Law School Discussion

Off-Topic Area => Politics and Law-Related News => Topic started by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 13, 2007, 10:02:13 AM

Title: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 13, 2007, 10:02:13 AM
BRIEF WARS RARELY PRODUCE LASTING RESULTS. LONG WARS OFTEN DO.

by William J. Stuntz  

In 1861 Abraham Lincoln led what was left of his country to war to restore "the Union as it was," to use the popular phrase of the time. Free navigation of the Mississippi River, the right to collect customs duties in Southern ports, the status of a pair of coastal forts in South Carolina and Florida--these were the issues over which young American men got down to the business of killing one another that sad summer.

It was all a pipe dream. "The Union as it was" was gone, forever. Events proved William Tecumseh Sherman--the prophet of that war--right, and everyone else wrong: An ocean of blood would be required to reunite the United States, and once that blood was spilled, the country over which James Buchanan had presided was as dead as the soldiers whose corpses littered the battlefields of Shiloh and Gettysburg, Antietam and Cold Harbor.

But there was a much bigger, much better, and above all much nobler dream waiting in the wings: "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom" (to use Lincoln's own words)--that the chains of four million slaves might be shattered forever, that freedom and democracy might prevail against tyranny and aristocracy in a world still full of tyrants and aristocrats.

  
 
 
 
The loss of hundreds of thousands of American men--a lost generation comparable to the generation of young French, German, and British men lost in Flanders fields a half-century later--for the sake of a few Southern forts and ports would have been a tragedy as great as the senseless killing at the Somme and Passchendaele. World War I was senseless, both because it was fought over territory and because it settled nothing. The Civil War that Lincoln and Jefferson Davis set out to fight would have been no different. If control of America's rivers had remained the war's object, then whoever won the day in the early 1860s would have had to defend that object again a generation later, just as World War II saw a generation of British and American men fight for the same territory their fathers won a generation after their fathers won it.

Freedom and democracy, justice and the equality of all men before God and before the law--those causes were very different. Shedding an ocean of blood for them was terribly sad but not tragic: The essence of tragedy is waste, and the blood shed on the Civil War's battlefields was not wasted. Horrible as its killing fields were, those young men accomplished something profoundly good: Their deaths ensured that (to use Lincoln's words again) "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." That is why the Civil War has gone down in history not as America's own World War I, but as the war of America's true "greatest generation," the generation that preserved freedom and democracy for us and for the rest of humankind.

In 1861 neither Lincoln nor Davis could have won a fair vote for the war they wound up fighting. Lincoln nearly lost his office, and hence the war, over his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. In 1861 the North could not imagine the suffering of the next four years--and had Northern voters done so, they would have bid the South go in peace and left slavery's chains intact. Thankfully, no one guessed the future (well, almost no one--Sherman came close), and the future was better because of it.

What does this history teach us? Three things: First, that Victor Davis Hanson is right--wars often change purposes after they begin. Second, that sometimes the new purpose is vastly better than the one it replaces. Few nations choose up front to sacrifice their sons for the sake of others' freedom. When such sacrifices are made, they usually flow not from design but from accident and error--just as the North's military blunders prolonged the Civil War, and thereby made it a struggle to bring that new birth of freedom to the war-torn land over which the soldiers fought.

The third lesson is the most important. Brief wars rarely produce permanent results, but long wars often do. Had McClellan's army taken Richmond and ended the war early in 1862, slavery and secessionism would have survived, and "the South shall rise again" would have been a prediction rather than a slogan. Hitler conquered most of Western Europe--Denmark, Norway, the Low Countries, and France--in a two-month campaign in the spring and early summer of 1940. It took five years to undo the conquest. But the long, hard slog to Berlin worked: The Thousand-Year Reich was ended centuries before its self-proclaimed expiration date. Napoleon's marshals occupied Spain in a few months in 1808. It took Wellington and Spanish guerrillas six years to dislodge the French. But the dislodging lasted: In the 19 decades since, no French government has ruled an acre of the Iberian Peninsula.

What would have happened had the second Iraq war turned out like the first, as the White House apparently expected? Saddam would have been toppled, the Iraqi people would have celebrated, order would have been restored quickly, followed by a speedy exit for British and American troops. Then what? Maybe the rule of Iran-style Shia mullahs, perhaps another brutal Sunni autocrat to take the place of the last one, possibly an endless civil war between the two. Today, there is a real chance of a vastly better result--precisely because the insurgency survived, because it wasn't quickly defeated. Sunni intransigence needed to be crushed slowly; a quick in-and-out war was not enough to kill the dream of forever tyrannizing Iraqi Kurds and Shia. More important, thousands of senseless murders over the past 32 months have taught Iraqis--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike--just how vicious Zarqawi and his allies are. That lesson will have very useful consequences for the long-term health of the region.

Today's fighting in Iraq bears little resemblance to Pickett's charge or the Union assault on Marye's Heights in Fredericksburg. For one thing, the Civil War was infinitely bloodier: Its worst battles killed more American soldiers in a day than have died in two-and-a-half years of fighting in Iraq. And the purpose for which our current war was begun--capturing Saddam Hussein's supposed stash of WMDs--seems nobler than the fight over who held Fort Sumter. Still, some key parallels remain. Toppling Saddam and seizing his chemical and biological weapons probably wasn't worth the sacrifice of 2,000-plus American lives (as long as nuclear weapons weren't in the picture). Similarly, control over the Mississippi wasn't worth the bloodletting across the length of the Confederacy's border that took place in Lincoln's first term.

Thankfully, Lincoln saw to it that the war's purpose changed. George W. Bush has changed the purpose of his war too, though the change seems more the product of our enemies' choices than of Bush's design. By prolonging the war, Zarqawi and his Baathist allies have drawn thousands of terrorist wannabes into the fight--against both our soldiers and Muslim civilians. When terrorists fight American civilians, as on September 11, they can leverage their own deaths to kill a great many of us. But when terrorists fight American soldiers, the odds tilt towards our side. Equally important, by bringing the fight to a Muslim land, by making that land the central front of the war on Islamic terrorism, the United States has effectively forced Muslim terrorists to kill Muslim civilians. That is why the so-called Arab street is rising--not against us but against the terrorists, as we saw in Jordan after Zarqawi's disastrous hotel bombing. The population of the Islamic world is choosing sides not between jihadists and Westerners, but between jihadists and people just like themselves. We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot hope to win.

We see the fruits of that dynamic across the Middle East. Democracy is rising, fitfully to be sure, but still rising: in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Egypt, in Iran, even in Saudi Arabia--not just because it is also rising in Iraq, but because its enemies are the same as our enemies. That is a war very much worth fighting.

Today our forces and Iraqis are fighting together and, slowly, winning a good and noble war that holds the hope of bringing to millions a measure of freedom they never knew before. And yet today, America seems ready, even eager, to concede defeat and withdraw: a sad twist on the famous George Aiken formula for extricating American soldiers from Vietnam. It sounds bizarre--why would anyone want to throw away the chance of such a great victory, when victory seems within reach? But it isn't bizarre. On the contrary, it has happened before.

Again, consider the politics of the Civil War. In 1863 the Northern street--the term didn't exist then, but the concept did--rose, and New York saw the worst rioting in our nation's history. The rioters' cause was ending the draft on which Lincoln's war depended. A year later Lincoln seemed headed for electoral defeat, even as Grant's and Sherman's armies seemed headed for decisive military victories. Victory often seems most elusive to civilians when it is most nearly within soldiers' grasp. And noble causes often do not sound noble to the nation whose sons must fight for them. (Those who do the fighting understand: Lincoln had the overwhelming support of soldiers in the field, and I would bet my next paycheck that today's soldiers overwhelmingly support fighting through to victory in Iraq.) In many American towns and cities, then as now, the cause of freedom for others did not seem a cause worth fighting and dying for.

Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 13, 2007, 10:02:58 AM
But it is, partly because--as Lincoln saw better than anyone--others' freedom helps to guarantee our own. A world where Southern planters ruled their slaves with the lash was a world where Northerners' rights could never be secure; if birth and privilege and caste reigned supreme in the South, those things would more easily reign elsewhere, closer to Northern homes. Lincoln had it right: Either democracy and freedom would go on to new heights or they might well "perish from the earth." So too today. A world full of Islamic autocrats is a world full of little bin Ladens eager to give their lives to kill Americans. A world full of Islamic democracies gives young Muslim men different outlets for their passions. That obviously means better lives for them. But it also means better and safer lives for us.

None of this excuses the bungling and bad management that have plagued the Iraq war. The administration has made some terrible mistakes that have cost precious lives, both among our soldiers and among Iraqi civilians. But bungling and bad management were far more evident in Lincoln's war than they have been in Bush's. Most wars are bungled; battle plans routinely go awry. Sometimes, error gives rise to larger truths; nations can stumble unawares onto great opportunities. So it was in the 1860s. So it is today in the Middle East.

Two-and-a-half years ago, our armed forces set out to fight a small war with a small objective. Today we find ourselves in a larger war with a larger and vastly better purpose. It would be one of history's sadder ironies were we to turn away because that better purpose is not the one we set out to achieve. Either we fight the fight our enemies have chosen until they are defeated or (better still) dead, or millions of Muslim men and women may lose their "last, best hope"--and we may face a mushroom cloud over Manhattan, the work of one of the many Mohammed Attas that Middle Eastern autocracies have bred over the last generation. The choice belongs not to the president alone, but to all of us. Here's hoping we choose as wisely as Lincoln's generation did.

William J. Stuntz is the Henry J. Friendly Professor at Harvard Law School.

Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 13, 2007, 10:16:24 AM
usa is now and will be in the middle east...like it or not.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 14, 2007, 03:33:00 AM
lincoln's war never should been fought, but at least lincoln won his war.  gump has not and will not.  to mention two in same breath ridiculous.

try again, warmonger.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular
Post by: prodigy on May 14, 2007, 03:08:19 PM
please stop breathing.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 15, 2007, 06:43:20 PM
lincoln's war never should been fought, but at least lincoln won his war.  gump has not and will not.  to mention two in same breath ridiculous.

try again, warmonger.



this is your problem...

lincoln's war was fought and nation remained whole...NOBODY WON.

bush's war is in the present...and three things are in check because of us security forces.

1. no "crescenting islamist" has harmed one hair of an american on american soil...

2. a totalitarian genocidal regime with future even more brutal and dangerous heirs was destroyed...


oddly enough many "crescenting islamist guerrillas" have gone to iraq instead of coming to the usa.

NOBODY has WON...unless you count the kurdish people.


your problem is that just because you do not want to fight back and protect yourself and those who are allies does not mean that the rest of us have to subscribe to your weakness...life and liberty on my side...


think about this and get back to me, bucky.

aye'll critique your post later. ;)
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 01:48:45 AM

this is your problem...

lincoln's war was fought and nation remained whole...NOBODY WON.


not you heard:  north won, asswipe.  it in all papers.

no wonder your kind being shown door, you bloodthirsty coward.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 01:51:28 AM
bush's war is in the present...and three things are in check because of us security forces.

1. no "crescenting islamist" has harmed one hair of an american on american soil...


terrorists not able check their weapons through airport security. 
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 01:53:07 AM
2. a totalitarian genocidal regime with future even more brutal and dangerous heirs was destroyed...


yes, you and your ilk well-known for reaching out to oppressed peoples.

you just want u.s. slaughter some more arabs for you.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 01:56:00 AM
oddly enough many "crescenting islamist guerrillas" have gone to iraq instead of coming to the usa.


oh, sure, we just had lebanese and saudis all lined up come here who changed their plans.

reality is that it still make every bit as much sense, as tactic, come here.

julie sure that if and when such strike comes (even gump & co. ay it inevitable), your story not change.

you need new talking points.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 02:02:13 AM

NOBODY has WON...unless you count the kurdish people.


wow, some reality just slipped out (unintentionally, no doubt):  nobody won.  (well, except al qaeda and iran.)  congratulations, forrest.  and no, julie not count kurds;  after all, they only turds.

turds only helping prolong problems in iraq, and will expect u.s. intervention when sunnis and turks come after them.

maybe you'd just fight own wars if not stuck in cartoon-land.

warrior julie's arse.  such poser.  such loser.  go peddle your civil war somewhere else.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 02:10:27 AM

your problem is that just because you do not want to fight back and protect yourself and those who are allies does not mean that the rest of us have to subscribe to your weakness...life and liberty on my side...


sure, julie want terrorists cause harm.  what crap.

maybe you should just declare war on canada, if you not too big sissy about cold.

oh, that right...you afraid to fight.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 02:11:32 AM
think about this and get back to me, bucky.

aye'll critique your post later. ;)


oh, golly, julie just all breathless with anticipation.

creep.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular
Post by: prodigy on May 16, 2007, 08:27:34 AM
JULIE PLEASE SHUT THE FUK UP. NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on May 16, 2007, 08:56:59 AM
no need shout, dickbreath.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 17, 2007, 07:21:57 PM
2. a totalitarian genocidal regime with future even more brutal and dangerous heirs was destroyed...


yes, you and your ilk well-known for reaching out to oppressed peoples.

you just want u.s. slaughter some more arabs for you.

aye was personally looking for dr. ayman al zawahiri...have you heard of him?

that is someone who should be violently be brought to trial...

slaughtering him and those who protect him might not be a bad idea...

but you are too much of a coward to agree with me.

...of course you do not even know who he is.

...and that is why aye prefer bush until 2009 to anyone you could dream up, chump!

...and by the way...bush WILL be there along with rove until the end of his term...2009...and those two are fine by me...they ain't going anywhere.

democrats have been sulking for a long time...losers...and still getting the old veto from no-veto bush... :D :D :D

...suck it up biatch... ;D


ps...did aye touch a nerve?...julie not look so pretty :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on May 26, 2007, 08:28:48 PM

NOBODY has WON...unless you count the kurdish people.


wow, some reality just slipped out (unintentionally, no doubt):  nobody won.  (well, except al qaeda and iran.)  congratulations, forrest.  and no, julie not count kurds;  after all, they only turds.

turds only helping prolong problems in iraq, and will expect u.s. intervention when sunnis and turks come after them.

maybe you'd just fight own wars if not stuck in cartoon-land.

warrior julie's arse.  such poser.  such loser.  go peddle your civil war somewhere else.

are you so dim-witted that you don't even realize that kurds are iraqis?
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 14, 2007, 11:08:52 PM
poll numbers??

 :D :D :D :D :D


history.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 14, 2007, 11:10:14 PM
who makes congress get back to work? 

Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2007, 04:44:31 AM

NOBODY has WON...unless you count the kurdish people.


wow, some reality just slipped out (unintentionally, no doubt): nobody won. (well, except al qaeda and iran.) congratulations, forrest. and no, julie not count kurds; after all, they only turds.

turds only helping prolong problems in iraq, and will expect u.s. intervention when sunnis and turks come after them.

maybe you'd just fight own wars if not stuck in cartoon-land.

warrior julie's arse. such poser. such loser. go peddle your civil war somewhere else.

are you so dim-witted that you don't even realize that kurds are iraqis?

that funny, kurds not seem think so.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2007, 04:45:53 AM
poll numbers??

 :D :D :D :D :D


history.

get back julie when gump actually has won war.  at least lincoln had end-game.  gump still have us fighting in four score and seven years.

see difference, nitwit?
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2007, 04:47:55 AM
who makes congress get back to work?



illegal aliens like you?
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 15, 2007, 06:22:59 AM
The way forward

At the Iraq Commission yesterday, two inspirational Kurds took the floor and presented their hopes for a democratic, federal and plural Iraq.
Brian Brivati


Thursday at the Iraq Commission came to belong to the Kurds, but started with a heavy dose of frontline experience from Dr Ali Allawi, until recently an adviser to the prime minister of Iraq but now very much out of love with the current government. Allawi was questioned for an hour and his politeness was slightly disconcerting, especially at the end. Paddy Ashdown's style as chair is rather different to Margaret Jay or Tom King - he likes to sum up the evidence.

The only problem is that his disarming "now I don't want to put words in your mouth" often means that is exactly what he is about to do. A couple of witnesses have shot back, with: "That is not what I am saying at all." Dr Allawi simply agreed. The summary is important because Allawi's evidence was multidimensional and not reducible to a simple headline.

What will be reported is Allawi's support for the notion that foreign troops are no longer serving a useful political purpose but rather hindering the development of the Iraqi political process. What might be lost is the sense that the withdrawal of foreign troops has to be linked to a change of policy. That change of policy must be the abandonment by the Americans of the emphasis on a strong central government and a revision of the constitution and an embrace of the existing constitution and the regional solution based on subsidarity. This regional solution, retaining a unified Iraq but with a weaker central government, has to be underpinned by regional powers' endorsement. The alternative is the sectarian seizure of control in the separate regions, something more likely to lead to partition.

To an extent this became the theme for the rest of the day because the two most powerful, inspiring and moving witnesses of the day, if not of the commission so far, were both talking about Kurdistan. Tom Hardie Forsyth had just flown in from Kurdistan were he is an adviser to the Kurdistan regional government (KRG). He was obviously partisan and directly passionate. He began with a visit to the history of Iraq - a history filled with very deep wounds. He quoted Bomber Harris celebrating British Imperial campaigns from the air against "tribesmen". The history lesson was going on a bit for Paddy and he moved things along. Tom came back, the sweat now gathering across his forehead, with five specific suggestions for the commission:

1) The UK should get behind the existing constitution.

2) We should do more to understand the deep and embedded nature of the insurgency and its relation to the residual operations of the Ba'th party.

3) The media should tell more positive stories about Iraq.

4) Encourage regional players to perform a positive role and discourage regional players' ambitions.

5) There should be a link between the government of Iraq and the Nato/Mediterranean dialogue.

He was also clear our military should withdraw when the Iraqis ask us to go and not before. Then the mantra - the Kurds believe in a democratic, federal and plural Iraq. They have no ambitions for independence. With candour he admitted the Kurds would be "morons" not to want national self-determination as the largest nation on earth without homeland. But they are also realists.

Then came Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman, the high representative of the KRG in London. Softly spoken and direct, Bayan began by inviting the commission to Kurdistan and thanking the British people and armed forces for liberating the Iraqi people from a genocidal dictator. Coming from someone who had lost both her father, Sami Abdul Rahman, formerly deputy prime minister of Kurdistan, and her brother to a suicide bombing, this gratitude was extremely moving.

The substance of her talk was also direct and relevant. Her message was that we should not take for granted the relative success story that Kurdistan represents and that the rest of Iraq can learn from some of the things that have been achieved. Again she stressed that Kurds want a Federal, democratic and plural Iraq, that they believe in making the existing constitution work but she also made specific requests, as Tom had done. Capacity building for a free press and good governance. Investment by British companies to match that of the Austrians and Italians. Links between British Universities and Iraqi ones, like the link between the University of Kurdistan, which teaches entirely in English and the University of Bradford. A direct flight from Heathrow to Kurdistan. Economic development in the region, spreading out to the rest of Iraq, political structures in the KRG being the basis for regional structures in the south, centre and a Baghdad federal region. Also, in contrast to a very badly informed witness from Tuesday, (Houzan Mahmoud, see here if you think me unfair) Bayan stressed the KRG condemnation of honour killings and promotion of women's rights.

Actually it is worth pausing on Mahmoud's evidence because it was not challenged on the day. The Kurdish region, as these witnesses made clear, does not have its own constitution and its regional laws are not anti-women. It was not clear what agenda Mahmoud was pursuing, but it doesn't seem to have been accuracy.

This was a great shame because the thrust of the evidence from her co-speaker in that session, Zainab Salbi, was crucially important. It was echoed by the other witnesses today from the Overseas Development Institute - economic development is vital and women are a central feature of reconstruction and post-conflict society. The point about economic development was well made by the ODI speakers but their presentation was somewhat surreal. Their written evidence stated that "access to water is now better than pre-conflict" their oral evidence was the water situation was one of the core problems. But best of all they stated at the beginning of their evidence that none of them were experts on Iraq - might have been a better idea to send your Iraq experts!

The day belonged to Tom and Bayan from Kurdistan. Tom flew from Iraq to make his points. Bayan buried a father and a brother in Iraq yet was calm, balanced and dignified in her simple message - give the constitution a chance to work, do not take the success of the north for granted and engage with Kurdistan on the political, educational and economic spheres because the better Kurdistan gets the better chance there is of a federal, democratic and plural Iraq emerging.

Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 15, 2007, 07:12:28 AM
turds not interested in unified iraq, skippy, they only interested in being independent (with lots of oil wells and u.s. protection from their many enemies, natch).

u.s. not going fight turks.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 16, 2007, 02:16:54 AM
numballs, kurds always seeking diplomacy for unified iraq, however their region was autonomous even under hussein...so while keeping iraq unified is prudent...kurds have right to defend their territory...it keeps it out of "crescenting guerrillas" suicidal bomber hands...

think of the kurds like those wonderful people from montreal.. :D :D :D :D :D...aye laugh at you, johnny boy.

umm...afghanistan forces still necessary ...you always forget about that element...

stop watching cnn and fox...you gonna rot your brain.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 16, 2007, 03:03:01 AM
you such liar.  only one example, kurds blocking bill revenue-sharing from oil fields, one gump's phony benchmarks.  kurds helping tear iraq apart, posture otherwise as you will, you heaping pile of sh*t.

if you citizen, you be traitor.  no wonder you expelled own country.

p.s. "numbballs" have two "bs", numbnuts.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 17, 2007, 09:12:24 AM
now you just making shite up about kurds...better crack the history books again..

however you have firm grasp of my mockery...

you already know you got numbness BUT you finally realize you missing one of your "b's" as well.... :D :D :D :D

and still slipping into my iambic traps.







a dual mock. ;)
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 17, 2007, 09:38:32 AM
kurds = turds...terroristic turds.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 17, 2007, 10:13:27 AM




kurds = turds...terroristic turds.

johnny fern = colorist...racist...homophobe and village idiot.
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: Julie Fern on June 17, 2007, 04:36:53 PM




kurds = turds...terroristic turds.

johnny fern = colorist...racist...homophobe and village idiot.

julie not one visiting terrorism upon turks, nor one f-ing goats.

see difference?
Title: Re: Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts are Long wars...Bush and Lincoln...unpopular prez
Post by: ! B L U E WAR R I O R..! on June 24, 2007, 02:21:56 PM




kurds = turds...terroristic turds.

johnny fern = colorist...racist...homophobe and village idiot.

julie not one visiting terrorism upon turks, nor one f-ing goats.

see difference?

chemical ali's head on a platter...that is what the kurds want...for his genocide...

see difference, you colorist and homophobe!