It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Michael Moore Dares to Ask: What's So Heroic About Being Shot Down While Bombing Innocent Civilians

page: 9
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Bit of a digression here, but based on doesn't mean same as


I hope you understand my reticence regarding this, due to some of the stories which have come out of Iraq based on the testimony of people that served there.

As far as McCain goes, it's one thing for him to talk about his experiences as a POW, it's entirely another matter as to why he was a POW in the first place according to some.

As I've said before, if he wants to get political mileage out of his POW time, then the why's and wherefores are also fair game.



[edit on 27/8/2008 by budski]




posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Bit of a digression here, but based on doesn't mean same as


Whatever. LOAC takes it's guidance from the GC. Believe whatever you like.


Originally posted by budskiI hope you understand my reticence regarding this, due to some of the stories which have come out of Iraq based on the testimony of people that served there.


Oh, you mean the targetting of mosques, etc? The ones that insurgents use to snipe from? If they do that, they are a lawful target.


Originally posted by budski As far as McCain goes, it's one thing for him to talk about his experiences as a POW, it's entirely another matter as to why he was a POW in the first place according to some.


Well, that's cool, but I can't figure out how a peaceful, civilian target like that power plant he hit managed to have a SAM site somewhere in the area to shoot him down? And if that was the case, you do know according to the GC, putting a SAM site next to a civilian area is not allowed.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I most likely fail to contribute anything new into this on going debate. But I also fail to see how McCain defended his country? I thought US was attacking Vietnam, and vietnamese defended?

Of course, there was that great troll of communism at the time. But realistically, who can really think that vietnam posed a danger to United States? Yea, next someone's gonna say: "Defended not against Vietnam, but Soviets!". Oh my! Well nevertheless it's such an heroic deed to "defend" your country in a far away land by bombing mostly civilians.

Some of you have really twisted conception about heroism and defending one's country.

Well, I agree John McCain can be called a 'war hero', because he quite likely took some risks. But attaching something noble in bombing civilians? That's an loathsome argument.

Respectfully,

-v



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of this and this

Not to mention the use of cluster munitions in civilian area's, along with the virtual razing of fallujah.

That's before we even talk about torture etc etc

Is that enough to show you that the RoE are at least some of the time ignored?

It's not about me "believing what I like" it's about finding the truth and making sure the culprits pay - it'll never happen though as long as people make excuses for those who not only commit war crimes, but actually order them to be committed.

During vietnam, McCain committed a war crime, as president there is a good chance that he will order more to be committed.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by greysave
When do innocent civilians get surface to air missiles to shoot down fighter aircraft.


When they want to defend themselves from aggression they did not initiate; how did the 'innocent' civilians are Pearl Harbor manage to shoot down dozens of Japanese aircraft?


To say that we only bombed innocent civilians in Vietnam is flat out false.


The people of Vietnam were innocent based on the fact that they did not initiate hostilities and never had the means to attack the continental USA if the US national security state withdraw from Vietnam.


What about the 58000 or so american troops who died. I guess that was all fratricide.


Many thousands were, yes but they mostly died because they were withing rifle range of Vietnamese citizens that could have never followed them home to continue the war. They died because not all Vietnamese civilians passively took the terrorism and air strikes as proof that Americans were liberating them.


As a matter of fact, the us airforce must have shot his navy plane out of the air because they knew what the navy was up too.


Clearly so as it's hard to believe that such badly trained and equipped citizen soldiers could have had much success against the professional air force of the USAF/USN.


It is so easy to criticize the US. How about the 3 million civilians murdered by the north Vietnamese for collusion.


Where? When? How do people come up with these fantastical nonsense?


That is fine of course because they fought the US. I have n o problem with people finding faults with the US.


It's not fine because it NEVER HAPPENED. The US fought South Vietnam's citizens because they were not happy with the US choice of puppets especially given the fact that they had a perfectly good choice in Ho Chi Minh.


I have problems with people ignoring everyone else's faults and blaming the entire worlds problems on the US.


I can understand that but i have found that few people who employ this defense had any idea of how many interventions and military campaigns the US national security state had staged in foreign countries since the end of the second world war. When you can acknowledge these interventions and the exceedingly small role 'communism' or the USSR played in the vast majority of them we might arrive at a point where your opinion is informed enough to be heard.


Originally posted by greysave
And where do you draw this conclusion from? Is it the prosperous time we had immediately after the union collapsed?


I draw the conclusion from the knowledge that the USSR's military potential declined from a higher peak than that of the USA and then always after the US had initiated arms reductions; there is no reason not to cut your own spending when you have observed a rival to have already done so.


Is it that our military increased its technology tremendously, and is now far advanced in many fields?


It have closed some of the gaps that have formed by 1985 ( by which time the USSR had such overwhelming superiority) but has not yet entirely caught up with the strategic capability of the Russian federation. As to conventional capability the increase in implemented technology have not made up for the loss of retired weapon systems thus leaving the US in the situation where it can not sustain the combat operations of 6-7 divisions.


You America bashers will say anything.


I have noticed the Russia/US bashers have at least that much in common.


You don't care if it makes no sense. Saying the US lost the cold war is well flat out stupid.


There was no war to win or lose in the first place so surely technically speaking the US did not win. The USSR wanted to start serious reform processes from the mid 70's onwards which eventually resulted in the bad attempts in the 80's and the break up of the 'empire' by the late 90's. The cost to benefit ratio of suppressing the liberation movements in so many countries were no longer in Russia's favor and they simply proceeded to streamline their operation while enjoying the significant superiority they held at the time. Stalin might have had some very tempered imperial ambitions but after Beria created the conditions that allowed him to be murdered national self defense became ever more important; basically 'communism' such as that in the USSR could not take over the world because capitalism already did and were far too well armed to confront unless in self defense.


I'm not saying that we don't have our problems, but come back to reality please.


Maybe we will to agree to disagree.


Stellar



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of this and this

Not to mention the use of cluster munitions in civilian area's, along with the virtual razing of fallujah.

That's before we even talk about torture etc etc

Is that enough to show you that the RoE are at least some of the time ignored?

It's not about me "believing what I like" it's about finding the truth and making sure the culprits pay - it'll never happen though as long as people make excuses for those who not only commit war crimes, but actually order them to be committed.

During vietnam, McCain committed a war crime, as president there is a good chance that he will order more to be committed.


And you once again seem to forget about insurgents using mosques, school, hospitals as fighting positions and weapons caches. And the torture of US prisoners, the excuting of civilians. Where's the outrage over that?

Once again, the Geneva Conventions are only applied to US personnel. Everyone else gets a free pass to do what they want.


Nice sources. Iraqi Veterans Against the War have been shown to be a bit "biased" and "slanted". But hey, use them as a source.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Way to dodge answering


If the US and allies weren't there in the first place there would be no insurgency - why is that so difficult to understand?

As for the links, here is the testimony in a congressional hearing.
Exract:

KWAME HOLMAN: Also constantly changing, Lemieux and other veterans said, were the rules of engagement, when and how to use force.

SGT. JASON LEMIEUX: I was involved in firefights during which the rules of engagement were lifted by the chain of command or were simply ignored, resulting in needless and strategically counterproductive civilian deaths.

I was ordered multiple times by commissioned officers and noncommissioned officers to shoot unarmed civilians if their presence made me feel uncomfortable.

These orders were given with the understanding that that my immediate chain of command would protect their subordinates from legal repercussions.

KWAME HOLMAN: In one battle in 2004, Lemieux said the rules changed during the fighting.

SGT. JASON LEMIEUX: The word came down the chain that, all personnel, anyone not wearing a U.S. military uniform on the streets is considered an enemy combatant and is to be shot on sight.

KWAME HOLMAN: You mean anyone?

SGT. JASON LEMIEUX: Correct.


One of those testifying was granted an honourable discharge after serving 3 tours in Iraq.

I would suggest that this is a man of far greater honour than the self serving hypocrite seeking to be the next president.

Read the text, you may be surprised.

RoE BASED on but not adhering to the GC




[edit on 27/8/2008 by budski]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
When they want to defend themselves from aggression they did not initiate; how did the 'innocent' civilians are Pearl Harbor manage to shoot down dozens of Japanese aircraft?


Really? They did? With what? The US Navy filled the sky with flak, yet I'm to believe that civilians at Pearl shot down aircraft?


Originally posted by StellarXThe people of Vietnam were innocent based on the fact that they did not initiate hostilities and never had the means to attack the continental USA if the US national security state withdraw from Vietnam.


We really didn't invade Vietnam. We went there to assist the South Vietnamese and got deeply involved in that mess.


Originally posted by StellarXMany thousands were, yes but they mostly died because they were withing rifle range of Vietnamese citizens that could have never followed them home to continue the war. They died because not all Vietnamese civilians passively took the terrorism and air strikes as proof that Americans were liberating them.


The words you're looking for is "Viet Cong", which were insurgents. The VC also enjoyed murdering their own people if they didn't agree. Google "Hue City".


Originally posted by StellarXIt's not fine because it NEVER HAPPENED. The US fought South Vietnam's citizens because they were not happy with the US choice of puppets especially given the fact that they had a perfectly good choice in Ho Chi Minh.


So everyone loved Ho, and hated the US? How do you explain the Boat People? How about the re-education camps that so many disappeared into after the fall of the South???



Originally posted by StellarXI can understand that but i have found that few people who employ this defense had any idea of how many interventions and military campaigns the US national security state had staged in foreign countries since the end of the second world war. When you can acknowledge these interventions and the exceedingly small role 'communism' or the USSR played in the vast majority of them we might arrive at a point where your opinion is informed enough to be heard.


Small role the Soviet Union played? Now that's funny! You do know that the Russians were giving away AK-47s to Communist insurgents whereever they were involved.


Originally posted by StellarX Stalin might have had some very tempered imperial ambitions but after Beria created the conditions that allowed him to be murdered national self defense became ever more important; basically 'communism' such as that in the USSR could not take over the world because capitalism already did and were far too well armed to confront unless in self defense.


If this is true, then why did the even get involved anywhere? If they were just interested in "self-defense", they would have just stayed home.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Way to dodge answering


Yeah, you did a great job dodging the question of insurgents violating the GC.




Originally posted by budski
If the US and allies weren't there in the first place there would be no insurgency - why is that so difficult to understand?


You're probably right. Should have just left Saddam alone to toss people into woodchippers.


Originally posted by budski
As for the links, here is the testimony in a congressional hearing.


Oh, yes, the "New Winter Soldiers". Simply testifiy before Congress doesn't mean you're right. And if the crime was committed, how come they never said anything at that time? Three years later? Give me a break!

I asked a friend of mine (US Army Infantry) about the Winter Soldiers. He said that anyone that was there to cover that, unless you were with IVAW, you were kept separate and unable to question these guys? I wonder why?


Every one of these jackasses needs to be prosecuted under the UCMJ for the crimes that they've publicly admitted to - because I've never come across a command in-country that didn't have firmly established ROE's. And I'd bet a year of your pay that there hasn't been a single commander post-OIF 1 that was willing to put his schwanz in a sling with an ROE that stated people carrying shovels were fair game - no questions asked.

Here's another famous IVAW member for everyone to know about:

en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 27-8-2008 by jerico65]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


You know full well that insurgents aren't bound by the GC.

WE ARE.

I can almost see McCains first acts as president should he be elected.

MORE troops, MORE guns, MORE bombs, MORE deaths of innocents to feed the military industrial complex.

Question - If the US were invaded by a foreign power at some point in the future, a power who trampled all over the international treaties it signed, a power who destroyed the infrastrucure of a nation and who killed and imprisoned (unjustly) hundreds of thousands of your countrymen, women and children, do you think it's possible you might become an insurgent, and say sod the GC?

Because by keep invading countries who pose no threat to the US that's what will eventually happen - and I'd hate to see that happen.

For all that your leaders do wrong, the US is a great country - except when it comes to people like bush and McCain.

Here's what a former POW who was locked up with McCain has to say about him:

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

source

A very diplomatic stance from a former POW, but still a very clear message.
"I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."

And that's from his FRIEND!

[edit on 27/8/2008 by budski]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   
come jerico, america has obviously abandoned the geneva convetions themselves. We regularly and openly commit torture now, and i think thats slightly over the geneva conventions. We are also, by the GC, required to give any occupied country the same medical attention and fullfill humanitary needs the same as we do for our own civilians, and we sure dont do that!
As to the vietnam thing, you obviously havent read much about it. We werent there to protect the south, in fact there wasnt even a south. It was a puppet government that we propped up to give legitimacy to our claims, just as we often do in other countries. Prior to our "war" there was no civil war, it was the French vs. the vietnamese, and they were there protesting the vietnamese rights to independence from france. Since We wouldnt aid vietnam (and they begged us many times) they finally had to turn to USSR who agreed to give them weapons....what else where they to do? So, yeah, it was a country celebrating their independence, france invades, then we invade, destroy the whole country, submit them to horrible attrocities, completely crush their infrastructure and leave them with a smoking ruin....and then you expect them to jump up and be democratic with free rights for all? I think we showed them the error of capitalism. I will say this though, as far as people go. I have met many many angry racist americans who hate the vietnamese for defending their country so well against us.....but most of the vietnamese i have met have been open, friendly, and forgiving.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by manson_322
A airstrike against civilian infrastructure like powerplants,basic medicine factories,water purification cneters etc., is against geneva conventions , and thereby , McCain is officially committed a war crime in Vietnam ,

must say McCain was lucky that his captors did not shoot him dead


sorry, that's not right. A power plant is a legit target.

Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy’s military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.

Targeting Objects. The LOAC specifically describes objects that shall not be the targets of a direct attack. Reflecting the rule that military operations must be directed at military objectives, objects normally dedicated to peaceful purposes enjoy a general immunity from direct attack. Specific protection applies to medical units or establishments; transports of wounded and sick personnel; military and civilian hospital ships; safety zones established under the Geneva Conventions; and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings, monuments, and POW camps. However, if these objects are used for military purposes, they lose their immunity. If these protected objects are located near lawful military objectives (which LOAC prohibits), they may suffer collateral damage when the nearby military objectives are lawfully engaged.

usmilitary.about.com...


lol, this is the biggest load of BS, I ever read.....

read here:


Bombing attacks in the first Gulf War and the Kosovo War systematically targeted power plants and grids, railway stations, refineries, communication networks, sewerage treatment facilities, and water purification plants, in spite of Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits attacking any objectives “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.”
www.fpif.org...


Power plants,grids,sewerage treatment etc are indispensable for the populace

power plants and grids, railway stations, refineries, communication networks, sewerage treatment facilities, and water purification plants, Article 54 of the Geneva Conventions which prohibits attacking any objectives “indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.”


proves Mc Cain is a war criminal who should be tried in Hague for bombing civilian power plant as it is violation of Geneva convention



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Question - If the US were invaded by a foreign power at some point in the future, a power who trampled all over the international treaties it signed, a power who destroyed the infrastrucure of a nation and who killed and imprisoned (unjustly) hundreds of thousands of your countrymen, women and children, do you think it's possible you might become an insurgent, and say sod the GC?


Wouldn't be me. I'd be too busy paving the way for my new overlords!


Seriously, you think all the civilian deaths are from Coalition troops? That the insurgents haven't killed a single person?

And I agree, being a POW doesn't mean he's good to go for being President. And just because he has a temper doesn't mean he's going to be lunging for the nuke button simply because the Russian Ambassador took his parking space.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pexx421
come jerico, america has obviously abandoned the geneva convetions themselves. We regularly and openly commit torture now, and i think thats slightly over the geneva conventions. We are also, by the GC, required to give any occupied country the same medical attention and fullfill humanitary needs the same as we do for our own civilians, and we sure dont do that!


Really? We haven't supplied medical aid? Hang on, I'll give my friend a call; she'll be happy to know she can come home now. She's a med-tech and 99% of the people they are treating are Iraqi civilians.


Originally posted by pexx421 As to the vietnam thing, you obviously havent read much about it. We werent there to protect the south, in fact there wasnt even a south. It was a puppet government that we propped up to give legitimacy to our claims, just as we often do in other countries. Prior to our "war" there was no civil war, it was the French vs. the vietnamese, and they were there protesting the vietnamese rights to independence from france. Since We wouldnt aid vietnam (and they begged us many times) they finally had to turn to USSR who agreed to give them weapons....what else where they to do? So, yeah, it was a country celebrating their independence, france invades, then we invade, destroy the whole country, submit them to horrible attrocities, completely crush their infrastructure and leave them with a smoking ruin....and then you expect them to jump up and be democratic with free rights for all? I think we showed them the error of capitalism. I will say this though, as far as people go. I have met many many angry racist americans who hate the vietnamese for defending their country so well against us.....but most of the vietnamese i have met have been open, friendly, and forgiving.


Well, that was a nicely skewed version of Vietnam. France didn't invade; they were there prior to WW2. You do know after the first Indochina war, the Geneva Agreements divided VN north and south. Diem had a coup in the South, didn't allow elections, and the North sent the VC down to bring the South under Communist rule; NOT to allow elections or anything democratic, that's for sure.

And I'm sure you just mistakenly forgot about the attrocities that the VC committed, right? As I mentioned, check out "Hue City" where the US Marines found mass graves of teachers, politicians, professors, etc, with their hands bound and executed. Just another day in Communist Vietnam.

Maybe you ought to read a bit about Vietnam first, huh?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
lol, this is the biggest load of BS, I ever read.....


Sorry about that, Gus. It's the LOAC. Google it, I'm tired of schooling you.


Originally posted by manson_322 read here:

Power plants,grids,sewerage treatment etc are indispensable for the populace

proves Mc Cain is a war criminal who should be tried in Hague for bombing civilian power plant as it is violation of Geneva convention


Hmmm, really? What about during WW2? The allies destroyed everything that was on that list? Guess they all should be tried as war criminals, huh?

It can be a target if it's supplying a war industry. If it's a plant supply some civilian city with no military purpose, you can't bomb it.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jerico65
 


Anything to add about what his friend said?

Remember this is a man who knows him...



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by VDOG.45
 


No offense, but who's freedom have you fought for?

Certainly not mine.

I respect the fact that you served your country - but it certainly wasn't for the freedom of anyone here unless you fought in WWII




My Father fought for your freedom in WWII in the Pacific. He was even kicked off the beach when General Douglas Macarthur landed on a beach in his liberation of the Philippines.

Australia had no natural resources that the Japanese Empire needed for their war machine at the time. So they bypassed the Continent for smaller, conquerable Islands.

I became a 2nd Generation Marine and my Son now a 3rd Generation United States Marine. Why? Gratitude to our Father and Love of our Country!

I do not mean to disrespect you as an Australian. You had your fighting men along side of ours long before we got there in the Pacific.

He||, I owe a debt of Gratitude to an Australian Federal Police Officer for recovering my Fathers dog tag in 2004 from Guadalcanal. I can never repay him for his generosity to me.

Getting back to the thread, Michael Moore is nothing more then a Socialist making his money off our backs if you pay to watch his crap movies and making a name for himself.

He is part of the “Blame America for all the Worlds Problems” America has made some mistakes in the last 20 years, I give you all that.

In the Last 90 years we as Americans have also liberated millions of people from oppression and bondage! From Tyrants, Dictators, Fascists and Communists.

It is the Liberal, Socialist, Pacifists that are destroying America, England, France, the World. You can add in the Bankers and Politicians to that end to take the human race down to a sniveling level for begging for “Please Sire, I want more” attitude!

I train for war, yet I really want peace for all mankind.

Semper Fi

VDOG.45



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Anything to add about what his friend said?

Remember this is a man who knows him...


Well, I sort of did, but repeating it would kill the funny!

The guy is entitled to his opinion. I think both our choice for President this year suck to say the least.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by VDOG.45
 


My grandad fought in WWII - I'm in the UK by the way.

Uncles, great uncles etc all did

Great grandads fought in WWI
and great uncles etc etc

On the other side of my family, my dads side - my family fought the illegal occupation by the imperialist forces of GB for many, many years, each in their own way.

I know about fighting for freedom, but that's not what our respective countries are doing - they are fighting for gain in the form of economic imperialism, and in my opinion, that goes against the grain a little.

I may have a foot in the camp of the pacifist, but that doesn't mean I don't understand that sometimes direct action is necessary - it's just that in many instances since WWII it hasn't been necessary.

It's been done for personal gain, and we should be past that by now.


[edit on 27/8/2008 by budski]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by VDOG.45It is the Liberal, Socialist, Pacifists that are destroying America, England, France, the World. You can add in the Bankers and Politicians to that end to take the human race down to a sniveling level for begging for “Please Sire, I want more” attitude!

I train for war, yet I really want peace for all mankind.

Semper Fi

VDOG.45


You assume we all want to live like Americans, right-wing Americans at that...gotta lose that bit of chauvanism if you ever want to understand your place in the scheme of things. There's more to the world than what you can discern from between the stars and strips, my friend.

Try watching some of Moore's stuff without the blinkers on and the Right ain't so right after all.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join