PDA

View Full Version : Architects of War


drizl
01-22-2007, 01:35 PM
democracynow just reported richard perles statements at a conference in israel that america will attack iran if the president feels that iran is succeeding in producing weapons of mass destruction.





Architects of War (http://thinkprogress.org/the-architects-where-are-they-now/)

President Bush has not fired any of the architects of the Iraq war. In fact, a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.

PAUL WOLFOWITZ

Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money for pay for the reconstruction, and that Gen. Eric Shinseki’s estimate that several hundred thousand troops would be needed was “wildly off the mark.” [Washington Post, 12/8/05]

Where He Is Now: Bush promoted Wolfowitz to head the World Bank in March 2005. [Washington Post, 3/17/05]

Key Quote: “We are dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon.” [Wolfowitz, 3/27/03]

DOUGLAS FEITH

Role In Going To War: As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, Feith spearheaded two secretive groups at the Pentagon — the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group and the Office of Special Plans — that were instrumental in drawing up documents that explained the supposed ties between Saddam and al Qaeda. The groups were “created in order to find evidence of what Wolfowitz and his boss, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, believed to be true.” Colin Powell referred to Feith’s operation as the Gestapo. In Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack, former CentCom Commander Gen. Tommy Franks called Feith the “f***ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” [LAT, 1/27/05; NYT, 4/28/04; New Yorker, 5/12/03; Plan of Attack, p.281]

Where He Is Now: Feith voluntarily resigned from the Defense Department shortly after Bush’s reelection. He is co-chairman of a project at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government to write an academic book on how to fight terrorism. Feith’s secretive groups at the Pentagon are under investigation by the Pentagon and the Senate Intelligence Committee for intelligence failures. [Washington Post, 1/27/05, 11/18/05; Washington Times, 3/3/06]

Key Quote: “I am not asserting to you that I know that the answer is — we did it right. What I am saying is it’s an extremely complex judgment to know whether the course that we chose with its pros and cons was more sensible.” [Washington Post, 7/13/05]

STEPHEN HADLEY

Role In Going To War: As then-Deputy National Security Advisor, Hadley disregarded memos from the CIA and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet warning that references to Iraq’s pursuit of uranium be dropped from Bush’s speeches. The false information ended up in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address. [Washington Post, 7/23/03]

Where He Is Now: On January 26, 2005, Stephen Hadley was promoted to National Security Advisor. [White House bio]

Key Quote: “I should have recalled at the time of the State of the Union speech that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue. … And it is now clear to me that I failed in that responsibility in connection with the inclusion of these 16 words in the speech that he gave on the 28th of January.” [Hadley, 7/22/03]

RICHARD PERLE

Role In Going To War: Richard Perle, the so-called “Prince of Darkness,” was the chairman of Defense Policy Board during the run-up to the Iraq war. He suggested Iraq had a hand in 9-11. In 1996, he authored “Clean Break,” a paper that was co-signed by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and others that argued for regime change in Iraq. Shortly after the war began, Perle resigned from the Board because he came under fire for having relationships with businesses that stood to profit from the war. [Guardian, 9/3/02, 3/28/03; AFP, 8/9/02]

Where He Is Now: Currently, Perle is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute where he specializes in national security and defense issues. He has been investigated for ethical violations concerning war profiteering and other conflicts of interest. [Washington Post, 9/1/04]

Key Quote: “And a year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush. There is no doubt that, with the exception of a very small number of people close to a vicious regime, the people of Iraq have been liberated and they understand that they’ve been liberated. And it is getting easier every day for Iraqis to express that sense of liberation.” [Perle, 9/22/03]

ELLIOT ABRAMS

Role In Going To War: Abrams was one of the defendants in the Iran-Contra Affair, and he pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress. He was appointed Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs during Bush’s first term, where he served as Bush’s chief advisor on the Middle East. His name surfaced as part of the investigation into who leaked the name of a undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. [Washington Post, 5/27/03, 2/3/05]

Where He Is Now: Abrams was promoted to deputy national security adviser in February of 2005. [Slate, 2/17/05]

Key Quote: “We recognize that military action in Iraq, if necessary, will have adverse humanitarian consequences. We have been planning over the last several months, across all relevant agencies, to limit any such consequences and provide relief quickly.” [CNN, 2/25/03]

DAVID WURMSER

Role In Going To War: At the time of the war, Wurmser was a special assistant to John Bolton in the State Department. Wurmser has long advocated the belief that both Syria and Iraq represented threats to the stability of the Middle East. In early 2001, Wurmser had issued a call for air strikes against Iraq and Syria. Along with Perle, he is considered a main author of “Clean Break.” [Asia Times, 4/17/03; Guardian, 9/3/02]

Where He Is Now: Wurmser was promoted to Principal Deputy Assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs; he is in charge of coordinating Middle East strategy. His name has been associated with the Plame Affair and with an FBI investigation into the passing of classified information to Chalabi and AIPAC. [Raw Story, 10/19/05; Washington Post, 9/4/04]

Key Quote: “Syria, Iran, Iraq, the PLO and Sudan are playing a skillful game, but have consistently worked to undermine US interests and influence in the region for years, and certainly will continue to do so now, even if they momentarily, out of fear, seem more forthcoming.” [Washington Post, 9/24/01]

ANDREW NATSIOS

Role In Going To War: Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Andrew Natsios, then the Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, went on Nightline and claimed that the U.S. contribution to the rebuilding of Iraq would be just $1.7 billion. When it became quickly apparent that Natsios’ prediction would fall woefully short of reality, the government came under fire for scrubbing his comments from the USAID Web site. [Washington Post, 12/18/03; ABC News, 4/23/03]

Where He Is Now: Natsios stepped down as the head of USAID in January and was teaching at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh’s School of Foreign Service as a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy and Advisor on International Development. In September 2006, Bush appointed him Special Envoy for Darfur. [AP, 2/20/06; Georgetown, 12/2/05; Washington Post, 9/19/06]

Key Quote: “[T]he American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.” [Nightline, 4/23/03]

DAN BARTLETT

Role In Going To War: Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director at the time of the war and was a mouthpiece in hyping the Iraq threat. Bartlett was also a regular participant in the weekly meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). The main purpose of the group was the systematic coordination of the “marketing” of going to war with Iraq as well as selling the war here at home. [Washington Post, 8/10/03]

Where He Is Now: Bartlett was promoted to Counselor to the President on January 5, 2005, and is responsible for the formulation of policy and implementation of the President’s agenda. [White House]

Key Quote: “President Bush understands that the need to disarm Saddam Hussein is necessary. He has made that case to the United Nations Security Council. He’s made that case to the United States Congress. The entire world rallied behind this resolution that gives him one last chance. He has that chance, but time is running out.” [CNN, 1/26/03]

MITCH DANIELS

Role In Going To War: Mitch Daniels was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June of 2003. In this capacity, he was responsible for releasing the initial budget estimates for the Iraq War which he pegged at $50 to $60 billion. The estimated cost of the war, including the full economic ramifications, is approaching $1 trillion. [MSNBC, 3/17/06]

Where He Is Now: In 2004, Daniels was elected Governor of Indiana. [USA Today, 11/3/04]

Key Quote: Mitch Daniels had said the war would be an “affordable endeavor” and rejected an estimate by the chief White House economic adviser that the war would cost between $100 billion and $200 billion as “very, very high.” [Christian Science Monitor, 1/10/06]

GEORGE TENET

Role In Going To War: As CIA Director, Tenet was responsible for gathering information on Iraq and the potential threat posted by Saddam Hussein. According to author Bob Woodward, Tenet told President Bush before the war that there was a “slam dunk case” that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. Tenet remained publicly silent while the Bush administration made pre-war statements on Iraq’s supposed nuclear program and ties to al Qaeda that were contrary to the CIA’s judgments. Tenet issued a statement in July 2003, drafted by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, taking responsibility for Bush’s false statements in his State of the Union address. [CNN, 4/19/04; NYT, 7/22/05]

Where He Is Now: Tenet voluntarily resigned from the administration on June 3, 2004. He was later awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom. [Washington Post, 6/3/04]

Key Quote: “It’s a slam dunk case.” [CNN, 4/19/04]

COLIN POWELL

Role In Going To War: Despite stating in Feb. 2001 that Saddam had not developed “any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,” Powell made the case in front of the United Nations for a United States-led invasion of Iraq, stating that, “There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction.” [Powell, 2/5/03; Powell, 2/24/01]

Where He Is Now: Shortly after Bush won reelection in 2004, Powell resigned from the administration. Powell now sits on numerous corporate boards. He is poised to succeed Henry Kissinger in May as Chairman of the Eisenhower Fellowship Program at the City College of New York. In September 2005, Powell said of his U.N. speech that it was a “blot” on his record. He went on to say, “It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It’s painful now.” [ABC News, 9/9/05]

Key Quote: “‘You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people,’ he told the president. ‘You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You’ll own it all.’ Privately, Powell and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage called this the Pottery Barn rule: You break it, you own it.” [Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack]

DONALD RUMSFELD

Role In Going To War: Prior to the war, Rumsfeld repeatedly suggested the war in Iraq would be short and swift. He said, “The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” He also said, “It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” [Rumsfeld, 11/14/02; USA Today, 4/1/03]

Where He Is Now: After repeated calls for his resignation, Donald Rumsfeld finally stepped down on November 8, 2006, one day after the 2006 midterm elections. [AP, 11/8/06; Reuters, 3/19/06]

Key Quote: “You go to war with the Army you have. They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” [CNN, 12/9/04]

CONDOLEEZZA RICE

Role In Going To War: As National Security Adviser, Rice disregarded at least two CIA memos and a personal phone call from Director George Tenet stating that the evidence behind Iraq’s supposed uranium acquisition was weak. She urged the necessity of war because “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” [Washington Post, 7/27/03; CNN, 9/8/02]

Where She Is Now: In December of 2004, Condoleezza Rice was promoted to Secretary of State and is being widely-mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. [ABC News, 11/16/04]

Key Quote: “We did not know at the time — maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency — but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery. Of course it was information that was mistaken.” [Meet the Press, 6/8/03]

DICK CHENEY

Role In Going To War: Among a host of false pre-war statements, Cheney claimed that Iraq may have had a role in 9/11, stating that it was “pretty well confirmed” that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials. Cheney also claimed that Saddam was “in fact reconstituting his nuclear program” and that the U.S. would be “greeted as liberators.” [Meet the Press, 12/9/01, 3/16/03]

Where He Is Now: Cheney earned another four years in power when Bush won re-election in 2004. Despite recent calls from conservatives calling for him to be replaced, Cheney has said, “I’ve now been elected to a second term; I’ll serve out my term.” [CBS Face the Nation, 3/19/06]

Key Quote: “I think they’re in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency.” [Larry King Live, 6/20/05]

GEORGE W. BUSH

Role In Going To War: Emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s supposed stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, supposed ties to al Qaeda, and supposed nuclear weapons program, Bush built public support for — and subsequently ordered — an invasion of Iraq. [State of the Union, 1/28/03]

Where He Is Now: In November 2004, Bush won re-election. Since that time, popular support for the war and the President have reached a low point. [Washington Post, 3/7/06]

Key Quote: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” [Bush, 10/7/02]

Click here to comment on this report.

Ali
01-23-2007, 05:29 AM
"if the president feels that iran is succeeding in producing weapons of mass destruction."

Does he need proof, or are his feelings enough?

Does he have feelings?

JobDDT
01-23-2007, 05:54 AM
Well, I guess if we invade Syria and Iran and they both have WMDs, the old saying "2 out of 3 ain't bad!" will come to mind.

(I'm kidding. This country isn't going to accept another war by this administration, justified or not. Its like crying wolf.)

Tone Capone
01-23-2007, 06:01 AM
Well, I guess if we invade Syria and Iran and they both have WMDs, the old saying "2 out of 3 ain't bad!" will come to mind.

(I'm kidding. This country isn't going to accept another war by this administration, justified or not. Its like crying wolf.)

Considering that Iraq's WMDs are actually hidden in Syria at this moment, it would be like killing two birds with one stone. I was watching Al Jazeera the other day and it was reported that most Iranians "look forward" to an invasion and regime change.

You are right though, our country (especially myself) doesn't want another war.

Pres Zount
01-23-2007, 07:51 AM
Are they really hidden there? Wow, Tone, maybe you should join the UN.

Tone Capone
01-23-2007, 09:20 AM
Are they really hidden there? Wow, Tone, maybe you should join the UN.

WOW, Pres Zount, because the UN really makes a difference:confused:

Pres Zount
01-23-2007, 09:30 AM
Do you know why they don't make a difference? Because you're not one of them!

Tone Capone
01-23-2007, 10:54 AM
Do you know why they don't make a difference? Because you're not one of them!

:eek:

drizl
01-23-2007, 11:21 AM
iran is the next stop on the PNAC tour of the middle east, keep arms and legs inside the vehicle, OBEY!

Schmeltz
01-23-2007, 12:27 PM
Considering that Iraq's WMDs are actually hidden in Syria at this moment


That would certainly blow the lid off this whole affair. If it were true. Which it isn't.


it was reported that most Iranians "look forward" to an invasion



Role In Going To War: Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators


The record is broken.

drizl
01-23-2007, 04:05 PM
i personally believe that al qaeda is alive and well, however, there have been some attacks that were achieved by others, then blamed on al qaeda, and as you might or might not know, i feel very strongly that 9-11 was one of them.


another that i have been thinking about as of late....the bombing of the golden dome, the al-Askariya shrine, which as of late, many politicians have been blaming as the catalyst of all of this "sectarian" violence as of late. now im naturally skeptical of the administration and of some politicians, lindsey graham being one of them. he was just trying to jam the bombing of the shrine as catalyst down my throat on cspan.

i looked around on the net, and one thing is clear- this was the event that really tore iraq apart (that is after the terrible campaign of 'shock and awe' that we call mass murder by "smart bombing").

so i question, was this really an attack by al qaeda?

now al qaeda could have done this to make the situation a lot worse and tougher to deal with for american and "coalition of the willing" forces.

however, this fits right in with the PNAC agenda as bringing chaos to iraq, so that we may have an excuse to be there longer, tougher and build our bases etc. etc....

im pretty sure most of you will react right away and call me retarted or whatever, but thats fine. i recently finished a book by noam chomsky which details many operations regarding the israelis and american forces in the middle east, staging terrorist attacks to incite a revolution, a civil war, military reaction, public outcry etc...

to me, this smells fishy, as being one of those.

the description of the men involved was reported in the nytimes as:
"The attack in Samarra began at 7 a.m., when a group of a dozen men dressed in paramilitary uniforms entered the shrine and handcuffed four guards who were sleeping in a back room, said a spokesman for the provincial governor's office. The attackers then placed a bomb in the dome and detonated it, collapsing most of the dome and heavily damaging an adjoining wall."

now theres paramilitary's of all shapes and sizes, and certainly this couldnt have been a military job if the us was involved, it would have had to been a paramilitary job- the dirtiest of the dirties when it comes to mercinaries. i have to run...

all i wish to suggest is that if PNAC is true and real, which seems very true and real to me and many other free-thinkers, then the recent elections which might serve to unite the country, and lessen the need for american involvement might have needed a "destabilizing force" to disrupt the building democracy, and incite the chaos that is today, keeping us there (PNAC). the situation was so fragile, that many people knew all it took was something like this, and obviously, someone went for it. i am just not so quick to blame al qaeda....anyone have any proof al qaeda did this? did they release a video, or statement?

Schmeltz
01-23-2007, 04:38 PM
anyone have any proof al qaeda did this?


In June 2006 the coalition captured a Tunisian named Abu Qudama al-Tunesi who said he had taken part in the bombing of the shrine as a member of al-Qaeda in Iraq and at the behest of Haitham al-Badri, a former official under Saddam Hussein known to lead an al-Qaeda in Iraq cell.

I think you've misread the PNAC agenda, which I seem to recall is centered on building order and democracy in the Middle East, not chaos and murder. Of course they actually want a form of order and democracy that sells out to the interests of neoconservative power dons, but still - the current situation in Iraq was not, I think, ever part of their twisted plans.

drizl
01-23-2007, 11:13 PM
it sounds like the blaming of al qaeda was based on one mans admittance to iraqi and american security forces who are known to use extreme methods of torture....
why would al qaeda do this? wouldnt this just turn both shiites and sunnis against al qaeda? and if this guy who directed the attack was an iraqi leader under saddam, and operates for al qaeda, doesnt that prove the al qaeda-saddam connection that we all know now was totally fabricated as a pretext to war?

also, al qaeda never officially claimed responsibility for the attack(as they do for almost every other they perform- with pride)...which only leaves one possible scenario, that al qaeda did it covertly to incite divisions against the iraqi people that would lead to hurting the americans chance at winning the war...

or another scenario like the one i mentioned above....


i dont think that one mans confession, as an al qaeda "operative" in conjunction with an baath party leader conveniently turned al qaeda leader, who we can almost garauntee was tortured and possibly even convinced to accept responsibility....i dont know, to me seems more likely it was a false flag operation to keep troops in the region, to help "calm the civil war" buying time to plan against iran, to bring more troops and construct more bases.

Schmeltz
01-24-2007, 12:33 AM
it sounds like the blaming of al qaeda was based on one mans admittance to iraqi and american security forces who are known to use extreme methods of torture


Abu Qudama was the lone survivor of a firefight between Iraqi troops and his squad of gunmen, and was badly wounded in the confrontation. He apparently made his confession while still in hospital.


that al qaeda did it covertly to incite divisions against the iraqi people that would lead to hurting the americans chance at winning the war


Captured correspondence, audio recordings, and documents by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi reveals that this was exactly what he hoped to do (interestingly, it also shows that part of his plan was to incite an American war with Iran in order to weaken the occupation of Iraq).


and if this guy who directed the attack was an iraqi leader under saddam


No two sources seem to agree on his connection to Saddam Hussein; some say, rather vaguely, that he just "had ties" to the government and some say he was a warrant officer in the Republican Guard. But none of them hype the purported al-Qaeda-Saddam connection. I think the point isn't that he was a terrorist operative in the government, but that he took up this role following the invasion, since he was out of a job.


to me seems more likely it was a false flag operation to keep troops in the region, to help "calm the civil war"


But this did not calm the civil war, it escalated it to an orgiastic frenzy. And as I and others continue to point out, your ideas to this effect are irrealistic and paranoid.

drizl
01-24-2007, 01:44 AM
could you post your source(s)?

thanks for taking the time to research and write. i had just gotten to thinking that if this was the pivital moment in the new iraq, where civil war broke out, that it quite possibly could have been carried out by other-than-al qaeda, because of what happened with the whole 9-11 situation (several of the hijackers are actually still alive, so how can anyone blame them for 9-11), and because if this didnt happen, coalition forces might not have any reason to be there any more....which would provide a completely different scenario for PNAC to unfold.

to be honest, confession in the face of torture doesnt totally buy me...but it sounds like this really might have been an al qaeda attack.

Schmeltz
01-24-2007, 01:59 AM
I found information on various news sites from June 2006 - Washington Post, NY Times, CBC, BBC, a couple of blogs. I dunno, just Google Haitham al-Badri or al-Askiriya Mosque and poke around, do some comparing. It's kind of interesting to read the news from even that recently and see what the various perspectives were. Investigating this topic lead me around to reading a couple of articles by David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes, which is a good idea every now and then - helps to remind yourself how fucked up the other side is, and how very wrong they've been since the very beginning.

I think the coalition already had a couple of very good reasons to stay before the bombing: to begin with, the insurgency hadn't been defeated (and still hasn't been defeated) so the security situation would still have tied them down even without the huge escalation in violence prompted by the bombing. And also, the reconstruction of the country hadn't been completed (and is even further behind now than it was then), and there's plenty of profitable kickbacks to be made from that - especially when you have the power to assign contracts to the company you used to run before you were the trigger-happiest Vice President in history.

drizl
01-24-2007, 02:10 AM
in regards to rebuilding iraq, that was never a priority.

Tone Capone
01-24-2007, 02:20 AM
The record is broken.

Hey they said they were looking forward to an invasion and a regime change, they didn't say they wanted the same cluster fuck that they have in Iraq (fuel in part by Iran).

Schmeltz
01-24-2007, 04:01 AM
Invasion + regime change = clusterfuck

Tone Capone
01-24-2007, 04:29 AM
Invasion + regime change = clusterfuck

Well then I guess the Iranian people are looking forward to a clusterfuck then. You might want to go talk to them.

Schmeltz
01-24-2007, 04:40 AM
Aren't you in the army? I'm not the one who'll be going over there, mang. Keep us posted though.

Tone Capone
01-24-2007, 05:28 AM
Aren't you in the army? I'm not the one who'll be going over there, mang. Keep us posted though.

I'm in the Air Force. I don't think our country wants another war on it's hands. Hopefully I won't be posting from Iran in the future:o I used to be all for it but, a lot can change in a few years.

drizl
01-24-2007, 10:18 AM
a lot can change in a day

Tone Capone
01-24-2007, 10:48 AM
a lot can change in a day

Well if Iran attacks/threatens with nuclear weapons, then a lot WILL change in a day.(lb)

Ali
01-25-2007, 12:38 PM
Well if Iran attacks/threatens with nuclear weapons, then a lot WILL change in a day.(lb)How long will it take to deploy those weapons? 45 minutes (http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf)?

Schmeltz
01-25-2007, 11:31 PM
Hopefully I won't be posting from Iran in the future


Yeah, England's way nicer than Iran. Where are you supposed to be deployed next? Join the forces, see the world?

Ali
01-26-2007, 04:37 AM
Yeah, England's way nicer than Iran.Have you visited Iran?

Schmeltz
01-26-2007, 12:19 PM
No, nor have I visited England. I made my distinction as to which I would prefer by asking one simple question: which country is a fundamentalist theocracy, and which isn't?

Tone Capone
01-29-2007, 02:26 AM
Yeah, England's way nicer than Iran. Where are you supposed to be deployed next? Join the forces, see the world?

I'm leaving England in 29 days and headed for NORTHERN ITALY(y) :D (y)
I'm very excited about that. Travel is the main reason I joined up and I have certainly done my share of it:)

Schmeltz
01-29-2007, 02:37 AM
Bah! England and then Northern Italy! NICE. Maybe I should join up... though with my luck they'd stick me in CFB Alert or some shit.

Tone Capone
01-29-2007, 09:01 AM
Bah! England and then Northern Italy! NICE. Maybe I should join up... though with my luck they'd stick me in CFB Alert or some shit.

:p

sam i am
01-29-2007, 11:41 AM
No, nor have I visited England. I made my distinction as to which I would prefer by asking one simple question: which country is a fundamentalist theocracy, and which isn't?

England still has a Queen and a House of Lords, doesn't it?

Hmm...

Maybe it IS a fundamentalist theocracy(!) :p

sam i am
01-29-2007, 11:42 AM
Bah! England and then Northern Italy! NICE. Maybe I should join up... though with my luck they'd stick me in CFB Alert or some shit.

With your academic and intelectual credentials, you'd be a shoe-in for military intelligence, Schmeltz:D

Schmeltz
01-29-2007, 06:36 PM
That's an oxymoron, dammit!

sam i am
01-29-2007, 06:47 PM
That's an oxymoron, dammit!

Exactly my point, smart boy!:p