Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iraqis Want America Out.  
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

I was watching the news today and saw an awful lot of Iraqis protesting the US presence. They specifically target the US and not the coalition force but I believe that Iraqis consider them one in the same.

The protests seem to be aimed to remove the Americans from the process of picking a new leader. The Iraqis despise dissidents and Iraqis who were previously exhiled. The protests are organized by separate fundamentalist groups namely the Shiia and Sunni Muslims.

In my opinion, this is indicative of growing agitation of the various fundamentalist factions and their desire to take control of the country and bring their brand of law and order to the country. I assume that whatever faction assumes control would be somewhat indifferent to the other faction(s).

Is this a sign of coming turmoil? Can the coalition forces impose an unpopular administration and expect it to survive? It didn’t work before in Iraq.

If the efforts to “liberate” the Iraqis just to give them democracy, result in a puppet government formed only by appointees pre-approved by the US and the coalition countries, then what good was all of this?

If Iraq is left to vote a new administration in a purely democratic environment, what’s to stop them from appointing a fundamentalist group that will maintain a closed society much like past and present groups we have seen in Iraq and Iran?

In my opinion, the coalition forces have done enough damage and this whole situation is headed for catastrophe. And we haven’t even heard about the Kurd’s plans yet! It’s time to let the UN to their job. Like they should have been allowed to do in the first place.




44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDaedaeg From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

it's good to see that the iraqi people now have the FREEDOM to express their views...i too hope that our men and women in uniform come home soon...however i think we all need to be a little patient...it hasnt even been two weeks since the regime fell...i would hate for us to just simply bomb and leave without giving support to the iraqi people

[Edited 2003-04-20 05:18:05]


Everyday you're alive is a good day.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16872 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1606 times:

These are not "spontanious" protests, the different groups are jockying for position. The US will leave, but not untill Iraq's stable and sailing under it's own power.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

The protests seem to be aimed to remove the Americans from the process of picking a new leader.

I agree, 100%. I do not have a problem with Americans, Brits AND Iraqi's being involved in an interim group to administer daily needs of the nation, but the new leader MUST be chosen by the people of Iraq.

The Iraqis despise dissidents and Iraqis who were previously exhiled.

I don't know about that. Chalibi seems to be the one guy that all the different groups want to see, and he's a dissident. Shi'a, Sunnia and other leaders have been bending his ear all week, from the news reports. Most of those reports say he's gotten a warm welcome wherever he's been, but he's being "sized up" more than anything right now.

In my opinion, this is indicative of growing agitation of the various fundamentalist factions and their desire to take control of the country and bring their brand of law and order to the country.

As it should be. The agitation isn't so much directed at the Americans because they are Americans-I think the agitation would be equally as great if these were Russian troops, or European troops, or whatever. Most of the protesters I've seen and heard say, basically, that "we're thankful the Americans got rid of Saddam, now, we want them to leave as quickly as possible." That would be the best scenario for the Coalition, for Iraq, and for the entire region, in my estimation.

Is this a sign of coming turmoil?

Of course there will be turmoil. You don't get rid of generations of oppressive government and replace it with a full-fledged democracy overnight. There will be turmoil and strife, but if the Iraqi's can have some patience, they could help to alter the course of how people are governed in the region. To think that turmoil won't be a part of this, is a bit naive.

If Iraq is left to vote a new administration in a purely democratic environment, what’s to stop them from appointing a fundamentalist group that will maintain a closed society much like past and present groups we have seen in Iraq and Iran?

If that's what they choose, then the U.S. and the west should say "God Bless you, what kind of aid and assistance can we give to help you succeed." Had we done that with Castro back in 1959, we might not have had a lifelong American enemy, but someone, at best, who was a neutral. Same for this. If they choose an Islamic government, on the lines of what Iran is right now, the hand of friendship should still be extended to them.

In my opinion, the coalition forces have done enough damage..

Despite the turmoil there now, I suspect, if polling took place, you'd find an overwhelming majority of Iraqi's who would say that ANYTHING is better to the brutal dictatorship of Saddam, so in that light, I don't think coalition forces have done the kind of damage you're trying to claim here. That damage COULD, and probably will materialize, if forces remain in place longer than needed.

It’s time to let the UN to their job. Like they should have been allowed to do in the first place.

I wish I had your faith in the U.N, but I do not. Left to them, and despite my opposition to this war commencing when it did, we'd be back to indefinite timetables, drawing continuous lines in the sand, and, in general, an even more fucked up situation. Don't think so? All you have to do is recite "12 years, and 17 resolutions", to get to that conclusion.

Eventually, we would have gotten to this point, in some shape or form. And I'm still convinced that the U.N. would have, if they could, gone another few years and another 6 or 7 resolutions before they finally did anything. I would have taken another 6 months to a year, with a final, no-mistake-about-it resolution telling Sadam to either comply, or be history. But we're beyond that now. It's time for all interested parties to do their damndest to make the hand that has been dealt to work.


User currently offlineMxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 35
Reply 4, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

Also Airplay, the Sunni's have a LOT to lose in this new government - remember Saddam is (was) a Sunni Muslim and his regime persecuted the Shiia Muslims so, human nature dictates that they would be against anything that might put them in a position to be retaliated against (something that is VERY likely to happen). The shoe's on the other foot now and, since the Sunni's are the minority, but have enjoyed the power of a dictator brutally on "their side" for so many years, they have major cause for trepidation from the government that the US will help stabilize. I don't doubt they are scared and against this government!

MxCtrlr  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Freight Dogs Anonymous - O.O.T.S.K.  Smokin cool



DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
User currently offlineJj From Algeria, joined Jun 2001, 1227 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Let's not forget that a lot of people actually prospered with Saddam's government, so, it doesn't surprise me that a huge quantity of people are against this invasion. I think that the US and UK should stand away, and let the Iraqis choose their gvernor in a democratical manner and after that, ONLY AFTER A GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN CHOSEN, establish relations with the "new" country.

But don't expect them to do just as we occidental people do. Their culture is completely different than ours, so they may not proceed just as you would espect. I'm sure that keeping a certain order in the region, they are very capable to do this their way and choose what's best for them, which, after all, is one of the objectives of this whole war.


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Contrary to what was being bandied about in the media (and even the administration), this military action was about one thing. (I'll give you a hint: It starts with a "W," and ends with an "M" and a "D.") And Hussien forced us to eliminate his regime to accomplish our task. And what kind of nation would we be if we eliminated a countries government, and then left them to fend for themselves? I am truly happy for the Iraqi people--they have their freedom now. But let's remember that this was not a benevolent action, it was a defensive one.

-Normal


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

NormalSpeed, if it's all about WMD's, then where the hell are the WMD's? We've seen hints that they're there, but nothing yet.

More time is needed, but, as far as I'm concerened, Bush had better hope to hell they're found, or else he'll hear about it. Of course, he's already changed his tune several time: first it was about WMD's, then it was about "regime change", and then it was about freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy. Which one is it? Or is it whatever suits Bush at the moment?


User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1574 times:

And what kind of nation would we be if we eliminated a countries government, and then left them to fend for themselves?

Dunno, go ask those in Afghanistan  Laugh out loud


User currently offlineBarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2231 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1576 times:

There's a power struggle going on in Iraq now. The Shia's who are 60% of the population, see themselves as the rightful leaders of the country. However they do not trust the US much, having risen in revolt during the 1991 war after the US told them it was going to bring down Hussein's government then. Nothing of the sort happened, and Hussein brutally liquidated the Shia revolters after the war, causing them to be deeply mistrustful of anything the U.S. tells them now. If the next leader of Iraq were to be a Sunni (like Saddam was), especially one set up by the U.S., there will most likely be continued strife in Iraq.

Further, the Saudis would probably not like Shias in power, because they are members of the opposing Sunni/Wahhabi sect of Islam, and would rather deal with an Iraqi leader from the 20% Sunni minority in Iraq. The U.S. probably also fears that the Iraqi Shias may be overly influenced by the Shia leaders of Iran. Iran and Iraq are the only two Shia-majority states in the middle-east, AFAIK. Its possible the U.S. fears Iraq would become a theocratic Shia-dominated state on the lines of Iran, with the rulers bearing enmity towards the U.S. because of past betrayal.

In addition there are the Kurds, who constitute another ~20% of the population. Turkey would oppose any move to have an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq, something which would be financially viable because of the huge oil reserves there, and perhaps something the U.S. is not averse to as it would give them another friendly oil-rich state in the region. However Turkey would not stand the idea of an independent Kurdish state on their border, which would worsen the discontent among their own Kurdish population. It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out. There are powerful conflicting interests at play. I don't think the region is going to see stable democratic administration for a while, if at all.



India, cricket junior and senior world champions
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

"We've seen hints that they're there, but nothing yet."

See, that's just the thing. I'm convinced that they are (or were) in Iraq, whether they are found or not. Intelligence data indicated that WMDs were in the hands of a psychopath, and I'm satisfied with that. I trust the military. I'm not what you could call a "Bush follower," (you could definitely call me a Powell follower, however) but please, give him at least a little more credit than that. One does not wager an entire political career on a paper tiger. The UN inspectors didn't find anything either.

"Bush had better hope to hell they're found, or else he'll hear about it."

But see, he'd hear about it, from you anyway, no matter what. You've made up your mind already, have you not?


"Of course, he's already changed his tune several time: first it was about WMD's, then it was about "regime change", and then it was about freeing the Iraqi people and bringing democracy. Which one is it? Or is it whatever suits Bush at the moment?"

Like I said, I'm not what you could call a "Bush follower." This seems a little fishy to me as well. However, name one politician that hasn't used the "spin-machine" to his benefit. (Yeah, I think Algore claimed to have invented the "spin-machine.") The war was about WMDs. Iraqi freedom was a biproduct.

-Normal




User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

Actually it was our Prime Minister that suggested a Federal style of parliament / government for the Iraqi's. One that would take in all of the different groups allowing them to form different states and settlements.

Given the nature of the different ethnic groups, so long as they are equally represented and have their own autonomous region under a federal parliaments I can see this a being a formative and good thing for them.

mb


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Dunno, go ask those in Afghanistan

If you noticed, smart boy, we haven't left Afghanistan.

You only seem to show up to say something ridiculously negative.

But see, he'd hear about it, from you anyway, no matter what. You've made up your mind already, have you not?

Absolutely not, NormalSpeed. I was of the belief that the WMD's were in Iraq. Yet as more time will go on, and if they're not found, then what Bush said is just a lie, and an excuse to invade a nation with a leader he (and the rest of us, in fairnes), didn't like.

If they're found not to be there, then this whole war was a sham to further other agenda.


User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1534 times:

"Given the nature of the different ethnic groups, so long as they are equally represented and have their own autonomous region under a federal parliaments I can see this a being a formative and good thing for them."

Agree 100%


-Normal



User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1529 times:

Lets face it: the United States is the victor in this war, and we had better start acting with the grandeur and the calculated humility that goes with being a victor. This war was fought for a number of clandestine and not-so-clandestine reasons, but one purported reason was that Iraq was a fundamental threat to the safety of the United States. Destroying the civil administration of a country and then leaving it in ruins will only enhance the danger Iraq may eventually pose to the US. Thus, leaving Iraq with a viable civil administration is one of the most important tasks for the US now. Remember that elections are not the only determinant of a viable democracy - a safe, civil government that enables a country to step out of its destruction and rebuild itself (as well as the voting institutions necessary to carry out the task of elections) is the first necessary factor. The Japanese and the Germans didn't go to the polls as soon as the bombings in Dresden or Tokyo stopped - there was other work to be done.

Right now in Iraq, the fundamentalist mullahs in the Shia and Sunni communities are jockeying for power. The US should deal with them with an authoritaive combination of carrot and stick. Currently, if their noisy demands are met, what they will produce for Iraq is hardly a democracy, nor a regime that will help stabilize the Middle East. So we are there for the long haul. And the new American conquerors have to be benign administrators, not conquistadors: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Democracy in a troubled land does not come cheap, and it does not come at the end of the barrel of a gun. What came out of the latter was merely the end of a fascist regime. This does not guarantee the birth of democracy. So we have to stay and ensure that Operation Iraqi Freedom ends up meeting its goals. And the hell with the House of Saud demanding that American troops leave. Perhaps, US troops should leave Saudi Arabia too. That would have the entire Saudi royal family sweating in their disha dashas, air-conditioned Mercedes cars or not.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Given the nature of the different ethnic groups, so long as they are equally represented and have their own autonomous region under a federal parliaments I can see this a being a formative and good thing for them.

Mx, maybe we should send you to the talks in Baghdad, trying to put the post-war government together.  Big thumbs up

That's a excellent point, and you're dead-on in your observation.

Lets face it: the United States is the victor in this war, and we had better start acting with the grandeur and the calculated humility that goes with being a victor.

Part of that should extend to the region in general. This idiotic tactic of rattling the sabre at Syria is just that-idiotic. Syria doesn't need a sabre rattled at them. They saw what we just did, and they don't want any of that, I suspect. Instead, Bush should have put out an olive branch to the region by saying "we have differences, but what can we do, TOGHETHER, to make Iraq a better place?". But, as seems to be the Bush M/O, he tries to get ballsy and rattle the sword first and foremost.

[Edited 2003-04-20 06:44:31]

User currently offlineAviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

If you noticed, smart boy, we haven't left Afghanistan.

Actually, Mr Know-it-all, American troops might still be in Afghanistan, but they are there serving American interests, not Afghani ones.

Maybe you should read the news a bit more regularly and just see how scathing Karzai (the American appointed leader of Afghanistan) has been of Washington in recent weeks.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16282 posts, RR: 56
Reply 17, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1508 times:

If the efforts to “liberate” the Iraqis just to give them democracy, result in a puppet government formed only by appointees pre-approved by the US and the coalition countries, then what good was all of this?

If nothing else, it got rid of Saddam and his thuggish sons. If the Iraqis blow this golden opportunity to establish a true democracy & fall back on tyranny, they only have themselves to blame. The US has done them a great favour in deposing Saddam.....the rest is largely up to them.





Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineNormalSpeed From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1499 times:

"...and if they're not found, then what Bush said is just a lie, and an excuse to invade a nation with a leader he (and the rest of us, in fairnes), didn't like."

Agreed.

-Normal



User currently offlineMx5_boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1497 times:

yyz717 says:

"""If nothing else, it got rid of Saddam and his thuggish sons. If the Iraqis blow this golden opportunity to establish a true democracy & fall back on tyranny, they only have themselves to blame. The US has done them a great favour in deposing Saddam.....the rest is largely up to them."""

Thats a load of bollocks my friend. Deposing SH is one thing, but creating peace and stability in a region that has a historical background of difference is another and a task the allies have to take with great care and caution.

Simply removing SH is not going to solve the deeper problems.

The allies have a great opportunity here to avoid conflict of interest and set up an ideal middle eastern state that perhaps many other Arab nations can look upon and move forward to what we call in our respective *Western* nations true democracy.

Education, the redistribution of wealth and the removal of abject poverty is the way forward.

But we must educate ourselves in our Arab friends history, nature, religion and general beliefs before we march in there and start changeing things. It is hoped that we have done this already and are making some moves forward in that respect. So far I have seen very little of that.

mb


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Avi,

You are right. The U.S. is being critisized about it's desire to let Afganis govern themselves, something that they seem unable to do.

Iraq's neigboring countries, including Saudi Arabia, have now suddenly realized what Bush is up to - bringing about a fundemental paradigm shift within the Arab world. Now they are scared, because they all are based on dictatorships, absolute monarchies, or religious persecution.

This war was not about oil. It is about sending a massive jolt through a region of the world which has so far been a quagmire of violence, religious and cultural hatred, and immense riches being hoarded by the very few. Such a jolt just might break the situation loose enough to allow the Middle East of 2100 to be perhaps as modern and democratic as Europe is today. Of course this is the LAST thing the Arab governments want to see, and their propaganda tries to spoil the road for their own people.

The history books will decide whether this strategy will have worked. But Bush has definately made one of the greatest gambles in the history of politics.

Charles


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16282 posts, RR: 56
Reply 21, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1493 times:

I don't disagree with you MX5-boy, that's why I said "if nothing else".




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineEg777er From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 1837 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

From a Bahraini perspective, we have our own problems with the Sunni/Shia mix. Our government, or should I say, 'ruling family', is Sunni, but 70% (IIRC) of the population is Shia, and they are discriminated against severely - limited government employment, none in the police/army etc.

Bahrain has made great strides towards democracy, particularly in the last 2 years. However, the Sunni/Shia question is one that still has to be addressed, and no-one quite knows the answer. Hopefully, people will forget their differences and form into a government of national unity. But that may not happen.

In the case of Iraq, I would be extremely wary on breaking up the country into quasi-independent federal states. The national and territorial integrity of Iraq must be secured - and making a federal state upon ethnic boundaries will only degrade the national identity.

Consider an Iraq of 3 'states' - Kurd, Shia and Sunni. All will be weak. The Shia area will quickly come to the attention of a possibly expansionist Iran. The Sunni's will run scared into the arms of the Saudis. The Kurds demand a fully independent state (and with the US predeliction for self-determination, how could they stop them?), which Turkey strongly resists. Iraq collapses, and the Iranian border comes within a short drive of 25% of the world's oil......

A nightmare scenario, that'll take some care to avoid.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29800 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 1454 times:

Well hopefully the long term lease of 4 bases to the US government will help keep the area stable.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035781079690&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineADG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 5 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 1450 times:

Well what a surprise....



ADG


25 L-188 : Well if it makes you feel any better. Word on the street is that Incerlik AB is Turkey is starting to look like a ghost town. All the fighters that wh
26 Mx5_boy : Eg777er makes a great point, Independent yet Federal states in Iraq is an easily achievable thing. The impossible thing is to try and make a universal
27 Eg777er : Exactly right mb. This was why I found Bush's demand that the Palestinians adopt democracy as a precondition for talks ludicrous. How can countries su
28 Hepkat : From a psychological point of view, you simply can't force democracy on a people. Democracy, separation of church and state, industrialization, due pr
29 Alpha 1 : If we take your defetest stance, Hepkat, and don't even TRY to make it work, then we're sure to fail. Maybe it will, but I think we should give the ef
30 NormalSpeed : "We in the west have had hundreds of years of social evolution and turmoil which has led to the system we have today... Our efforts in Iraq, unfortuna
31 Airplay : But don't expect them to do just as we occidental people do. Their culture is completely different than ours, so they may not proceed just as you woul
32 Airplay : One thing, Hep: We in the west had to start somewhere. Iraqi representative government will not assume an American likeness today, tomorrow, or even n
33 Hepkat : If we take your defetest stance, Hepkat, and don't even TRY to make it work, then we're sure to fail. Maybe it will, but I think we should give the ef
34 Donder10 : The problem with turning Iraq into a democracy is that the allies will have such a short honeymoon period before things turn sour and they are viewed
35 CX747 : Aviatsiya: Actually the U.S. military is still present in Afghanistan and working to make it a better place. U.S. special forces actually act as secur
36 ADG : The separate but together system as suggested above actually works in America by the way, each state have their own local governments who govern the s
37 Jhooper : I've seen the protests on CNN: They're saying "No to America, No to Saddam, our reconstruction will be Islam!" America got rid of Saddam! Don't they r
38 Hepkat : We need to change the fundamental cultural framework which makes it possible for tyrants like Saddam to raise to power. Oh God, isn't anyone listening
39 Jhooper : Hepkat, Quite possibly what I said is impossible to do. But if the culture doesn't change (by whatever means), Saddam will simply be succeeded by an e
40 Alpha 1 : We couldn't care less about imposing Christian values on Iraq.. That's as it should be, but you sound like you're angry, or, at the least, very concer
41 Post contains links Aviatsiya : Aviatsiya: Actually the U.S. military is still present in Afghanistan and working to make it a better place. U.S. special forces actually act as secur
42 ADG : America got rid of Saddam! Don't they realize that if America hadn't done what they did, they'd still have Saddam to deal with! True, but America told
43 Donder10 : I've seen the protests on CNN: They're saying "No to America, No to Saddam, our reconstruction will be Islam!" But which ethnic group is doing this?Mo
44 Cfalk : True, but America told them they were coming in to rid them of Saddam, not to take over. You've given them a right to voice their opinion, now they ar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Iraqi Poll: 71% Want US Troops Out posted Thu Sep 28 2006 10:27:53 by Joni
Want A Job Thats Out Of This World? posted Thu Apr 1 2004 22:04:17 by Espion007
Any Orlando Residents Want To Help Me Out Here? posted Sat Feb 14 2004 02:03:33 by JAL777
I Want Out. posted Fri Oct 17 2003 00:27:34 by Lehpron
Will Bush & Co. Really Give Iraqis What They Want? posted Sat Apr 26 2003 02:59:36 by Ilyushin96M
Why Does America Want To Rule The World? posted Thu Oct 3 2002 21:35:14 by Caravelle
I Think I Found The Way That I Want To Go Out posted Sat Aug 24 2002 12:55:37 by L-188
America Should Get Out Of The U.N. posted Sun Aug 18 2002 02:50:15 by Galaxy5
Watch Out Stade Francais: Here Comes The Vatican! posted Sat Dec 9 2006 14:09:11 by Braybuddy
Would You Want To Rub A Pug? posted Sat Dec 9 2006 09:40:33 by IAH777