street Journal should stick to the stock market and stop advertising for the Bush administration. Do they site any facts as to why the U.S. in their imperialist ways should promote democracy? Why does everyone think that countries need to have the same type of government we have here? Keep your nose out of others business!
Peter are you quoting the editorial page of the WSJ?
he could be quoting the toilet paper in the truckstop - for all the sense that quote makes!
Peter, The difference with Saddam's power and the other groups you point to is that Saddam was just a self-contained asshole.....not the threat to Americans, like those other groups.
and that WSJ stuff is just useless rhetoric.....just like the Bush quote.
Peter,
I don't see how the recent violence in Iraq shows any evidence to support your claim that the administration was not deluded prior to the war as to the difficulty of the struggle ahead. I think they thought it would be tough, but they in no way had forseen the problems apparent now. By the way, how does anything going on now in Iraq resemble success? Just about everything going on there has been an overwhelming failure for our country, and there seems to be absolutely nothing good that will come out out of it in the near future. Even diehard conservatives I know in Houston are finally realizing that fact, and the majority of people seem to love Bush here.
actually, Toneff, thanks for reminding me.....
Dick Cheney on May 31st 2005:
The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes"
That is not dilluting the threat? Hahahahaha.
"I perdict chaos and uncertainty in the Middle East for years to come. You heard it here first folks."
--The Onion
Like I said: What exactly are we winning? All I hear from Peter and the dittoes is pompous unreal idealism (rhetoric as Chuck said)
For more See:::: National G, Jan issue - "Whos winning in Iraq"
I ask again : What exactly are we winning?
It's really easy to point to violence in Iraq and ask what we are winning, but there is no way to tell whether we are winning or not right now. Surely things could be going better, but you've admitted yourself that it will be years before we know the ultimate results of planting the seed of democracy in the Middle East.
It's too bad that you dismiss the WSJ quote as useless rhetoric...I suppose it's easy for you to do that since it seems these days that you only have the random odd anonymous conservative poster braving your site (and not particularly eloquent ones at that). Judging from the responses that I get here, and the names that I'm constantly called, it's pretty easy to see why.
But since we're friends, I'll connect the dots re: the WSJ quote - First: The forces that are causing this violence have been in place long before US presence in Iraq...these evil forces seek to use religious strife to perpetuate the power of those who have it, instead of diffusing the power to the people. The people who perpetuate this are powerful, but they are not all powerful, as evidenced by the many young and old Iraqis who are committed to a peaceful, pluralistic society (including Ayatollah Sistani). What U.S. intervention in Iraq and the Middle East is all about is helping those people increase their legitimate power, and help encourage the average citizen to believe in self-determination and claim it as their right. To give up on this struggle is what you all are calling for, and what I (and the WSJ piece) point out is that this is exactly the strategy that led to the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the intifada in Israel, WTC bombing, 9/11, etc. in the first place. To say that Saddam is the only one who could keep Iraq under control is an insult to the Iraqi people, especially when we consider the brutal tactics that Saddam used to keep Iraq under control. Appeasing rulers like him was exactly what got us into all kinds of trouble in the first place. To give up now when we've accomplished so much (and spent so much) is foolish. We have to see things through until peaceful and right-thinking Iraqi's can defend themselves and democracy.
To acknowledge on one hand that we won't know the results of this intervention for years, and on the other to advocate premature withdrawal is tantamount to wishing for democracy in the Middle East to fail.
"We have to see things through until peaceful and right-thinking Iraqi's can defend themselves and democracy"
At what cost Peter? We have consistently scaled back our goals with regard to Iraq and still are woefully short of having a stabilized nation.
"What U.S. intervention in Iraq and the Middle East is all about is helping those people increase their legitimate power, and help encourage the average citizen to believe in self-determination and claim it as their right."
US intervention is viewed as an ILLEGITIMATE POWER, and whoever we back is regarded as merely an extension of US interest. Promoting belief in self determination can't be achieved through the actions of an invading military. Belief in self-determination is something that is an intangible goal, with no way to quantify progress or success. This can't be about a battle of ideas, that comes after the basic standard of living has been met-which three years later is still not done.
"To acknowledge on one hand that we won't know the results of this intervention for years, and on the other to advocate premature withdrawal is tantamount to wishing for democracy in the Middle East to fail."
exactly why tangible goals need to be set and met is key, otherwise your line of thought invests a lot of $$ and more importantly lives on a HYPOTHESIS !!!
"Judging from the responses that I get here, and the names that I'm constantly called, it's pretty easy to see why."- you do a fair job of insulting others opinions. I often think that you do what you do simply to provoke, but hey to make you feel better, I am glad when you post if for no other reason that it forces me to analyze my own position so thanks for that.
Post a Comment
<< Home