what do you guys think should be done in iraq?

At this point, nuking doesn't sound like a bad idea... >_>

And why so many Iraq topics today???

what should we do over there?mig_killer2

Finish what you started.

There is a post exactly like this...I remember typing in it ten minutes or so ago...and you cant nuke a cave...and if we just said

"Oh F*** this, lets just nuke the damn place" *Nukes go off*
Then everything we did up to that point would be for nothing...all the advances and stuff...

US should leave and let them blow themselves up. Maybe then , the US will enter Darfur. Tjeremiah1988

How would it be intelligent to jump from the frying pan straight into a bonfire?

Provide stringent guidelines for Iraqi development. If the Iraqi government doesn't comply, begin transfering control of most of the country to the Iraqi forces. Maintain some presence in, say, Baghdad, or get out. In short, get the Iraqis to work with us, or tell them to go to hell.

I think that Mike Huckabee should be the next president, because he's planning oon sending more troops to Iraq if need be to help the innocent citizens there and to stop the constant bombings and terrorists.huladog123

One important thing to note beforehand is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those 72 virgins) and doomed to hell.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by; you guessed it, Muslim extremists. So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the now horrified terrorists.

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc. They let the 50th terrorist go. And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world.

Found on the net. I can't vouch for this so hopefully someone else will chime in with their thoughts.

[QUOTE="huladog123"]I think that Mike Huckabee should be the next president, because he's planning oon sending more troops to Iraq if need be to help the innocent citizens there and to stop the constant bombings and terrorists.schoeffmaster

You want to know how to deal with a native insurrection? Do what we did during the Filipino Insurrection of 1900: Take all the native population and put them in camps. Strictly guard these camps, stringently enforcing who/what goes in and who/what goes out. Supply the people within the camps so they do not, say, starve to death, which is bad PR. At this point, mount massive campaigns against the insurgents. With the local population under the close watch of the government, the insurgents will get no new supplies and no new recruits, and the insurgency will collapse after a short time.

The reason we can't do it now is because the American people can't stomach it. They'll see pictures of poor civilians living in the "concentration" camps and demand to know why the evil Army is hurting these poor ol' innocent civilians. This would also trigger accusations from the international community about "human rights violations", even if the people are well-cared for.

The fact is, that's the only way to deal with an insurgency. If the US focused on taking exceptional care of the people in the camps, instead of letting some starve to death or die of disease, like those in the camps in the Phillipines in 1900, then we'd be able to destroy the insurgency.

[QUOTE="schoeffmaster"][QUOTE="huladog123"]I think that Mike Huckabee should be the next president, because he's planning oon sending more troops to Iraq if need be to help the innocent citizens there and to stop the constant bombings and terrorists.ElZilcho90

You want to know how to deal with a native insurrection? Do what we did during the Filipino Insurrection of 1900: Take all the native population and put them in camps. Strictly guard these camps, stringently enforcing who/what goes in and who/what goes out. Supply the people within the camps so they do not, say, starve to death, which is bad PR. At this point, mount massive campaigns against the insurgents. With the local population under the close watch of the government, the insurgents will get no new supplies and no new recruits, and the insurgency will collapse after a short time.

The reason we can't do it now is because the American people can't stomach it. They'll see pictures of poor civilians living in the "concentration" camps and demand to know why the evil Army is hurting these poor ol' innocent civilians. This would also trigger accusations from the international community about "human rights violations", even if the people are well-cared for.

The fact is, that's the only way to deal with an insurgency. If the US focused on taking exceptional care of the people in the camps, instead of letting some starve to death or die of disease, like those in the camps in the Phillipines in 1900, then we'd be able to destroy the insurgency.

Are you mad? It is a violation of human rights, imprisoning people against their will. Imagine how you'd feel.That's called empathy maybe you shouldtry it now and again.

IMO all foreign forces should withdraw and Bush should make a public apology to the Iraqi people and build up national defense without infringing upon civil liberties.

And about that execution thing, with the pigs, that'sone of the most sickening things I've heard.

Are you mad? It is a violation of human rights, imprisoning people against their will. Imagine how you'd feel.That's called empathy maybe you shouldtry it now and again.

IMO all foreign forces should withdraw and Bush should make a public apology to the Iraqi people and build up national defense without infringing upon civil liberties.

And about that execution thing, with the pigs, that'sone of the most sickening things I've heard.

bradleybhoy

Sure, it's ruthless. That's the only way to win a war against a determined insurgency, short of shooting the entire population, or nuking them, as others have suggested.

Well first off i believe that the 21,500 troops surge was not nearly enough, however there are signs of military progress. I think we need to send 40,000-50,000 more troops to secure Baghdad and the Anbar province, we wait a few months and strategically start lowering the number of troops to around 100,000. We must make sure the Iraqi government is capable of fighting the terrorists and we must pressure them to cooperate with us. If congress would let the Generals make their decisions this war could have already been over, but congress threatens to cut fundings and troop deployments, let me tell you something the majority of congress has no idea of how our military operates and what are ROE's are although they try to restrict them which gets even more soldiers killed. They say they support them by cutting funding, while i see that as murder. They say they support them by pulling out, But if we pull out now, as we are leaving hell will be unleashed and there will be bombings all over the place. Without a proper security force, Iraq will fall again this time into enemy hands. We need to stay there with a significant presence for at least 6 more months maybe more and from there decide what to do. The Iraqi government has to cooperate with us and they must try to help themselves, but for now they are going to need help, they just started their government a year ago, it takes time.UrbanSpartan125

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

Are you mad? It is a violation of human rights, imprisoning people against their will. Imagine how you'd feel.That's called empathy maybe you shouldtry it now and again.

IMO all foreign forces should withdraw and Bush should make a public apology to the Iraqi people and build up national defense without infringing upon civil liberties.

And about that execution thing, with the pigs, that'sone of the most sickening things I've heard.

ElZilcho90

Sure, it's ruthless. That's the only way to win a war against a determined insurgency, short of shooting the entire population, or nuking them, as others have suggested.

American troops shouldn't even be in Iraq! US forces should pull out and Bush should admit he went too far and deal with the consequences. Enough damage has been done. Once foreign soldiers leave Iraq the civil war will proabably fight itself out (thousands more dead) and then Iraq will probably become a hotbed for terrorists, terrorists that wouldn't have exsisted if it wasn't for the invasion!

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

Are you mad? It is a violation of human rights, imprisoning people against their will. Imagine how you'd feel.That's called empathy maybe you shouldtry it now and again.

IMO all foreign forces should withdraw and Bush should make a public apology to the Iraqi people and build up national defense without infringing upon civil liberties.

And about that execution thing, with the pigs, that'sone of the most sickening things I've heard.

bradleybhoy

Sure, it's ruthless. That's the only way to win a war against a determined insurgency, short of shooting the entire population, or nuking them, as others have suggested.

American troops shouldn't even be in Iraq! US forces should pull out and Bush should admit he went too far and deal with the consequences. Enough damage has been done. Once foreign soldiers leave Iraq the civil war will proabably fight itself out (thousands more dead) and then Iraq will probably become a hotbed for terrorists, terrorists that wouldn't have exsisted if it wasn't for the invasion!

I'm not about to be dragged into an overly-emotional, factless game of accusation and insults. Saddam supported terrorists, anyone who argues against that is a fool. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which he used. Every sign pointed to him having them. He was a danger we had to deal with.

Say what you will, claim what you will, argue what you will. I don't give a damn and have better things to do with my time than bicker on the internet about things a vast majority of posters have no understanding and no knowledge about.

[QUOTE="bradleybhoy"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

Are you mad? It is a violation of human rights, imprisoning people against their will. Imagine how you'd feel.That's called empathy maybe you shouldtry it now and again.

IMO all foreign forces should withdraw and Bush should make a public apology to the Iraqi people and build up national defense without infringing upon civil liberties.

And about that execution thing, with the pigs, that'sone of the most sickening things I've heard.

ElZilcho90

Sure, it's ruthless. That's the only way to win a war against a determined insurgency, short of shooting the entire population, or nuking them, as others have suggested.

American troops shouldn't even be in Iraq! US forces should pull out and Bush should admit he went too far and deal with the consequences. Enough damage has been done. Once foreign soldiers leave Iraq the civil war will proabably fight itself out (thousands more dead) and then Iraq will probably become a hotbed for terrorists, terrorists that wouldn't have exsisted if it wasn't for the invasion!

I'm not about to be dragged into an overly-emotional, factless game of accusation and insults. Saddam supported terrorists, anyone who argues against that is a fool. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which he used. Every sign pointed to him having them. He was a danger we had to deal with.

Say what you will, claim what you will, argue what you will. I don't give a damn and have better things to do with my time than bicker on the internet about things a vast majority of posters have no understanding and no knowledge about.

Okay yeah that's very good. Just as we get to a debate start stating the "facts" and refuse to hear reason. Well that's lucky I've got some actual evidence to back up my argument.

Al Qaeda - Hussein link dismissed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

and oh noes what have we here

Bush rejects Saddam - 9/11 Link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3118262.stm

Seems to me that it's your argument that consists of overly emotional, factless accustaions and insults.

Stay the course until Iraq is stable and all insurgency has been defeated.

Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure using our own resources.

Stop using tactics that risk civilian lives.

Stay the course until Iraq is stable and all insurgency has been defeated.

Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure using our own resources.

Stop using tactics that risk civilian lives.

Lilac_Benjie

[QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"]

Stay the course until Iraq is stable and all insurgency has been defeated.

Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure using our own resources.

Stop using tactics that risk civilian lives.

Def_Jef88

Would you make the same argument if they where your countrymen?

Stay the course until Iraq is stable and all insurgency has been defeated.

Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure using our own resources.

Stop using tactics that risk civilian lives.

Lilac_Benjie

We can't leave, we can't end the war, we can't do anything!

Send in more troops to end this...I mean...we all know we can't leave, so why not end it?

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"][QUOTE="ElZilcho90"][QUOTE="bradleybhoy"]

Are you mad? It is a violation of human rights, imprisoning people against their will. Imagine how you'd feel.That's called empathy maybe you shouldtry it now and again.

IMO all foreign forces should withdraw and Bush should make a public apology to the Iraqi people and build up national defense without infringing upon civil liberties.

And about that execution thing, with the pigs, that'sone of the most sickening things I've heard.

bradleybhoy

Sure, it's ruthless. That's the only way to win a war against a determined insurgency, short of shooting the entire population, or nuking them, as others have suggested.

American troops shouldn't even be in Iraq! US forces should pull out and Bush should admit he went too far and deal with the consequences. Enough damage has been done. Once foreign soldiers leave Iraq the civil war will proabably fight itself out (thousands more dead) and then Iraq will probably become a hotbed for terrorists, terrorists that wouldn't have exsisted if it wasn't for the invasion!

I'm not about to be dragged into an overly-emotional, factless game of accusation and insults. Saddam supported terrorists, anyone who argues against that is a fool. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which he used. Every sign pointed to him having them. He was a danger we had to deal with.

Say what you will, claim what you will, argue what you will. I don't give a damn and have better things to do with my time than bicker on the internet about things a vast majority of posters have no understanding and no knowledge about.

Okay yeah that's very good. Just as we get to a debate start stating the "facts" and refuse to hear reason. Well that's lucky I've got some actual evidence to back up my argument.

and oh noes what have we here

Seems to me that it's your argument that consists of overly emotional, factless accustaions and insults.

Well first off i believe that the 21,500 troops surge was not nearly enough, however there are signs of military progress. I think we need to send 40,000-50,000 more troops to secure Baghdad and the Anbar province, we wait a few months and strategically start lowering the number of troops to around 100,000. We must make sure the Iraqi government is capable of fighting the terrorists and we must pressure them to cooperate with us. If congress would let the Generals make their decisions this war could have already been over, but congress threatens to cut fundings and troop deployments, let me tell you something the majority of congress has no idea of how our military operates and what are ROE's are although they try to restrict them which gets even more soldiers killed. They say they support them by cutting funding, while i see that as murder. They say they support them by pulling out, But if we pull out now, as we are leaving hell will be unleashed and there will be bombings all over the place. Without a proper security force, Iraq will fall again this time into enemy hands. We need to stay there with a significant presence for at least 6 more months maybe more and from there decide what to do. The Iraqi government has to cooperate with us and they must try to help themselves, but for now they are going to need help, they just started their government a year ago, it takes time.UrbanSpartan125

I agree with the majority of your post. As one analyst responded to the surge strategy, "it's not a surge, it's a dribble." No politician is going to authorize the number of troops that we need to make "victory" in Iraq even feasible, from my perspective. I do think that we need to give the current strategy a shot and see what General Petraeus has to say in September. If the surge is an undeniable failure it is time to send in a hundred thousand more troops or, if we simply cannot afford that logistically and strategically, it is time for a PHASED withdrawal. We still need a sizable force of a division or so that can react to any massive attacks or revolts that the Iraqis cannot control by themselves.

US should leave and let them blow themselves up. Maybe then , the US will enter Darfur. Tjeremiah1988

I was gonna post a thread identical to this when i saw this. I didn't wanna repeat post :).

TJ's idea is why no one really takes liberals seriously. Darfur is the European's problem. Heck, actually, it's S Africa's problem. Not US. We are in Iraq due to security issues.

We should allow the military to do w/e the heck it wants to. There was a video somewhere on the military channel showing how rangers were not allowed to shoot at a mosque where insurgents were hiding, nor enter a cemetary to get to said mosque underground due to 'political issues'. Bombing the mosque would have killed 100 insurgents without a single casualty. Instead, 5 rangers died, 10 were wounded, and the government forced the rangers to allow the insurgents to 'surrender' and walk freely, with their guns in hand, roaming the city as their pleased.

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Lilac_Benjie"]

Stay the course until Iraq is stable and all insurgency has been defeated.

Rebuild Iraq's infrastructure using our own resources.

Stop using tactics that risk civilian lives.

Lilac_Benjie

Would you make the same argument if they where your countrymen?

US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countryWhicker89

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]US should leave and let them blow themselves up. Maybe then , the US will enter Darfur. ElZilcho90

How would it be intelligent to jump from the frying pan straight into a bonfire?

Provide stringent guidelines for Iraqi development. If the Iraqi government doesn't comply, begin transfering control of most of the country to the Iraqi forces. Maintain some presence in, say, Baghdad, or get out. In short, get the Iraqis to work with us, or tell them to go to hell.

I agree with that. I kind of wish we could just pull out immediately, but the US invading a country to topple a dangerous regime and then just leaving the country in ruins would be pretty bad for all future foreign relations.

Whatever happens, in the future, the US should leave everyone else alone unless it's absolutely a danger to us. If Saddam and his leaders were so dangerous with their "WMDs" we could have easily sent special forces in to assasinate the leaders and jets to bomb the "WMDs." But no, the dogs of war were barking.

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countrylompocus

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

[QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countryWhicker89

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

[QUOTE="ElZilcho90"]

[QUOTE="Tjeremiah1988"]US should leave and let them blow themselves up. Maybe then , the US will enter Darfur. guynamedbilly

How would it be intelligent to jump from the frying pan straight into a bonfire?

Provide stringent guidelines for Iraqi development. If the Iraqi government doesn't comply, begin transfering control of most of the country to the Iraqi forces. Maintain some presence in, say, Baghdad, or get out. In short, get the Iraqis to work with us, or tell them to go to hell.

I agree with that. I kind of wish we could just pull out immediately, but the US invading a country to topple a dangerous regime and then just leaving the country in ruins would be pretty bad for all future foreign relations.

Whatever happens, in the future, the US should leave everyone else alone unless it's absolutely a danger to us. If Saddam and his leaders were so dangerous with their "WMDs" we could have easily sent special forces in to assasinate the leaders and jets to bomb the "WMDs." But no, the dogs of war were barking.

Ever notice that the assasinations took place, and were ordered to be stopped when the American public went bonkers saying 'OMG thats not nice'?

We should leave and stop sending billions of dollars to that sh*thole. Simple as that. America doesn't even have any business in Iraq now. The reason we're fighting Iraqis is because we're invading THEIR lands and getting into THEIR civil war. It would be the same in America. If some country tried to invade us with guns, we'd fight back no matter who it is. We're being killed every day for no damn reason and becoming MORE in debt by sending billions of dollars to that country a year. WMD's? No; Kick their ass for 9/11? I think they learned their lesson; Get saddam? Done. And what about Bin Laden? He could be out of the Middle East completely by now. And about that war on terror? You CAN'T win the war on terror. Ever. Whether it be a Russian terrorist, a Chinese terrorist, or a middle eastern terrorist, you're not going to be able to find ALL terrorists around the world who wouldlove to blow up America. Sh*t, there could be American terrorists in America right now plotting something, which has been done before. So yea...we're wasting American lives and money for that country...

We should leave and stop sending billions of dollars to that sh*thole. Simple as that. America doesn't even have any business in Iraq now. The reason we're fighting Iraqis is because we're invading THEIR lands and getting into THEIR civil war. It would be the same in America. If some country tried to invade us with guns, we'd fight back no matter who it is. We're being killed every day for no damn reason and becoming MORE in debt by sending billions of dollars to that country a year. WMD's? No; Kick their ass for 9/11? I think they learned their lesson; Get saddam? Done. And what about Bin Laden? He could be out of the Middle East completely by now. And about that war on terror? You CAN'T win the war on terror. Ever. Whether it be a Russian terrorist, a Chinese terrorist, or a middle eastern terrorist, you're not going to be able to find ALL terrorists around the world who wouldlove to blow up America. Sh*t, there could be American terrorists in America right now plotting something, which has been done before. So yea...we're wasting American lives and money for that country...

beedup91

Ever considered not watching CNN, Fox, and MSNBC as your exclusive news sources?

Ima leave the thread now...otherwise ill respond to every darn post here.

[QUOTE="beedup91"]

We should leave and stop sending billions of dollars to that sh*thole. Simple as that. America doesn't even have any business in Iraq now. The reason we're fighting Iraqis is because we're invading THEIR lands and getting into THEIR civil war. It would be the same in America. If some country tried to invade us with guns, we'd fight back no matter who it is. We're being killed every day for no damn reason and becoming MORE in debt by sending billions of dollars to that country a year. WMD's? No; Kick their ass for 9/11? I think they learned their lesson; Get saddam? Done. And what about Bin Laden? He could be out of the Middle East completely by now. And about that war on terror? You CAN'T win the war on terror. Ever. Whether it be a Russian terrorist, a Chinese terrorist, or a middle eastern terrorist, you're not going to be able to find ALL terrorists around the world who wouldlove to blow up America. Sh*t, there could be American terrorists in America right now plotting something, which has been done before. So yea...we're wasting American lives and money for that country...

lompocus

Ever considered not watching CNN, Fox, and MSNBC as your exclusive news sources?

Ima leave the thread now...otherwise ill respond to every darn post here.

And what exactly do you know that we don't?

[QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countrylompocus

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

[QUOTE="lompocus"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countryWhicker89

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

[QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countryDef_Jef88

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

Can I say pwnt now :! ?

Why is australia giving the US all its rapid fire weapon technology willingly, then?

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countrylompocus

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

Can I say pwnt now :! ?

Why is australia giving the US all its rapid fire weapon technology willingly, then?

Aussies are cool ppls. Aussies + Saturday night WoW raid + beer = funny sh*t...not that this has to do with the topic

[QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countrylompocus

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

Can I say pwnt now :! ?

Why is australia giving the US all its rapid fire weapon technology willingly, then?

[QUOTE="lompocus"][QUOTE="Def_Jef88"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"][QUOTE="Whicker89"][QUOTE="lompocus"]

[QUOTE="Whicker89"]US and every other country should GTFO of IRAQ and US should have to pay the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments money to build a 1st world countrybeedup91

We have been doing that with every single African country you can name. Hasn't quite worked, sans S Africa, eh?

*edit* whoo, i revived a 5 hour old thread!

Why do you believe such nonsense? The very fact that FRANCE, a nation thouroughly opposed the the US, elected a strong supporter of anything and everything US is proof that your comment is false.

Can I say pwnt now :! ?

Why is australia giving the US all its rapid fire weapon technology willingly, then?

Aussies are cool ppls. Aussies + Saturday night WoW raid + beer = funny sh*t...not that this has to do with the topic

Isn't Chuck Norris Australian?