Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Those irritating French and Germans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Those irritating French and Germans

    Well it appears that George Bush is "...irritated..." at the French and Germans for voicing there dissaproval at America's intentions.

    Why dosen't George just take over the whole world? Lunatic.

  • #2
    That goes both ways...

    Jonah Goldberg -- When it comes to "Well, duh" headlines, "France Is Being a Pain in the Keester" has to rank just behind "Bears Use Woods as Bathroom." The latest evidence came this week when French diplomats at the United Nations orchestrated what The Washington Post called "a diplomatic version of an ambush."

    At a meeting on international terrorism, the French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin declared that France intends to launch a major offensive to block any U.N. Security Council vote authorizing war with Iraq, including the use of its Security Council veto.

    Now, I understand that everyone from honest opponents of the war to the Bush-is-a-war-criminal-crowd are cheering the French. That's to be expected, especially when you consider that the French have always been heroes to those who see America as a problem rather than a solution.

    For some reason, many people think that anything said with a French accent or served with a slice of stinky cheese must be superior to anything on this side of the Atlantic. But the truth is that, according to the anti-war crowd's own standards, the French are worse than America.

    Villepin declared Monday, "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process." That's a funny choice of words.

    As the White House was quick to point out, this diagnosis concedes that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction programs." In other words, the French understand that the Iraqis are lying when they swear that they have no such programs. After all, you can't block or freeze something that doesn't exist.

    Ever since President Bush has demonstrated that he takes the Iraqi threat seriously, the French and others have argued that "containing Saddam" is a preferable alternative to war. Why risk bloodshed and the lives of innocent Iraqis if he's unable to develop weapons of mass destruction? Containment worked in the Cold War, let it work here, they say.

    Well, this is not an intellectually bankrupt position on its face, but there are two problems. First, the French are liars. They don't believe in containment, and they shame themselves when they say they do.

    The truth is France has been the chief Western advocate of normalizing relations with Iraq - one of its largest trading partners - for years, partly because France holds billions in IOUs from Iraq that wouldn't be redeemable by a new regime.

    In 1996, the French stopped helping to enforce the no-fly zones in the Kurdish north of Iraq, and in 1998 they withdrew from the Shiite south Iraq. France, a nation that bloviates about human rights deprivations in the United States every chance it gets, simply gave up doing its part to protect millions of people from Saddam's wrath.

    Indeed it's a hilarious irony that the anti-war types who denounce American "hypocrisy" for having "created" Saddam Hussein have nary a harsh word for the French, who not only sold Saddam a nuclear reactor but are wholly unapologetic about their desire to continue trading with him.

    French officials, including Villepin and Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, have decried the "pain and suffering of the Iraqi people" for years as a way to undermine sanctions against Iraq. That would be a fine moral position, except that the French know that lifting sanctions wouldn't help pay for childcare, it would go toward more weapons of mass destruction and presidential palaces.

    And that points to the second problem with the French position. Sanctions haven't been working, thanks in large part to French efforts to undermine them.

    Where Saddam rules, oil money goes to palaces and weapons. The French know this. As Kenneth Pollack details in his masterful book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq," France has been rewarded time and again for its feckless lapdoggism. "As a result of (France's) shameless pandering, the French have been the largest or second largest recipient of Iraqi oil-for-food contracts in every phase of the program."

    There may be good anti-war arguments out there. But none of them involve the French example. If the United States is wrong for having created the monster that is Saddam Hussein, France is doubly so.

    At least America wants to correct its mistakes. France doesn't even think it was a mistake to create Saddam and is doing everything it can to let Saddam out of his box It's a brainless slander to say America wants a war for oil. It is a plain fact that France wants "peace" for oil.
    Editor-in-Chief
    GameSquad.com

    Comment


    • #3
      frankly speaking, this "showdown Iraq" stuff now looks more and more like a personal thing between bush and saddam... so I am paying less and less attention these days to the boring news. ;p
      Attn to ALL my opponents:

      If you sent me your turn and after 24 hours, you still did not get anything from me, please be sure to post in the forum to ask for what is going on.

      Remember, I ALWAYS reply within 24 hours, even if I do NOT have time to play my turn, in which case I will at least send you email to tell you that I will have to play it later, but I DO receive your turn.

      Comment


      • #4
        First, let me point out that Rumsfeld 'old europe' speech really achived something: bringing france and germany even closer together instead of spliting europe. Maybe US officials should think next time before they do one of their "we good, you bad" speeches

        Villepin declared Monday, "Already we know for a fact that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are being largely blocked, even frozen. We must do everything possible to strengthen this process." That's a funny choice of words.

        As the White House was quick to point out, this diagnosis concedes that Iraq has "weapons of mass destruction programs." In other words, the French understand that the Iraqis are lying when they swear that they have no such programs. After all, you can't block or freeze something that doesn't exist.
        Picking apart some words and thereby trying to 'detect' that France knows that Saddam has WMDs but is 'lying' if they say that they dont belive this or that they want more time for the weapon inspectors ?? Come on, that is really weak. I can do this, too. He was talking about a program, not of actually existing WMDs. And if this is blocked/frozen (maybe he used just the wrong words?) it could also mean terminated. Everybody accepts that Saddam had a WMD program (back in 1991 at least) and if its blocked/frozen than it is no longer continued, Iraq is no longer trying to research WMDs. Now, thats what the UNO resolution is demanding, Saddam should stop his WMD programs and destroy all existing WMDs. So France isn't saying that Iraq _has_ a WMD program, they are saying that he _had_ such a program and that the research on WMDs is blocked/frozen. Dont forget, you cant destroy all of Iraqs knowledge on WMDs without killing all ppl who worked on these programs to eleminate the knowledge inside their head.

        In 1996, the French stopped helping to enforce the no-fly zones in the Kurdish north of Iraq, and in 1998 they withdrew from the Shiite south Iraq. France, a nation that bloviates about human rights deprivations in the United States every chance it gets, simply gave up doing its part to protect millions of people from Saddam's wrath.
        The NoFly zones are not enforced by a UN resolution but are a US/UK invention. The writer implys here that without the NoFly zones Saddam would mass murder the Shiits and Kurds. That's just laughable. There are no evidence that this would happen! And, if saddam wants to do this he could easily march down his republican gards and do this on the ground.

        Even the USA has to accept that this resolutins and their NoFly zone cant stay forever, France has decided in 1998 that their troops in the shiit south are no longer needed to protect the citizen. To call the french "liars" because of this is just laughable. If they say that saddam can now be contained without troops in Iraq and warplanes flying over Iraq that's their opinion and they weren't proven wrong by reality so calling them liars is really pathetic.

        French officials, including Villepin and Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, have decried the "pain and suffering of the Iraqi people" for years as a way to undermine sanctions against Iraq. That would be a fine moral position, except that the French know that lifting sanctions wouldn't help pay for childcare, it would go toward more weapons of mass destruction and presidential palaces.
        Again wrong ! Before the resolutions were made the Iraquis werend starving and far less children were dying. That are facts! It is true that Saddam uses most of the mony he gets from the oil-for-food program for his army (not for WMDs, i don't know were the author has this informations from, he probably just made this up because 'money for WMDs' just sounds that much better than 'money for the military' ;(
        So, if the sanctions would be lifted Saddam propably would spend even more money on rebuilding his army... but thats not forbidden by any UN resolution so why not. But with the sanctions gone the Iraq would have enough money again to pay for both, the military and his people. So yes, lifting the sanctions would make the normals man life better.
        "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

        Henry Alfred Kissinger

        Comment


        • #5
          Lunatic? No.

          Hello,

          No, I don't think Bush Jr. is a lunatic, he has not gassed his own people, he has not forced his country into waging an aggressive campaign of expanding or attacking another country, he has not ordered tortures of political prisoners and military combatants, he has not committed war crimes at all, and he has not put down the rebellions brutally.

          Saddam has done every one of them and much more than that. It proves that Saddam is a lunatic and must be removed. It proves that Bush Jr. is a rational man, a human being with a good conscience, at least admit it, he's a much more decent man than Saddam. Who would you invit Bush or Saddam to your house? Come on, admit it, nobody wants Saddam in their house, not even for political asylum.

          France, Germany, Russia, and some other countries want peace with Iraq because some of them had lucrative oil contracts with Iraq. Having a regime change would nullify any contract made during Saddam's regime. In fact, we do know that Russians did sign a lucrative oil contract with Iraq recently. Everybody wants a piece of pie when Iraq is defeated by the American troops. Nobody is willing to walk away from such gold treasures. It's a sad fact of real politics. You would have to be blind to such things not to see that kind of behaviors we are witnessing in such people.

          By the way, I would like to remind everybody it was the French who built the Iraqi nuclear reactor, fully knowing what it would be used for, and it didn't bother them not even a bit. It took the Israelis to take it out. It's more like everybody wants to get into bed with Saddam. America did that once, and now, it's kicking him out for good.

          If you want to accuse America of selling or sending some weapons to Iraq during the war with Iran, that's fine by me, go ahead and do it. At least we got it right by turning it around and kicking him out for good. And we're not doing that anymore, at least not with Iraq anyway.

          If you want to accuse America of going to war for profits, that's fine by me, at least, acknowledge some of your countries want peace to profit from doing business with Saddam, it's only fair to do that. We could keep running around in circles if that's what you all want.

          I don't deny that America may have wanted a piece of pie, after all, it is our troops who are in peril most of time, whille, everybody else is taking an easy road to quick wealth. At least, you have to admit that America right now isn't willing to deal with a madman and allowing him unfettered access to business world or deals. We may have done tha in the past, but Bush Jr. is taking some steps to correc this mistake.

          You have to admit that America does have courage to admit it did some wrong things and taking steps to resolve this. No other country has done this thing, not even Great Britain, who remains our only ally.

          Can it be said the same of your country? I don't think so. America is certainly on high moral grounds right now, and for some countries, this is insulting to them, too bad, at least, I can go to bed knowing that we did everything possible to resolve this peacefully for last 12 years.

          If you want to accuse America or Bush of something, at least have decency to get the facts right and look at yourselves. You Europeans are asking America to listen more often to the world, but at the same time, we Americans are amazed at such blatant display of hypocrisy amongst the European countries. We Americans are puzzled by this, and the rest of world is refusing to cope with its own hypocrisy. Nobody denies, not even me, that America can be at times hypocritical, but come on, not on the same plane as everybody else in the world.

          Once again, you Europeans are asking America and Bush to listen more offten, but let us ask you of this: Please face the reality of peace does not always work very well, and sometimes the force is necessary to resolve this completely. At least, have some willpower to use the force and get it right, if you don't want us Americans to display such military might, then I would respectively suggest that you Europeans to work up some courage to use the force properly. This would take a lot of load off our shoulders.

          At times, I feel personally that the world is asking America too much and walking away with so little price on its shoulders. I acknowledge this is partly due to our status as the lone superpower, which is really a silly thing to say at all. But you Europeans are now committed to making EU work. Combining together, this would give EU an almost equal amount of economic and military power on the same page as America though EU does lack a real viable navy to operate more swiftly. At least, for once, you Europeans should prove us wrong that you are, in fact, willing to use the force to resolve some conflicts if every diplomatic option has been exhausted. Prove us wrong that you Europeans do know the UN is not their mommy and do not have to run back to UN to solve every petty dispute at all.

          In short, prove us Americans, that you Europeans actually live in the same world as we do though from different viewpoints. I only ask that you stop pretending that every crisis can be resolved peacefully and that the UN is working very well.

          Dan
          Last edited by Cheetah772; 23 Jan 03, 11:01.
          Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

          "Aim small, miss small."

          Comment


          • #6
            Here is an issue that hasn't been raised as of yet.

            As two of the countries that hold a veto power on the UNSC, why did France supply Iraq with the Kari air defence system and why did China supply the fibre optic comm. systems to Iraq ???

            Both of these countries are against the US taking action in Iraq. Why ? Because they are only interested in the almighty dollar that goes with a stable Iraq.

            I find France's position in particular to be a morally bankrupt one. They supply the very items to Iraq that endanger the lives of their allies' pilots. Now the country threatens to use its veto power to overturn the american policy. How much would France stand to gain by a lifting of UN sanctions on Iraq?? As one of the few countries who helped Iraq during the sanctions, its my bet that they would be richly rewarded by Saddam if the sanctions were lifted.

            Last edited by tigersqn; 23 Jan 03, 12:07.
            Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

            Comment


            • #7
              First, let me point out that Rumsfeld 'old europe' speech really achived something: bringing france and germany even closer together instead of spliting europe. Maybe US officials should think next time before they do one of their "we good, you bad" speeches.

              You are correct. Rumsfield shouldn't have allowed his personal view of France and Germany to overshadow his political responsibility to maintain a level diplomatic intergrity. You don't say what you think. You carefully choose your words to ensure your opinion is clear, but not so offensive. Rumsfield and Bush seem to lack the diplomatic skills of others in the Bush Administration. It was a bad statement that likely offended more than just Germany and France.

              Bush said in his Sept. 12, 2002 speech that the UN had a choice as to it's relevance in intertaional issues. France and Germany are simply trying to be relevant without committing to either side. That's why they use terms like blocked and frozen. The term blocked/frozen were carefully chosen to provide France room to maneuver in future situations.

              The bottomline here is that you are seeing politics at work. France and Germany want to be relevant without commitment. If they really wanted to prevent war, they would have pursued a dual COA involving intense diplomacy and applying pressure on Iraq to come into compliance. Again, it's just another example of two nations dodging responsibilities, but wanting play with the big boys.

              Actually, this is good news for the hawks. Now they don't have to worry about going to the UN for permission. In one stroke France and Germany succeeded rendering the UN irrelevant in the issue. It was as dumb a move as Rumsfield statement. More importantly, unlike Bush, they didn't wait until next week before releasing this statement. It was a bad move all around for both countries.

              The United States and it's allies have gone around the UN in the past, and will again. It doesn't need France nor Germany since niether could provide little contribution to the effort. We went around the UN in 1999 in Kosovo, and can now. Bush doesn't need their authority to go to war.

              I have little patience for countries like France and Germany. They pay lip service and offer no solutions. There are real concerns that support both war and peace, but the extreme hawks, and hollow doves are making too much noise to allow anyone to focus on these issues. France and Germany don't have crap to worry about since it will not be their troops who will do the fighting and dying. However, both will want a say in how a post-Iraq is shaped on trade. I'm not the least bit surprised by their decision. I just thought they would wait until after next week.

              Someone has to play the bigger man. Right now everyone is fighting like kids to protect their own butts and are avoiding the kind of debate needed to really come up with a game plan. I still believe a strong, unified diplomatic effort might succeed to changing Saddam. However, no one will commit to that since if it fails, they will be required to fulfill any threat mentioned. If everyone views the US as immature, naive, and imperalists, why are they doing nothing to stop us? Burning my flag and ignoring our position will do nothing to change my views. It only confirms the level of ignorance being expressed on both sides. Europe as a whole could stand up and try to calm tensions while searching for a positive solution, but don't want to. Instead, many nations are willing to sit back on their butts, cry and complain, but offer no solution other than appeasement.

              If this fight is Bush vs. Saddam, why don't anyone step up to assume the role of referee. I'll admit that right now, our political maneuvering leaves little room for us to avoid war without compromising our prestige. And Saddam is so caught up in either being an *sshole or hiding WMDs, he can't see the light. If France and Germany really wanted to stop this war, they would send representives to both Iraq and the US to immediate peace talks. However, the reality is France and Germany, along with others could (a) care less and (b) know when the smoke clears they will be able to resume trading with a new Iraqi regime. They have chosen the safest route available politically. They don't care about peace anymore than Bush, whom they are so quick to criticize.

              The way I see it, most of world wants us to do the fighting, and expect America to forget everything when it comes to trade issues. I believe the Iraq splat will do little to change the government relationship's between the countries. However, who ever is proven more right will have a level of superiority over their partner.

              There is a way to avoid this war. However, no one, on any side, gives two bit to explore them. So we'll send our troops to do what we think is right while those who condemn us complain. The Iraqis will cheer the Coalition victors and every hollow dove will duck for cover. Bush and Blair will likely emerge as great statemen who put their country ahead of world opinion. We'll enjoy a few more years of peace, then everything is going to go to hell, and the as a whole will be in deep crap. I support war, because the world refuses to allow a political solution. In the end I won't be celebrating the end of the conflict since I'm gonna be busy burying our soldiers. I won't look at the world the same.
              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Those irritating French and Germans

                Originally posted by Marko
                Why dosen't George just take over the whole world? Lunatic.
                I heard plans are in the works for an invasion of France in either 2004 or 2005. In 2006 George will stab Tony in the back and invade England.
                "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                Comment


                • #9
                  DAMN, THEY KNOW!

                  Yeah, 9/11/01 was all a sceam hatched by Bush to begin his quest for Global domination. He starts with Afghanistan, because we need the opium to finance our covert operations. Now we'll take Iraq to use it as a military spring board for other operations in the Middle East. Bush's dad got the ball rolling in 1990 and Clinton cooperated by holding the UN hostage and forcing them to comply with us, all the while compromising US support for the organization by making us believe they were just using us.

                  While, we're at add it, the US is developing nuclear bombs that kill based on accents and race.
                  "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Deltapooh
                    First, let me point out that Rumsfeld 'old europe' speech really achived something: bringing france and germany even closer together instead of spliting europe. Maybe US officials should think next time before they do one of their "we good, you bad" speeches.

                    You are correct. Rumsfield shouldn't have allowed his personal view of France and Germany to overshadow his political responsibility to maintain a level diplomatic intergrity. You don't say what you think. You carefully choose your words to ensure your opinion is clear, but not so offensive. Rumsfield and Bush seem to lack the diplomatic skills of others in the Bush Administration. It was a bad statement that likely offended more than just Germany and France.

                    Bush said in his Sept. 12, 2002 speech that the UN had a choice as to it's relevance in intertaional issues. France and Germany are simply trying to be relevant without committing to either side. That's why they use terms like blocked and frozen. The term blocked/frozen were carefully chosen to provide France room to maneuver in future situations.

                    The bottomline here is that you are seeing politics at work. France and Germany want to be relevant without commitment. If they really wanted to prevent war, they would have pursued a dual COA involving intense diplomacy and applying pressure on Iraq to come into compliance. Again, it's just another example of two nations dodging responsibilities, but wanting play with the big boys.

                    Actually, this is good news for the hawks. Now they don't have to worry about going to the UN for permission. In one stroke France and Germany succeeded rendering the UN irrelevant in the issue. It was as dumb a move as Rumsfield statement. More importantly, unlike Bush, they didn't wait until next week before releasing this statement. It was a bad move all around for both countries.

                    The United States and it's allies have gone around the UN in the past, and will again. It doesn't need France nor Germany since niether could provide little contribution to the effort. We went around the UN in 1999 in Kosovo, and can now. Bush doesn't need their authority to go to war.

                    I have little patience for countries like France and Germany. They pay lip service and offer no solutions. There are real concerns that support both war and peace, but the extreme hawks, and hollow doves are making too much noise to allow anyone to focus on these issues. France and Germany don't have crap to worry about since it will not be their troops who will do the fighting and dying. However, both will want a say in how a post-Iraq is shaped on trade. I'm not the least bit surprised by their decision. I just thought they would wait until after next week.

                    Someone has to play the bigger man. Right now everyone is fighting like kids to protect their own butts and are avoiding the kind of debate needed to really come up with a game plan. I still believe a strong, unified diplomatic effort might succeed to changing Saddam. However, no one will commit to that since if it fails, they will be required to fulfill any threat mentioned. If everyone views the US as immature, naive, and imperalists, why are they doing nothing to stop us? Burning my flag and ignoring our position will do nothing to change my views. It only confirms the level of ignorance being expressed on both sides. Europe as a whole could stand up and try to calm tensions while searching for a positive solution, but don't want to. Instead, many nations are willing to sit back on their butts, cry and complain, but offer no solution other than appeasement.

                    If this fight is Bush vs. Saddam, why don't anyone step up to assume the role of referee. I'll admit that right now, our political maneuvering leaves little room for us to avoid war without compromising our prestige. And Saddam is so caught up in either being an *sshole or hiding WMDs, he can't see the light. If France and Germany really wanted to stop this war, they would send representives to both Iraq and the US to immediate peace talks. However, the reality is France and Germany, along with others could (a) care less and (b) know when the smoke clears they will be able to resume trading with a new Iraqi regime. They have chosen the safest route available politically. They don't care about peace anymore than Bush, whom they are so quick to criticize.

                    The way I see it, most of world wants us to do the fighting, and expect America to forget everything when it comes to trade issues. I believe the Iraq splat will do little to change the government relationship's between the countries. However, who ever is proven more right will have a level of superiority over their partner.

                    There is a way to avoid this war. However, no one, on any side, gives two bit to explore them. So we'll send our troops to do what we think is right while those who condemn us complain. The Iraqis will cheer the Coalition victors and every hollow dove will duck for cover. Bush and Blair will likely emerge as great statemen who put their country ahead of world opinion. We'll enjoy a few more years of peace, then everything is going to go to hell, and the as a whole will be in deep crap. I support war, because the world refuses to allow a political solution. In the end I won't be celebrating the end of the conflict since I'm gonna be busy burying our soldiers. I won't look at the world the same.

                    Some very good points Delta, I admire your stance. Unfortunately it will be a one-sided war and Iraq will be the only one to suffer. Maybe if the US did suffer they would not be so arrogant in the future. Personally, I would not like one single person to die Iraqi or American, or British at that.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think that in the case of Iraq, the terrorist-supporter issue is secondary. It's "just" the good thing everyone will get from throwing out Saddam. (I don't want to start speculating about how the Islamic people will tolerate this new crusade of ours).

                      Otherwise, it's just the good old story: great powers doing their good old nasty business.

                      It's a little pointless to talk about how Germany and France supported Iraq. Saddam was a great guy for U.S. too, when they needed him.

                      I do not like the "we have well enough time to settle this" mentality of European powers. Last time they did this, WWII broke out.
                      But, from the Bush side, this is all about the oil. I don't say it's better to have a huge stockpile of oil in the hands of Saddam then the buddies of Bush, but it's irritating that they don't even like to mention it, that with this war, -where American soldiers will surely die- U.S. companies will get the richest oil fields of the world. It's good for the United States's economy, so why pretend there is nothing economically important?

                      I read an article about this, and it's claimed that some American companies wanted to build a huge oil transportation pipeline through Afghanistan, to connect some oil fields from who-knows-where to I-can't-remember-where
                      But anyhow, they could not build the pipeline, because Taliban didn't allow it. And guess what was one of the first thing to do for the new Afghanistan regime? Of course, they signed the contract to build that pipeline. (What a huge project! How many American will die to can maintain control over this?) Maybe it isn't suprising then, that the new Afghan PM was an advisor of a huge US oil company.

                      Is the above story true? I read it in a newspaper which is highly respected, but if it's true, it's very sad.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kistom

                        I read an article about this, and it's claimed that some American companies wanted to build a huge oil transportation pipeline through Afghanistan, to connect some oil fields from who-knows-where to I-can't-remember-where
                        But anyhow, they could not build the pipeline, because Taliban didn't allow it. And guess what was one of the first thing to do for the new Afghanistan regime? Of course, they signed the contract to build that pipeline. (What a huge project! How many American will die to can maintain control over this?) Maybe it isn't suprising then, that the new Afghan PM was an advisor of a huge US oil company.

                        Is the above story true? I read it in a newspaper which is highly respected, but if it's true, it's very sad.
                        True my friend...very true.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          IIRC I think an Indian company already signed a contract with the Afghan Govnt to help build a pipeline to carry central asian oil to the Indian Ocean.
                          Scientists have announced they've discovered a cure for apathy. However no one has shown the slightest bit of interest !!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Wow - you mean to tell me a war in the middle east might actually be related to oil? No way! Who would have ever guessed?
                            Take away Pearl Harbor and Marko would be writing in German Today.

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X