olyclimber

peter and doug! maybe see you guys at the game.

slXcHNHEOqg

finally, equality. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=548728&in_page_id=1811

Say what? Bush and the Republicans have done absolutely the WRONG thing in Iraq and it doesn't look as if they've done well in Afghanistan either (the Democrats went along with it, but Bush and the Rep ublican led Congress were in charge). Probably a more accurate statement would be One thing is for sure, though, Baghdad Jim was right. The French were right. General Eric Shinseki was right. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson was right. Simply because they spoke against the war in whatever media or with whatever opportunities were available to them, they were all branded as cowards and traitors except maybe Shinseki who was merely sacked. There were many opponents of entering WWII, who were inspired by various sentiments and who used various means to communicate their message. Not all of them are remembered in the same way, or were thought of in the same way at the time. Do you think that Charles Lindbergh was treated unfairly for the manner in which he spoke out against US involvement in WWII? Ha Jay, I almost posted about Lindbergh earlier in this thread. His wife wrote a great autobiography. Its amazing the Lindbergh is still viewed as a national hero after what he went through pre-WWII. However, given what he accomplished after the war was underway changed things. The comparison with the current situation sort of ends after the WWII starts. Lindbergh went on to make contributions that helped win the war. He was definitely an "anti-war hero", but in the end he saw that there was nothing to do but end it as soon as possible. We're fighting a different kind of enemy now. There is no tactical nuke to drop to end it all in one day.

Say what? Bush and the Republicans have done absolutely the WRONG thing in Iraq and it doesn't look as if they've done well in Afghanistan either (the Democrats went along with it, but Bush and the Republican led Congress were in charge). Probably a more accurate statement would be One thing is for sure, though, Baghdad Jim was right. The French were right. General Eric Shinseki was right. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson was right. Simply because they spoke against the war in whatever media or with whatever opportunities were available to them, they were all branded as cowards and traitors except maybe Shinseki who was merely sacked. matt i was referring to a specific task, i probably should have been more clear about that. that task was how we were dealing with radical islam and the taliban pre-9/11. i think that any president who could have foreseen 9/11 accurately and fully would have done all they could. instead both parties had their chances and didn't act, and we all finally did something when poked in the eye hard enough. i'm not referring to the iraq situation at all.

yeah, i was linked to the article. inquiring minds wanted to know about the potential first daughter!!!!

wow, he was 48 when he cranked this one out! prolific! http://men.style.com/gq/blogs/gqeditors/2008/03/caps-font-var-1.html

wow that would suck. i've had some fun times up there. let me know if you don't hear from the A.F. The WCC may also be able to help.

How Not To Adopt a Child From Africa - Watch more free videos

sounds like fun

Great post Serenity. I think the topic is well worth the time researching. It gives you not only a good idea as to what we are up against as far as the people who see fit to run our own jet planes into our buildings, but also how US clandestine foreign policy has played out in recent years. it definitely isn't something you can blame on a particular administration or party...all presidents have been willing to do the right thing in this case. I have no idea what the answers are, but I'm don't think we want to be putting ourselves into a situation where we are occupying and subjecting ourselves to never ending attacks. With out genocide it may not be possible to "win". In the end we may just need to have the dialogue that we have definitely not been having for recent (7 years or so) history...but then again it may just be an "oil and water" situation.

the writer obviously has a bit of an agenda, but it seems to be well researched and based on fact.

given our government was dealing with radical islamics in Afghanistan for some time, it wouldn't actually be that big of a deal that Bush might have met with them when they visited texas. bush was an oil man and was then governor...what was it...1997? http://www.jihadunspun.com/articles/04152002-Bush.Oil.Taliban/index.html

ulee still thinks ichiro is the man. him and jj.

the funds given to the islamic fighters in afghanistan was done through several presidencies (both democratic and republican)

i'm reading a book about about the arise of the taliban right now...we knew very well what the taliban where all about and that they were rabidly anti-american (but then they aren't the only ones). the Taliban and the extremist Islamic movement in Afghanistan served us well in encouraging the Soviet Union to leave that area towards the end of the Cold War. our money was green and they took it as they saw the anti-religious communist as a more immediate threat at the time. then once that ceased to be a problem they turned their love towards the West.

i'm just bringing ulee. i'll settle for play off contention. we'll be in the 3rd row of the bleachers for this game.

time for a regime change WHOOPS!

where is this again? surely there are baby seals at risk? or indigenous cultures?

fuck yeah! lets invade and set up a forward base!

convert to cash, invest in euros, soon there will be cheap bmws and mercedes all over the seattle area.