Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 03:04 PM        Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right (commentary)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-04.htm

Published on Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right
by Arianna Huffington

The Bible tells us that pride goeth before the fall. In Iraq, it cameth right after it. From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.

What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right.

The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine. The threat was so clear and present that we couldn't even give inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction -- hey, remember those? -- another 30 days, as France had wanted.

Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying Western civilization, Saddam and his 21st century Gestapo couldn't even muster a half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' cakewalk disproves their own dire warnings. They can't have it both ways. The invasion has proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of the world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.

Back in 1991, more than half-a-dozen Arab nations were part of our Desert Storm coalition. Operation Iraqi Freedom's "coalition of the willing" had zero. Not even the polygamous potentates of Kuwait -- whose butts we saved last time out and who were most threatened by whatever threat Iraq still presented -- would join us. And, I'm sorry, but substituting Bulgaria and the island of Tonga for Egypt and Oman is just not going to cut it when it comes to winning hearts and minds on the Arab street.

In fact, almost everything about the invasion -- from the go-it-alone build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed -- has played right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country. Islamic extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy war they're preparing to wage against us. Instead of Uncle Sam wants you, their recruiting posters feature a different kind of patriotic image: an American soldier ill-advisedly draping the American flag over Saddam's face.

The anti-war movement did not oppose the war out of fear that America was going to lose. It was the Bush administration's pathological and frantic obsession with an immediate, damn-the-consequences invasion that fueled the protests.

And please don't point to jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets to validate the case for "pre-emptive liberation." You'd be doing the Baghdad Bugaloo too if the murderous tyrant who'd been eating off golden plates while your family starved finally got what was coming to him. It in no way proves that running roughshod over international law and pouring Iraqi oil -- now brought to you by the good folks at Halliburton -- onto the flames of anti-American hatred was a good idea. It wasn't before the war, and it still isn't now. The unintended consequences have barely begun to unfold.

And the idea that our slamdunk of Saddam actually proves the White House was right is particularly dangerous because it encourages the Wolfowitzes and the Perles and the Cheneys to argue that we should be invading Syria or Iran or North Korea or Cuba as soon as we catch our breath. They've tasted blood.

It's important to remember that the Arab world has seen a very different war than we have. They are seeing babies with limbs blown off, children wailing beside their dead mothers, Arab journalists killed by American tanks and bombers, holy men hacked to death and dragged through the streets. They are seeing American forces leaving behind a wake of destruction, looting, hunger, humiliation, and chaos.

Who's been handling our war PR, Osama bin Laden? The language and imagery are all wrong. Having Tom DeLay gush about our "army of virtue" at the same time we're blowing up mosques is definitely not sending the right message to a Muslim world already suspicious that we're waging a war on Islam.

Neither is Ari Fleischer's claim that the administration can't do anything to keep Christian missionaries -- including those who have described the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile" and a "terrorist" -- from going on a holy crusade to Baghdad. You think the Arab world might take that the wrong way? If there is one thing that could bring Sunnis and Shiites together, it's the common hatred of evangelical zealots who denigrate their prophet.

And it doesn't help to have the American media referring to Jay Garner, the retired general Don Rumsfeld picked to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, as "viceroy." It reeks of colonial imperialism. Why not just call him "Head Bwana?" Or "Garner of Arabia?" I didn't realize the Supreme Court had handed Bush a scepter to go along with the Florida recount.

The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping world history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly clueless about. Which is why the anti-war movement must be stalwart in its refusal to be silenced or browbeaten by the gloating "I told you so" chorus on the right. On the contrary, it needs to make sure that the doctrine of preemptive invasion is forever buried in the sands of Iraq.

Especially as the administration, high on the heady fumes of Saddam's ouster, turns its covetous eyes on Syria. I give it less than a week before someone starts making the case that President Assad is the next, next Hitler.

Arianna Huffington is the author of "Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America." For information on the book, visit www.PigsAtTheTrough.com

###
Reply With Quote
  #2  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 03:06 PM       
Funny. I never fully realized how half-assed it was to reason that the war was righteous because it was 'easy'.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 03:14 PM       
You mean the Ronnie Raygun theory on war and politics...?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 03:33 PM        Damn
Very good article!
__________________
Normally, we do not so much look at things as overlook them.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Zebra 3 Zebra 3 is offline
Striped Tomato
Zebra 3's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay City
Zebra 3 is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 04:35 PM        Re: Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right (commentary)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping world history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly clueless about.
:/ - Clueless sure or maybe simply indifferent.
__________________
'Huuutch!' - Starsky
Reply With Quote
  #6  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 05:42 PM       


Huffington. The former "Conserative" that just can't get a clue.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 07:43 PM       
Yet you praise David Horowitz.

So, rather than being predictable, do you have any comments on the content of the commentary, rather than the author....?

No?

Didn't think so.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 08:58 PM       
Quote:
The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine.
This hurt my head for a while, then I figured out why it made no sense. She makes it sound like we were worried about his conventional forces. As if the Iraqi military was bording cargo planes and getting ready to invade us.

The thing we are worried about are the WMD. Those are a lot smaller and can be hidden in an area with a large population. Its smaller than a tank but 100x more destruvtive.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 09:04 PM       
It makes perfect sense to me. WMD are counted in "war machine."

If you don't believe me, look to the U.S. army. The U.S. has many WMD, and the capabilities to use them in the event of a war. Now, they may or may not, but the threat is still there, is it not?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 09:21 PM       
Yes, but she made it seem we were worried about their conventional forces. You don't use WMD against an invading army.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 09:39 PM       
Quote:
Huffington. The former "Conserative" that just can't get a clue.
Ad Hominem. And no, that's not latin for gay homo sex.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
AChimp AChimp is offline
Resident Chimp
AChimp's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Jungles of Borneo
AChimp is probably a real personAChimp is probably a real person
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 10:00 PM       
When you show complete disregard for the welfare of your people, and live in a fucking desert wasteland, you can use WMD on anyone you want.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 10:06 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
This hurt my head for a while, then I figured out why it made no sense. She makes it sound like we were worried about his conventional forces. As if the Iraqi military was bording cargo planes and getting ready to invade us.

The thing we are worried about are the WMD. Those are a lot smaller and can be hidden in an area with a large population. Its smaller than a tank but 100x more destruvtive.
Are bunker busters not WMD...?

You're grasping at straws here. A nation's WMD, as Chimp said, still get counted with a nation's military power.

Even if Saddam had these WMD, and he sold them to a terrorist network, it's still SADDAM then who poses the security threat, right?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 19th, 2003, 11:09 PM       
I don't recall the Iraqi military putting up much resistance. What went on in the battle field to prove they weren't able to become a threat if they wanted to be? I'm not arguing that Iraq was a threat to us (though I do think there are some decent arguments for that theory) I'm just wondering what this persons commentary is really saying here.... they didn't put up much fight, and didn't bother to even crank up their airforce, so of course we trounced them. The only thing it proves is the protest movements ability to become manipulated.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 12:31 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
I don't recall the Iraqi military putting up much resistance. What went on in the battle field to prove they weren't able to become a threat if they wanted to be?
On what information are you judging that this wasn't their most noble effort? If the Iraqi soldiers lacked the convictions to fight for Hussein, or simply lacked the military capability to do so, doesn't that mean they posed a poor threat to us? How does this commentary conflict with that reality?

Quote:
Ifthey didn't put up much fight, and didn't bother to even crank up their airforce, so of course we trounced them.
So what you're saying is Saddam rolled over and played dead in order to make people like Hutchinson support him post-war??? Who's being easily manipulated now?

Quote:
The only thing it proves is the protest movements ability to become manipulated.
How may I ask?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 01:20 AM       
Quote:
Are bunker busters not WMD...?
By themselves, no. If you put a nuclear, biological or chemical warhead on them, then yes.

Quote:
You're grasping at straws here. A nation's WMD, as Chimp said, still get counted with a nation's military power.
I'm not saying it isn't. I am contesting her point that since their tanks and infantry were useless against us, that means that Hussien was of no threat what-so-ever. She used their lack of coventional warfare capabilites to judge their unconventional. Do you see my point? Its like looking at a baseball team and saying, "Well they can't hit, so their pitchers must suck." Same team, different aspects.

Quote:
Even if Saddam had these WMD, and he sold them to a terrorist network, it's still SADDAM then who poses the security threat, right?
Ya. Are you agreeing with me now?
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 01:36 AM       
That article was excellent.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #18  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 02:15 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Quote:
Are bunker busters not WMD...?
By themselves, no. If you put a nuclear, biological or chemical warhead on them, then yes.
Oh come on....

Quote:
Quote:
You're grasping at straws here. A nation's WMD, as Chimp said, still get counted with a nation's military power.
I'm not saying it isn't. I am contesting her point that since their tanks and infantry were useless against us, that means that Hussien was of no threat what-so-ever. She used their lack of coventional warfare capabilites to judge their unconventional. Do you see my point? Its like looking at a baseball team and saying, "Well they can't hit, so their pitchers must suck." Same team, different aspects.
I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were saying that we never really did fear Saddam's military might, thus making her point moot...?

I think her point is still quite solid. Saddam was presented as a security threat (likened to Hitler, in fact). I think their pitiful display proved her correct. You can say "well, we REALLY feared the WMD," but why then didn't they use them? Was Saddam still fearing public persecution from the international community? I highly doubt it.

Quote:
Quote:
Even if Saddam had these WMD, and he sold them to a terrorist network, it's still SADDAM then who poses the security threat, right?
Ya. Are you agreeing with me now?
No, I think I misunderstood you. But I think her point is still right on the money.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 02:41 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

On what information are you judging that this wasn't their most noble effort? If the Iraqi soldiers lacked the convictions to fight for Hussein, or simply lacked the military capability to do so, doesn't that mean they posed a poor threat to us? How does this commentary conflict with that reality?
The Iraqi airforce didn't lift off the fucking groung. Huge amounts of weapons were in position for battle, and left untouched. Oil wells were wired to go up in flames were left intact. Traffic around Badghdad was business as usual for half the action. They certainly had the capability to put up a better fight then they did. If they lacked the convictions needed defensively it doesn't really say much about their ability offensively anyway. With or without chemicals, Saddam did have the ability to do far more destruction. Do you really think that was a battle? You really think Iraq gave it their all? In the long run, it looks better and serves a greater purpose for Saddam to sit out a war he was likely to lose. He really didn't lose in the eyes of the world that loves an invcincible joker ala bin laden, or arafat. He could still emerge now and find more popularity then ever before.

Quote:
So what you're saying is Saddam rolled over and played dead in order to make people like Hutchinson support him post-war??? Who's being easily manipulated now?
I'm saying it's very possible Saddam has gone underground, or playing dead. Strategically, he's much better off fighting the US psychologically. We're caught in a catch 22 now, and the term "occupation" is already being tossed around. Todays instant "Free Iraq" rally seems a little suspect to me. It was almost in his best interest to lay down, and watch us fall on our face in the aftermath. Image wise, the perception is that he is a victim. Hutchinson isn't supporting Hussein as far as I can tell, but there is an air of double sided coddling going around that would even fill Arafat with envy. Simply put, if Saddam survived, and it looks like he did, then his approach to this "war " was decidedly passive. It doesn't prove our military action to be any more just or unjust.

Quote:
The only thing it proves is the protest movements ability to become manipulated.
How may I ask?[/quote]

We're not talking simply about an anti-government anti-war stance. We're talking about reasoning that shows sympathy towards a horrible regime. There's no need to paint him as a victim to legitimize the protest movement. We know innocent people died, we know there are reasons to dissent... but their reluctance or inability to fight back effectively sure as hell isn't one of them. Look at Samalia. They chewed our military up and sent us packing... does that make them any more of a threat to our national security? Not really. There is no tie between battlefield strategy or expertise and the threat they pose to other nations. Not anymore. Al Qaeda proved that. The rumors of Iraqis sneaking over the border through Mexico with an ice chest full of some dirty bomb concoction wash all the theories away. That a far fetched rumor like that could be possible is the great equalizer here. That a protest movement feels the need to spin public opinion is really pathetic. The movement should stand by their morals without such nonsense backtracking. If you are anti-war you will always be anti-war. Little is going to change your mind. If they found chemicals, they wouldn't be enough, and if they found a connection to Bin Laden, it wouldn't be substantial enough. Just as the corporate media are full of distortions, so too is the independent media that is so preoccupied on justifying their own stance their own bias clouds the way they view the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
FS FS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fribbulus Xax
FS is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 06:12 AM       
Blanco, as the war-supporting part of this forum has been boasting before things kicked off, Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people in the past. During the invasion of Iraq there was constantly fear that he'd use them on the allied forces. Every sight of anti-chem/bio warfare equipment set off alarm bells in the news. I don't like to use the term "obviously" here, but obviously, Saddam would have had no objections to using whatever WMD he had on the people that were trying to chase him from his own country.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Ronnie Raygun Ronnie Raygun is offline
Senior Member
Ronnie Raygun's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia United States of America
Ronnie Raygun is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 06:12 AM       
"Black cats are WMD"- Kevin

The first thing I noticed was this quote.....

". In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right."

.......which I really thought was funny considering that many libs were saying that we would take heavy casualties and some, even some on this board, wanted heavy casualties to help push their political agenda. This quote reminds me of grade school when kids would say "fine!! I didn't want to play with you anyway". Another thing that really makes me laugh is the fact that the vast majority of the people of Iraq hated Saddam and if it wasn't for the war he would still be in power. So, in the end what do we have? A friendly govt' right in the middle of the middleeast with no weapons of mass destruction. A permanent airbase in Iraq. A free people in Iraq. Now, if you say you are against the war, and without war these things could not have happened......how can you say you support these things? It's a contradiction. The proof is in the pudding. The anti-bush crowd was dead wrong. So far the war plan has been one of the greatest success stories in the history of war.......and libs are dead in the water and they know it. How can I tell..? All their (elected officials) focus has shifted to domestic policy and they've given up protesting this war plan and the aftermath.

Now for Arianna Huffington, the author of this convoluted garble. The same woman that would like to stop your right to own an SUV while retaining her right to take private jets from coast to coast. The same woman who started the "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign. Well, someone should ask her, "what would Jesus fly". She is a hypocrite, a liar, and a joke as far as I and most Americans are concerned.

I will say one thing in her favor. She's a better entertainer than Tim Robbins.
__________________
Paint your genitals red and black, weedwack the hair off your grandmothers back" - Sean Conlin from Estragon
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Protoclown Protoclown is offline
The Goddamned Batman
Protoclown's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Richmond, VA
Protoclown is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 10:38 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
.......which I really thought was funny considering that many libs were saying that we would take heavy casualties and some, even some on this board, wanted heavy casualties to help push their political agenda.
That's a lie, Ronnie.

If it's not, prove it. DON'T just say "Well Burbank wanted our troops to die", QUOTE WHERE HE FUCKING SAID IT.

You won't, because you can't. Because he didn't.

And that makes you a big fat liar.

I don't think Jesus likes liars.
__________________
"It's like I'm livin' in a stinkin' poop rainbow." - Cordelia Burbank
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Helm Helm is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mount Fuji
Helm is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 11:31 AM       
Weird thing is, Jesus loved everybody
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
El Blanco El Blanco is offline
Mocker
El Blanco's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
El Blanco is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 11:51 AM       
Quote:
Oh come on....
Can't you do a little better?

anyway, here is what Federation of american Scientists has to say

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
BLU-113 Penetrator
The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.

The GBU 28 "Bunker Buster" was put together in record time to support targeting of the Iraqi hardened command bunker by adapting existing materiel. The GBU-28 was not even in the early stages of research when Kuwait was invaded. The USAF asked industry for ideas in the week after combat operations started. Work on the bomb was conducted in research laboratories including the the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate located at Eglin AFB, Florida and the Watervliet Armory in New York. The bomb was fabricated starting on 1 February, using surplus 8-inch artillery tubes as bomb casings because of their strength and weight. The official go-ahead for the project was issued on 14 February, and explosives for the initial units were hand-loaded by laboratory personnel into a bomb body that was partially buried upright in the ground. The first two units were delivered to the USAF on 16 and 17 February, and the first flight to test the guidance software and fin configuration was conducted on 20 February. These tests were successful and the program proceeded with a contract let on 22 February. A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth. The first two operational bombs were delivered to the theater on 27 February.

The Air Force produced a limited quantity of the GBU-28 during Operation Desert Storm to attack multi-layered, hardened underground targets. Only two of these weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, both by F-111Fs. One weapon hit its precise aimpoint, and the onboard aircraft video recorder displayed an outpouring of smoke from an entrance way approximately 6 seconds after impact. After Operation Desert Storm, the Air Force incorporated some modifications, and further tested the munition. The Fy1997 budget request contained $18.4 million to procure 161 GBU-28 hard target penetrator bombs.
For a visual depiction of how the GBU-28 works view the grapic produced by Bob Sherman and USA Today on-line.





I was also wrong. You can't add warheads. It is very much a conventional weapon.
__________________
according to my mongoose, anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Apr 20th, 2003, 11:52 AM       
Proto, take out the statement "on this board" and his statement is correct.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.