Jump to content

Documents realeased Today - Shows US and Taliban


Guest BlackJesus

Recommended Posts

Guest BlackJesus
[color="blue"][i][b]Some Provoking documents were released today about Americas dealings with the Taliban in 1998. Seems that we had a good chance to arrange an assassination of him. What is also interesting... is Omar (taliban) sounds much more shrewd and knowledgeable about matters than the West would have you believe....Like I have contested, American policy consistently fucks up, albeit Democrat or Republican, and I think this is another good example. it appears to me that the liberation argument of Afghanistan often made is pure bullshit.... also I am not sure that the toppling of the Taliban was necessary from a strategic aspect.... it seems that they were open for certain shady shit that could have had Bin Laden taken care of... instead we toppled the people that knew where he was... and now we have no fucking idea[/b][/i][/color]


[img]http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/US/08/19/taliban.documents/story.omar.vert.jpg[/img]
[u]U.S., Taliban bargained over bin Laden, documents show
Declassified State Department papers detail 1998 meetings
August 19, 2005
CNN
[/u]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- During secret meetings with U.S. officials in 1998, top Taliban officials discussed assassinating or expelling Osama bin Laden in response to al Qaeda's deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa, according to State Department documents.

The newly declassified documents, posted Thursday on the National Archives Web site, provide a fascinating glimpse into U.S. diplomacy exerted on Afghanistan's ruling Taliban -- a regime officially unrecognized by Washington -- nearly three years before the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.

According to the documents, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan, Alan Eastham Jr., met with Wakil Ahmed, a close aide to Taliban leader Mullah Omar, in November and December 1998. That was just months after the August al Qaeda attacks that killed more than 200 people at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

"It is unbelievable that this small man did this to you," Ahmed said during their meeting on December 19, 1998, according to the documents.

Ahmed told Eastham that he spoke with Omar about bin Laden and that the Taliban still considered the Saudi exile "innocent."


[u][b]Talk of assassination[/b][/u]
During a meeting between Ahmed and Eastham on November 28, 1998, just days after the Taliban's supreme court cleared bin Laden of terrorist activities, Ahmed said one possibility "would be for the U.S. to kill him or arrange for bin Laden to be assassinated."

Ahmed "said that the U.S., if it chose to do so, could arrange to have bin Laden killed by cruise missiles or other means, and there would be little the Taliban could do to prevent it," according to the documents.

Another alternative, Ahmed said, would be for the United States to provide the Taliban with cruise missiles to have "the situation resolved in this way." Ahmed also noted that expelling bin Laden likely would result in the Taliban regime being overthrown, according to the documents.

And while Ahmed suggested a possible assassination of bin Laden, he also "urged the U.S. not to bomb Afghanistan again" as Washington did in the weeks following the embassy bombings. Ahmed "asked instead for a new U.S. proposal aimed at resolving the matter," the documents said.


[u][b]'I consider you as murderers'[/b][/u]
Ahmed expressed anger about the cruise missile attacks ordered by President Clinton on al Qaeda training camps in Khost, Afghanistan, targeting bin Laden after the embassy bombings. Twenty-two Afghans, including members of al Qaeda, were killed in the attacks.

"If Kandahar could have retaliated with similar strikes against Washington, it would have," Ahmed said, according to the documents.

"I consider you as murderers of Afghans," Ahmed told Eastham. "The U.S. said bin Laden had killed innocent people, but had not the U.S. killed innocent Afghans in Khost too? Was this not a crime?"


[u][b]Saudi influence[/b][/u]
The declassified State Department documents were cables recapping the meetings and outlining the U.S. position on bin Laden. They were originally sent to U.S. officials in Washington; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Peshawar, Pakistan; Cairo, Egypt; Abu Dhabi, UAE; Lahore, Pakistan; and the United Nations.

A State Department cable sent on October 19, 1998, said the best course of action in getting bin Laden handed over would be through Saudi Arabia, which "maintains significant prestige in Pakistan and Afghanistan."

It said a then-upcoming trip by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to Pakistan provided a "ready-made opportunity for the Saudis to press the Pakistani government to exert pressure on the Taliban concerning bin Laden."

It also said the United States should continue to pursue talks amid "indications that other Taliban leaders are getting nervous on the issue."

"The U.S. should appeal to the natural trading mentality of many Afghans -- and perhaps some Taliban -- by setting out what the Taliban stand to gain by expelling bin Laden as well as what they stand to lose," the cable said.


[u][b]Taliban cooperation[/b][/u]
At the same time, U.S. officials were under no illusions about the prospects of Taliban cooperation: "The fact is that the leader of the Taliban appears to be strongly committed to bin Laden. It is questionable whether U.S. or Saudi efforts can influence Omar's decisions."

By the end of the November 28 meeting, pressed on why the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden, Ahmed said that the Afghan people "would not understand why the Taliban had expelled a man who was regarded as a 'great mujahid,' or Islamic fighter, during the war against the Soviets. They would reject the Taliban if the Taliban took this action."

Eastham responded by telling Ahmed the Taliban had to recognize for itself "that the role of political leadership is to shape public opinion, not to decline to act because they think opinion is otherwise."

The cable concluded that Ahmed "wanted very strongly to convey the message that the Taliban did not consider the bin Laden matter resolved in the wake of the recent supreme court decision."

But within a month, it was clear the Taliban had hardened its position. "We have little indication that anything we said got through to" Ahmed, a cable said about the December 19 meeting.


[u][b]Bin Laden 'most important'[/b][/u]
The documents indicate that bin Laden was clearly Washington's priority with the Taliban in 1998 -- rather than reported human rights violations by their Afghan government.

"The continued presence in Afghanistan of bin Laden and his network is by far the most important," said a State Department cable sent on October 19, 1998.

The State Department has issued a $25 million reward for bin Laden and $10 million for Mullah Omar.

In October of 2001 a U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan toppled the Taliban regime.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that had happened you'd just be here now bitching about how we supported the Taliban and then had to overthrow them.

On a side note: All you opposing the war can go back now and say "If Clinton had made the deal with the Taliban and eliminated Bin Laden then 9/11 would have never happened. If 9/11 had never happened, then we wouldnt be in Iraq now."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
beaker... i don't think they will, but great point... i've thought this for a long time... i've heard a lot lately, that we've had many opportunites before 9/11 to kill bin laden, but didn't...

heres my take on this... clinton was an appeaser... he don't want to "solve" problems, he want them to go away... not that he didn't literally want to solve the problems in the middle east, but he didn't have two things:
1. a reason to rally america to fight against extremism: 9/11
2. the balls to do it...

i don't think bush really would have gone into afghan or iraq either, quite frankly... look what is going on now... why take a political risk like that, w/out reasoning...

the facts though are this, clinton was appeasing everyone to make it go away... it did for a while, but while we thought it was gone, it was actually stronger than ever... al qaeda and terrorism in general is weakening every day now...

bush's main thing was to fight terror, but i think his main weapon was to fight it w/ democracy... installing a new gov't that allowed women's rights and other things that the taliban would have never done, was going to win the hearts in the middle east... not keeping the taliban... lets face it, woman have a power over men... we all know what its like to have your woman mad at you... it sucks...

just b/c clinton was willing to allow the taliban to get rid of osama for us, doesn't mean we liked them... but if they would have killed him/locked him up, then they would still be in power and we would be in the UN on about our 19th or 20th resolution right now, w/ them and iran simutainously trying to get weapon of md...

think about it guys, you know i'm right...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]al qaeda and terrorism in general is weakening every day now...[/quote]


[img]http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/stupidchart.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]On a side note: All you opposing the war can go back now and say "If Clinton had made the deal with the Taliban and eliminated Bin Laden then 9/11 would have never happened. If 9/11 had never happened, then we wouldnt be in Iraq now."[/quote]

[img]http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/good-one.jpg[/img]

[color="blue"][i][b]Then the Bush haters could counter back with if Reagen Hadn't armed Saddam, and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and supported and armed the Taliban.... then none of this would have happened.... (Bush Sr was also head of the CIA during OsamaGate)[/b][/i][/color]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick

so the terrrists are stronger, after having at least 75% of their original leadership killed or captured?? ok...

how about the thousands of terrorists that are no longer around... how about the elections, the consitution that hopefully goes through soon... btw, i heard a sticking point is the kurds want an option in 5-10 years to be an independant state... since it is a democracy, it seems better for them figure it out, than us to just make a new country for someone, right? would you support it, like you did origionally, if they got their own country or at least might get their own country?? i'd like it if you were back on my side of the fence, if so, considering that seemed to be your biggest hold up... or are you too far on the other side to come back??

al qaeda can't conduct large scale attacks anymore w/ too much success... they are just not starting to attack again, and they aren't doing much... 2 attacks were successful (first UK bombings and egypt) and 2 were jokes (2nd UK bombing, and this last missile attack that only killed a jordian citizen)... they ARE NOT as strong, and they continue to get stronger... i stand by my point...

what pic do you have for me now?? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[quote]so the terrrists are stronger, after having at least 75% of their original leadership killed or captured?? ok...[/quote]

[i][b]Terrorists is such a weighted and weak word.... it is used by both sides to refer to an opponent when they feel they can not defend their position ideologically. Mandela, Ghandi, and MLK were all called terrorists.... so was George Washington, John Brown, and Malcolm X. Terrorists as Bush defines them.... (which is basically those muslims who are just as fervent about Islam as he is about his carpenter god, and thus want to kill his army as bad as he wants to kill theirs. There is absolutley no difference between dropping a daisy cutter on Fallujah and killing civilians, and setting off a road side explosive in a baghdad market. Both cause TERROR. When you understand it through this lens of reality you will understand that there is more Terror. Now by both what Bush calls Terrorists... and what his opponents call Terrorists = Us. Many of these so called freedoms that are touted are nothing but an illusion, they are fabricated anecdotal remedies like the potential to show your ankles, watch TV (if you are one of the lucky ones with electricity, and the right to purchase gas in a 4 hour line owned by an American firm.[/b][/i]



[quote]how about the thousands of terrorists that are no longer around[/quote]

[i][b]all we have done is smash the beehive, and cause them to disperse into many smaller ones which will now fester and grow in regions that we cannot attack because we are bogged down, and future attack will rightly reak of imperialism. we have emptied our clip and the gun was pointing at the wrong guy. Meanwhile N korea and Iran build on. Al Qaeda is no longer a group but a growing ideology and one that will live on long past Osama.... just as the ideology of Marxism has been carried for almost 2 centuries by men who never personally knew or had connection to Karl Marx himself. [/b][/i]


[quote]btw, i heard a sticking point is the kurds want an option in 5-10 years to be an independant state... since it is a democracy, it seems better for them figure it out, than us to just make a new country for someone, right? would you support it, like you did origionally, if they got their own country or at least might get their own country?? i'd like it if you were back on my side of the fence, if so, considering that seemed to be your biggest hold up... or are you too far on the other side to come back??[/quote]

[i][b]I have made no secret that my primary desire with the invasion of Iraq was to wrong the past injustice that the United States inflicted on the Kurds in N Iraq (an event I witnessed first hand living on the border of Turkey and Iraq during Gulf War I with my father fighting in it) .....my primary area of expertise is Kurdish issues and I work extensively with Kurdish groups abroad and on a small extent within the nation of Turkey itself where they also should be granted independence to join this portion of N Iraq, to later unite with W Iran and ultimatley form the Nation they were promised after WWI (Kurdistan) ...
[img]http://www.kurdmedia.com/pix/map_kurdistan1.jpg[/img]

However the 5-10 year issue is nothing more than a Red Herring and window dressing. We told the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and we would help, they did and we watched them gunned down. They pleaded with us for decades to stop Saddam from Gassing them and we laughed at them, and only when we went in for Oil do we parade them as a benefit of so called "liberation". The Kurds currently in Turkey are under an even more repressive regime than Saddams. Kurd in E Turkey (mountain Turks, Turkey doesn't even let them call themselves Kurds) are not allowed to speak their language, wear their dress, listen to their music, they are under constant guard in every village, their homes are routinely burned and many of them imprisoned and killed, many are tortured on a daily basis etc.... We allow Turkey as with most tyrants to do whatever the fuck they desire because we think we need the many airbases in Turkey from which they allow us. (I lived on one of these particular bases for several years (Incirlik). Thus we preach bullshit democracy right across the border and then turn our head when Turkey rapes and pillages, just as we do with Allies Uzbekistan,China,Indonesia, Colombia,Mexico etc.... IF N iraq were allowed to succeed right now, which they want to [color="red"]THEN AND ONLY THEN [/color]would I see that something good came out of the War in Iraq. It would at least be a bright spot to me and a correction of horrible injustice. However, we don't want real democracy.... if we did we would let them succeed which they want to. We won't let that happen because as soon as they do, then Eastern Turkey will want to join them and there are over 30 million Kurds living in this area of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. Turkey would instantly declare War on this New N Iraqi country and then we would have to join them I am sure and fight against the same N alliance of Kurds that helped us destory Saddam.

This would not be anything new disturbingly as we fought against the same Mujahadeen we trained in Afghanistan, and fought against the same Ho Chin Minh in Vietnam we loved in WWII when he was fighting against the Japanese. We have a hobbie of turning staunch allies, into future enemies and unfortuatley I believe we instead are just going to hang the Kurds out to dry again like always. [/b][/i]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bengalrick
[i][b]Terrorists is such a weighted and weak word.... it is used by both sides to refer to an opponent when they feel they can not defend their position ideologically. Mandela, Ghandi, and MLK were all called terrorists.... so was George Washington, John Brown, and Malcolm X. Terrorists as Bush defines them.... (which is basically those muslims who are just as fervent about Islam as he is about his carpenter god, and thus want to kill his army as bad as he wants to kill theirs. There is absolutley no difference between dropping a daisy cutter on Fallujah and killing civilians, and setting off a road side explosive in a baghdad market. Both cause TERROR. When you understand it through this lens of reality you will understand that there is more Terror. Now by both what Bush calls Terrorists... and what his opponents call Terrorists = Us. Many of these so called freedoms that are touted are nothing but an illusion, they are fabricated anecdotal remedies like the potential to show your ankles, watch TV (if you are one of the lucky ones with electricity, and the right to purchase gas in a 4 hour line owned by an American firm.[/b][/i]

yeah, but you would agree that members of al qaeda are terrorists right now right?? i am full aware that moderate muslims are talked into entering a "jihad" but that is unfortinate... but i was mostly refering to the many, many "zarquawi aides" and other al qaeda leadership... but if these moderates are talked into joining forces against us, they may not be "terrorists" or whatever the hell you want to call them, but they are enemies of ours, and to our soldiers, its a kill or be killed kind of deal...

[i][b]all we have done is smash the beehive, and cause them to disperse into many smaller ones which will now fester and grow in regions that we cannot attack because we are bogged down, and future attack will rightly reak of imperialism. we have emptied our clip and the gun was pointing at the wrong guy. Meanwhile N korea and Iran build on. Al Qaeda is no longer a group but a growing ideology and one that will live on long past Osama.... just as the ideology of Marxism has been carried for almost 2 centuries by men who never personally knew or had connection to Karl Marx himself. [/b][/i]

and what if us smashing the beehive, is something that comes back to help... norturing it sure as hell wasn't working... only time will tell if it was right... if you haven't noticed, the support for al qaeda isn't growing... the last survey they had about it (which i posted) showed that support for bin laden and using terror in general, were not going well w/ even most muslim nations... another thing about the war against terror and bush's poll numbers... one thing to look at, is maybe many bush supporters are against the way its being conducted, b/c they want us to go in more heavily... i read an article today that said just that... you can have the "i don't want war at all" folks, and you have the "we aren't fighting it the right way" folks... both are black marks for bush... just food for thought...

[i][b]I have made no secret that my primary desire with the invasion of Iraq was to wrong the past injustice that the United States inflicted on the Kurds in N Iraq (an event I witnessed first hand living on the border of Turkey and Iraq during Gulf War I with my father fighting in it) .....my primary area of expertise is Kurdish issues and I work extensively with Kurdish groups abroad and on a small extent within the nation of Turkey itself where they also should be granted independence to join this portion of N Iraq, to later unite with W Iran and ultimatley form the Nation they were promised after WWI (Kurdistan) ...
[img]http://www.kurdmedia.com/pix/map_kurdistan1.jpg[/img]

However the 5-10 year issue is nothing more than a Red Herring and window dressing. We told the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and we would help, they did and we watched them gunned down. They pleaded with us for decades to stop Saddam from Gassing them and we laughed at them, and only when we went in for Oil do we parade them as a benefit of so called "liberation". The Kurds currently in Turkey are under an even more repressive regime than Saddams. Kurd in E Turkey (mountain Turks, Turkey doesn't even let them call themselves Kurds) are not allowed to speak their language, wear their dress, listen to their music, they are under constant guard in every village, their homes are routinely burned and many of them imprisoned and killed, many are tortured on a daily basis etc.... We allow Turkey as with most tyrants to do whatever the fuck they desire because we think we need the many airbases in Turkey from which they allow us. (I lived on one of these particular bases for several years (Incirlik). Thus we preach bullshit democracy right across the border and then turn our head when Turkey rapes and pillages, just as we do with Allies Uzbekistan,China,Indonesia, Colombia,Mexico etc.... IF N iraq were allowed to succeed right now, which they want to [color="red"]THEN AND ONLY THEN [/color]would I see that something good came out of the War in Iraq. It would at least be a bright spot to me and a correction of horrible injustice. However, we don't want real democracy.... if we did we would let them succeed which they want to. We won't let that happen because as soon as they do, then Eastern Turkey will want to join them and there are over 30 million Kurds living in this area of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran. Turkey would instantly declare War on this New N Iraqi country and then we would have to join them I am sure and fight against the same N alliance of Kurds that helped us destory Saddam.

This would not be anything new disturbingly as we fought against the same Mujahadeen we trained in Afghanistan, and fought against the same Ho Chin Minh in Vietnam we loved in WWII when he was fighting against the Japanese. We have a hobbie of turning staunch allies, into future enemies and unfortuatley I believe we instead are just going to hang the Kurds out to dry again like always. [/b][/i]
[right][post="135122"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right]
[/quote]

your not understanding my point... which is better, us to CREATE a seperate country possibly against the rest of iraq's population, or allow democracy to work itself out... there are things on the other side, that the kurds can use as carrots, to allow themselves to have this possibility... i can't say if it will work, give it a chance...

i guess you would like us to create a country for isr... i mean the kurds right? [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img] how come its so bad for the jews to have a country created for them, but you have a prerequisite of supporting this war, w/ us creating one for them... its not a matter of LETTING them, its a matter of civil war... if we force the other two ethnicities to lose n iraq, then we really are fucking w/ a beehive... think things are bad now?? shit... if we lost support in the majority of iraq, that WOULD be a quagmire... at least most iraqis are at least neutral on the whole war (i'd argue that many are all for it, but i don't know that for sure, but common sense tells me its at least neutral)...

we can go back through history, and find something wrong w/ every country if you want... that is no way to go about it though... we recognize what we did wrong, and try to improve it... not blame us, and tell us to stand down and not fight b/c our forefathers or reagan, or bush 1, or whoever the fuck did something wrong... we are doing the right thing here, and at least the Kurds have a chance here...

btw, i wish bush 1 would have helped the kurds in the first gulf war... but that doesn't mean that we can't now... they had almost zero chance w/ saddam in there... at least theres a real chance they can now... they weren't going to rise up and revolt, unless something big happened... and since they were gassed, i don't know what that big thing was going to be... now they must use the democratic process to better themselves... its not a revolution, so it will take longer, but one is bloody and the other isn't... give it some time, and try to help them, by allowing us to take out the guys that want to fuck up the democratic process there... if they beat us (we prematurally withdrawl) then the kurds are fucked... they will have to fight then and it won't be pretty... not sure what would happen, but their best chance is us and especially you, considering you know them better than most...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlackJesus
[i][b]First of all Rick.... I appreciate the conversation,
It seems like sometimes the forum is really just the BlackJesus and Rick Discussion time

as for your comments ....[/b][/i]



[quote]yeah, but you would agree that members of al qaeda are terrorists right now right??[/quote]

[i][b]Actually I don't word recognize the label of terrorists really.... I will agree with you that they are enemies of the United States Government.... Although I don't even think they would describe themselves as enemies of the American people (if you recall Osamas speeches he even has made attempts to appeal to the American Public) I do believe that they are religious extremists and that they use brutal tactics to wage their version of war to establish their version of justice that they desire, just as Bush uses violence and war to establish what he feels is a just society. [/b][/i]


[quote]and what if us smashing the beehive, is something that comes back to help...[/quote]

[i][b]That is possible, and I hope that it is the case.... However Al Qaeda now I think is a system of belief more than a group.... that almost makes them more dangerous because it allows random guys to set up shop without ever meeting with Osama. These groups as we saw in London are hard to spot before they attack.[/b][/i]


[quote]which is better, us to CREATE a seperate country possibly against the rest of iraq's population, or allow democracy to work itself out...[/quote]

[i][b]Democracy is allowing succession if the people desire it especially since you would have upeards of 95 % of the people in that region vote to succeed.[/b][/i]



[quote]i guess you would like us to create a country for isr... i mean the kurds right?  how come its so bad for the jews to have a country created for them, but you have a prerequisite of supporting this war, w/ us creating one for them...[/quote]
[i][b]
total misunderstanding of the actual situation. Kurds in those areas make up between 95-100 % of the population and they have lived in this region for a few thousands years ..... Israel was created, Kurdistan has always been..... just split up.... Jews at the time of making Israel were only about 20 % of the population... and they then declared the other 80 % non citizens of the country they pulled out of thin air... Now Jews are only about 50 % of Israels population.... the Kurds in Kurdistan are almost 100 %. We wouldn't be creating anything... it is already there.[/b][/i]


[quote]if we lost support in the majority of iraq, that WOULD be a quagmire...[/quote]
[i][b]
we have lost support in most of Iraq but the Northern Regions.... anytime you see an Iraqi welcoming an American with flowers or cheers... there is a 80 % chance it is N Iraq and they are Kurdish... the only ones that like us in the whole damn country. If Bush was a more shrewd politician he would realize that we have loyalty there and capitalize on it... especially in a country littered with road bombs in the south[/b][/i]


[quote]we can go back through history, and find something wrong w/ every country if you want... that is no way to go about it though... we recognize what we did wrong, and try to improve it... not blame us, and tell us to stand down and not fight b/c our forefathers or reagan, or bush 1, or whoever the fuck did something wrong... we are doing the right thing here, and at least the Kurds have a chance here...[/quote]

[i][b]the difference the countries I named is we are currently supporting them right now! We are aligning with many dictators every day... now this is fine from a foriegn policy standpoint if you then do not go out and make disengenous speeches to the world that we are the beacon of freedom and determnined to free the world. Just be honest.... we like Dictators most of the time, if they threaten us we selectivley attack them and then say we are spreading freedom, when really we are just kicking out fucks we don't like.[/b][/i]



[img]http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/kirkanderson22803.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 20 2005, 07:17 PM'][img]http://www.trimpe.org/jr/pictures/good-one.jpg[/img]

[color="blue"][i][b]Then the Bush haters could counter back with if Reagen Hadn't armed Saddam, and the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and supported and armed the Taliban.... then none of this would have happened.... (Bush Sr was also head of the CIA during OsamaGate)[/b][/i][/color]
[right][post="135102"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
How many times have we been over this. Do you see how many arms were provided by the other countries. Russia, Germany, France? If we would have had 0 involvement in Iraq at this time, it more than likely would have changed nothing. They were armed to the teeth already by the rest of the world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest steggyD
[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Aug 22 2005, 02:15 AM'][i][b]the difference is Russia, Germany, France did not invade Iraq in violation of Intl Law.  [/b][/i]
[right][post="135561"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
Probably because they were still banking off of Iraq. Hmmmm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
[quote name='steggyD' date='Aug 22 2005, 12:57 AM']Probably because they were still banking off of Iraq. Hmmmm.
[right][post="135563"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]



[img]http://www.brinkenhoes.nl/Mijn%20afbeeldingen/bingo4.jpg[/img]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...