Before It's Too Late in Iraq

[pistol]

Before It's Too Late in Iraq
By Wesley K. Clark
Friday, August 26, 2005; A21


In the old, familiar fashion, mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq have mobilized increasing public doubts about the war. More than half the American people now believe that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. They're right. But it would also be a mistake to pull out now, or to start pulling out or to set a date certain for pulling out. Instead we need a strategy to create a stable, democratizing and peaceful state in Iraq -- a strategy the administration has failed to develop and articulate.

From the outset of the U.S. post-invasion efforts, we needed a three-****ged strategy: diplomatic, political and military. Iraq sits geographically on the fault line between Shiite and Sunni Islam; for the mission to succeed we will have to be the catalyst for regional cooperation, not regional conflict.

Unfortunately, the administration didn't see the need for a diplomatic track, and its scattershot diplomacy in the region -- threats, grandiose ****ouncements and truncated communications -- has been ill-advised and counterproductive. The U.S. diplomatic failure has magnified the difficulties facing the political and military elements of strategy by contributing to the increasing infiltration of jihadists and the surprising resiliency of the insurgency.

On the political track, aiming for a legitimate, democratic Iraqi government was essential, but the United States was far too slow in mobilizing Iraqi political action. A wasted first year encouraged a rise in sectarian militias and the emergence of strong fractionating forces. Months went by without a U.S. ambassador in Iraq, and today political development among the Iraqis is hampered by the lack not only of security but also of a stable infrastructure program that can reliably deliver gas, electricity and jobs.

Meanwhile, on the military track, security on the ground remains poor at best. U.S. armed forces still haven't received resources, restructuring and guidance adequate for the magnitude of the task. Only in June, over two years into the mission of training Iraqi forces, did the president announce such "new steps" as partnering with Iraqi units, establishing "transition teams" to work with Iraqi units and training Iraqi ministries to conduct antiterrorist operations. But there is nothing new about any of this; it is the same nation-building doctrine that we used in Vietnam. Where are the thousands of trained linguists? Where are the flexible, well-resourced, military-led infrastructure development programs to win "hearts and minds?" Where are the smart operations and adequate numbers of forces -- U.S., coalition or Iraqi -- to strengthen control over the borders?

With each passing month the difficulties are compounded and the chances for a successful outcome are reduced. Urgent modification of the strategy is required before it is too late to do anything other than simply withdraw our forces.

Adding a diplomatic track to the strategy is a must. The United States should form a standing conference of Iraq's neighbors, complete with committees dealing with all the regional economic and political issues, including trade, travel, cross-border infrastructure projects and, of course, cutting off the infiltration of jihadists. The United States should tone down its raw rhetoric and instead listen more carefully to the many voices within the region. In addition, a public U.S. declaration forswearing permanent bases in Iraq would be a helpful step in engaging both regional and Iraqi support as we implement our plans.

On the political side, the timeline for the agreements on the Constitution is less important than the substance of the document. It is up to American leadership to help engineer, implement and sustain a compromise that will avoid the "red lines" of the respective factions and leave in place a state that both we and Iraq's neighbors can support. So no Kurdish vote on independence, a restricted role for Islam and limited autonomy in the south. And no private militias.

In addition, the United States needs a legal mandate from the government to provide additional civil assistance and advice, along with additional U.S. civilian personnel, to help strengthen the institutions of government. Key ministries must be reinforced, provincial governments made functional, a system of justice established (and its personnel trained) and the rule of law promoted at the local level. There will be a continuing need for assistance in institutional development, leadership training and international monitoring for years to come, and all of this must be made palatable to Iraqis concerned with their nation's sovereignty. Monies promised for reconstruction simply must be committed and projects moved forward, especially in those areas along the border and where the insurgency has the greatest potential.

On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters. A better effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology. Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out.

The growing chorus of voices demanding a pullout should seriously alarm the Bush administration, because President Bush and his team are repeating the failure of Vietnam: failing to craft a realistic and effective policy and instead simply demanding that the American people show resolve. Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops. If the administration won't adopt a winning strategy, then the American people will be justified in demanding that it bring our troops home.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/25/AR2005082501623_pf.html

[nognig]

So he's saying that we should suck up to the dictatorships around Iraq and that will solve our problems? Right.

Clark is a left-wing moonbat. He's only trying to score political points with that article.

NN

[pistol]

So he's saying that we should suck up to the dictatorships around Iraq and that will solve our problems?


No.



Clark is a left-wing moonbat. He's only trying to score political points with that article.


That is absurd. Clark is laying out policy he believes will lead to success in Iraq and save American lives. You state that he is a "moonbat" trying to "score political points", but provide no argument to backup this outrageous assertion. Do you advocate the Bush doctrine of "stay the course"? Or do you believe adjustments to our policy in Iraq need to be made in order to assure a timely victory?

[ElHombre]

So he's saying that we should suck up to the dictatorships around Iraq and that will solve our problems? Right.

it's called dealing with reality. ignoring it is what has gotten us into this mess. part of securing iraq is stopping foreign terrs from coming into the country. that either means put enough troops on the ground to seal the border or get the neighbors to keep them from coming across. troops means a draft. that's out, so all we're left with is negotiating with the neighbors. if you don't like the neighbors, tough. you knew they were there when we went in.


Clark is a left-wing moonbat. He's only trying to score political points with that article.

if he's trying to score points, he's going to get them. this plan is far more coherent than anything the administration has come up with.

[ViktorNavorski]

Repeating the already long established objectives over and over again, ingenious! Folks in Iraq should stop taking those "vacation" like Great Satan and start working.

[ElHombre]

Repeating the already long established objectives over and over again, ingenious! Folks in Iraq should stop taking those "vacation" like Great Satan and start working.

and if you had bothered to read past the first paragraph, you would have seen the specifics. and the folks in iraq are working far harder at a job than bush ever has in his entire life.

[ViktorNavorski]

Repeating the already long established objectives over and over again, ingenious! Folks in Iraq should stop taking those "vacation" like Great Satan and start working.

and if you had bothered to read past the first paragraph, you would have seen the specifics. and the folks in iraq are working far harder at a job than bush ever has in his entire life.

Repeating the already long established objectives over and over again, ingenious! Folks in Iraq should stop taking those "vacation" like Great Satan and start working.

[Nikitaras]

So he's saying that we should suck up to the dictatorships around Iraq and that will solve our problems? Right.

Clark is a left-wing moonbat. He's only trying to score political points with that article.

NN

x2

Yeah your're right we shouldn't suck up to the local dictatorships. We should follow Bush's example of fostering close alliances with countries that are bastions of democracy and beacons of freedom such as Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkmenistan et al.

Perhaps you should join the rest of us in reality. Gen Clark is spot on in his analysis.

[pistol]

Yeah your're right we shouldn't suck up to the local dictatorships. We should follow Bush's example of fostering close alliances with countries that are bastions of democracy and beacons of freedom such as Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkmenistan et al.


Along those lines, we don't get to pick Iraq's neighbors. We can either engage them in a serious manner, or sit back and allow them to continue to work against us. General Clark is less interested in fake cowboy tough talk, and a lot more interested in doing what it takes to succeed.



Perhaps you should join the rest of us in reality. Gen Clark is spot on in his analysis.

Not only is he spot on and grounded in reality, but he stands as a reminder of what it means to be an American for all of us that have repeatedly had our patriotism trashed for questioning this administration's Iraq policy:



Debate, dialogue, discussion, disagreement, dissent—that?s not wrong, that?s not unpatriotic, that?s one of the highest forms of patriotism and love of country, and we need to say it.


Notice that the usual keyboard commandos are missing from this thread. They aren't interested in discussing policy, administration failures, and the consequences of putting on the blinders and "staying the course".

[James]

On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist. Neighboring states should also provide observers and technical assistance. In military terms, striking at insurgents and terrorists is necessary but insufficient. Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions. Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters. A better effort must be made to control jihadist infiltration into the country by a combination of outposts, patrols and reaction forces reinforced by high technology. Over time U.S. forces should be pulled back into reserve roles and phased out.


Hmm, I think Germany, France and Canada probably aren't interested in helping in Iraq.
When I think if "neighboring states" to Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first that come to mind. I don't think we should turn to them for assistance.

Aside from the assertion that the U.S. should recruit 10,000 Arabic speakers, I think we're doing everything described in the article already. I guess my response to Mr. Clark would be "Well, no sh*t. Did you think that stuff up all by yourself?"

[pistol]

Hmm, I think Germany, France and Canada probably aren't interested in helping in Iraq.


Of course one never knows until one asks.



When I think if "neighboring states" to Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first that come to mind. I don't think we should turn to them for assistance.


Then they will continue to work against us. We can either seriously engage Syria and Iran on the problem of infiltrating jihadists or continue to ignore them. If you think the problem is going to go away on its own, you are mistaken.



Aside from the assertion that the U.S. should recruit 10,000 Arabic speakers, I think we're doing everything described in the article already.

- What is the United States' diplomatic strategy in the region (including Iran and Syria)?

- When will Iraq have a stable infrastructure program capable of reliably delivering gas, electricity, and jobs?

- When will the Iraqis control their own border?

- Is the rule of law being promoted adequately at the local level?

- Are key governmental ministries properly staffed and trained?

- Are provincial governments and legal institutions functional?

- Are we doing enough to win the "hearts and minds" where the insurgency is strongest?

[James]

WHen you mentioned "engaging" Syria and Iran the first thing I thought of was military action. I'm not sure what use diplomacy would have with nations that actively support terrorism, especially Iran, whose newly elected president was involved in holding U.S. Hostages for more than a year a generation ago.

Were you really serious about engaging them diplomatically?

As for the rest, there are a lot of things I can't answer specifically, and other things to which I can only answer that we and the Iraqis are making progress. I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Iraqi government.

I will refer you here to read about "good things" in Iraq, though I suspect you've already made up your mind that the whole effort is evil and a lost cause.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=55113

Anyway, have a good one.

[Teufel_]

invading iran or syria would make iraq look like a picnic, get that into your skull :lol:

[WarriorMonk]

I can't believe Kerry was able to screw over Clark like that, first by butting him out of the primaries and then not choosing Clark as a VP. My vote would have gone to Kerry if Clark had been VP candidate.

[seva108]

A lot BS in this piece, but these two sentences stood out:


Where are the flexible, well-resourced, military-led infrastructure development programs to win "hearts and minds?"

......

Military and security operations must return primarily to the tried-and-true methods of counterinsurgency: winning the hearts and minds of the populace through civic action, small-scale economic development and positive daily interactions.

This is EXACTLY what the military is doing. Clark obviously has no other source of information outside of the leftwing 'mainstream media'.

[Deuterium]

Ten thousand Arab Americans with full language proficiency should be recruited to assist as interpreters.

:roll:

The guy has never been to Iraq or the guy hasn't been to Titan recruiting projects. Just who does he think is terping right now?

[pistol]

WHen you mentioned "engaging" Syria and Iran the first thing I thought of was military action. I'm not sure what use diplomacy would have with nations that actively support terrorism, especially Iran, whose newly elected president was involved in holding U.S. Hostages for more than a year a generation ago.

Were you really serious about engaging them diplomatically?


We have 3 options with Syria and Iran:

1. Ignore them and hope they go away.

2. Invade them.

3. Engage them diplomatically

Right now we are pursuing option number one and it is failing. American soldiers are being killed and wounded by jihadists infiltrating from these countries. We can "stay the course" and continue to ignore them, but don't expect anything to change.

General Clark was also undoubtably refering to Iraq's other neighbor's in the region, not exclusively those sharing a border.



As for the rest, there are a lot of things I can't answer specifically, and other things to which I can only answer that we and the Iraqis are making progress. I'm not privy to the inner workings of the Iraqi government.


"Progress" is a term Bush often uses to dismiss criticism of his Iraq policy. "We're making progress" he says or, "I'm pleased with the progress". "Progress" implies we are making forward momentum towards some fixed goal. However, this goal has never been defined, so how can Americans put this "progress" into context? The Army is planning to maintain our current troop strengths until 2009. Do they believe we are making progress?



I will refer you here to read about "good things" in Iraq, though I suspect you've already made up your mind that the whole effort is evil and a lost cause.


No, I have not made up my mind that the effort is "evil and a lost cause". Iraq was only one bullet point on a long list of national security challenges our country was facing in 2002 and 2003. To pursue this war in Iraq we left the battle against al-Qaida unfinished, and they have proved that they continue to be capable of striking us. Worse yet, we entered into the battle with only one major ally (sorry Poland), and no plan for achieving our nation's political objectives after the mission was "accomplished". Now we pay the price.

The good news is, that it is not too late to fix Iraq. General Clark wrote this article to challenge the administration to adopt a winning strategy before it is too late. "Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops", he reminds us. I can only hope somebody hears him.

[ElHombre]

The good news is, that it is not too late to fix Iraq. General Clark wrote this article to challenge the administration to adopt a winning strategy before it is too late. "Resolve isn't enough to mend a flawed approach -- or to save the lives of our troops", he reminds us. I can only hope somebody hears him.

i would argue that is is tragically too late. not because that there aren't any good options left for the US but because that the administration in charge won't make the needed changes in its policy. there hasn't been anything in the last five years to make anyone think that there's evidence that the bush administration can make intelligent decisions. if they haven't done a good job in five years, there's no reason to think they can do any better at this late date. right now, their latest arguement is that we need to keep having our troops getting killed because other troops have been getting killed. WTF?

[Jobu]

This is the same Wesley Clark who nearly started WW3 in (former)Yugoslavia.

Just ask General Sir Mike Jackson.

[pistol]

i would argue that is is tragically too late. not because that there aren't any good options left for the US but because that the administration in charge won't make the needed changes in its policy. there hasn't been anything in the last five years to make anyone think that there's evidence that the bush administration can make intelligent decisions. if they haven't done a good job in five years, there's no reason to think they can do any better at this late date. right now, their latest arguement is that we need to keep having our troops getting killed because other troops have been getting killed. WTF?

Sadly, you are correct. Our last real chance for success in Iraq went out the window on November 2nd, 2004. On that fateful day America voted to "stay the course", and come hell or high water, that is what we are going to do. At this point, all you can do is pray for the men and women upon whom the burden falls to enforce this foolish, bullheaded policy.



This is the same Wesley Clark who nearly started WW3 in (former)Yugoslavia.

Just ask General Sir Mike Jackson.


This lie has been refuted hundreds of times. Are you still repeating it?

[seva108]

Dude, almost everything Clark suggested in this article is OBVIOUSLY already being done, with two exceptions.

1. Diplomacy: I list this as an exception because it's not obvious. But Clark wouldn't have any idea what diplomatic initiatives are being pursued.

2. More troops: President Bush has given full authority to the Generals in the field to have the troops they feel they need. He's doing the right thing by giving them the responsibility to make the call. They have certainly not been denied the troops they asked for.

Clark comes off like an uninformed whiner who got his talking points from air-headed New York Times editorials. It blows me away that this quaffed, effeminate imbecile actually commanded soldiers.

[Avary]

On the military side, the vast effort underway to train an army must be matched by efforts to train police and local justices. Canada, France and Germany should be engaged to assist.
They already are.

[Xtoisè]

This is the same Wesley Clark who nearly started WW3 in (former)Yugoslavia.

Just ask General Sir Mike Jackson.



This lie has been refuted hundreds of times. Are you still repeating it?

Who was it refuted by? This has been confirmed by Russians. Clark isnt a strong leader and not so smart diplomaticaly. Original article mentions nothing new that hasnt been implemented into "project new Iraq"

[SFWanabe]

This is the same Wesley Clark who nearly started WW3 in (former)Yugoslavia. Please explain. :|

[Jobu]

This is the same Wesley Clark who nearly started WW3 in (former)Yugoslavia. Please explain. :|

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/671495.stm

There you go.

[M1A2U2]

He ordered strikes on Russian tanks that were moving into Kosovo but his commands were over ruled thankfully by a British officer with a brain.

[M1A2U2]

http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_28.gif

[pistol]

He ordered strikes on Russian tanks that were moving into Kosovo but his commands were over ruled thankfully by a British officer with a brain.

That is completely false. You cannot provide any evidence to backup this assertion.

General Clark drew up a plan to occupy the Pristina air field to prevent Russia from unilaterally annexing a portion of Kosovo outside of NATO control and, in the process, creating a Russian protected Serb enclave. There is little evidence that the Russian move was supported by the foreign ministry or the Kremlin. If you think the Russians were coming to World War III with 200 men, you are out of your mind.



http://protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_28.gif


I heard the "Protest Warriors" got their ass kicked (http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2005/08/splitters-before-we-bring-up-oops.html) by MAF this weekend.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/145/1296/640/oh%20oh.jpg

rofl rofl rofl

[Jobu]

Read the BBC link I provided pistol, if you are honest enough to accept what it says.

[pistol]

Read the BBC link I provided pistol, if you are honest enough to accept what it says.

Although the BBC has long been decried as a leftist new organization...I guess I can accept this:



Amid fears that Russian aircraft were heading for Pristina, General Clark planned to order British tanks and armoured cars to block the runways to prevent any transport planes from landing.

General Clark said he believed it was ''an appropriate course of action''. But the plan was again vetoed by Britain.


Now back to Iraq...

[sp2c]

He ordered strikes on Russian tanks that were moving into Kosovo but his commands were over ruled thankfully by a British officer with a brain.

those Russian tanks should never have been on the left flank in the first place!!!

[SFWanabe]

I wonder how hard the russians would have fought considering they dont get paid worth ****.

[Luno]

I wonder how hard the russians would have fought considering they dont get paid worth ****.

And how much do you think a red army soldier where paid during WWII? Nothing my friend and strangely enough they did fight and won.

[SFWanabe]

That was WW2 and Russia was invaded. I'm talking about over a **** hole like Kosovo.

[Luno]

That was WW2 and Russia was invaded. I'm talking about over a **** hole like Kosovo.

And why do you think the Russian where in a **** hole like Kosovo?

[SFWanabe]

Try reading the whole thread before you make yourself look stupid.....

[Baboonass]

Try reading the whole thread before you make yourself look stupid.....

For you, it's too late.

[Luno]

SFWanabe
Thanks for proving me with the info that you're nothing more than a worthless troll :|

[SFWanabe]

SFWanabe
Thanks for proving me with the info that you're nothing more than a worthless trollYea ok think what you want.

For you, it's too late.He is a troll for the simple fact he has nothing of any value to say.

[Flagg]

SFWanabe
Thanks for proving me with the info that you're nothing more than a worthless trollYea ok think what you want.

For you, it's too late.He is a troll for the simple fact he has nothing of any value to say.

Actually SFWannabe your value on this forum has reached absolute zero.

Stop now before I begin editing your posts :|

[ogukuo72]

How does public disapproval about the way Bush is handling Iraq translate into a news report that US effort in Iraq is losing public support?

I think if you phrase the question as "Do you support the continued involvement of US troops to stablise Iraq and turned it into a viable democracy?", you will get a majority of Americans supporting this.

And even on the question of progress in Iraq, much progress had already been made. Life has returned back to normal in most of the countries, with fully functional local government and infrastructure.

In terms of security, there's no general unrests throughout the country. The terrorists had only been able to launch spectacular attacks within Baghdad itself, probably because they are concentrating on soft targets that will guarantee headlines from the press corp concentrated in the hotels there. Much of the hot spots such as Fallujah has been relatively peaceful. For me, this is a sign of weakness, not strength, on the part of the insurgency.

The hype over the constitution obscured the single most important fact about the process: the process itself. Less than three years after the fall of a dictatorial regime, Iraq is engaging in a democratic process in which ALL parties are involved.

The Sunnis are playing hardball because this is the only means that they know they could significantly influence the process to their advantage. Withdrawing from the process and turning to an insurgency and igniting a civil war would not be in their interest, and they know it.

The ****es had behaved manificently, given that they were so badly oppressed under Saddam Hussein. They had been tolerant in the face of Sunni hardball techniques. Instead of using force to enforce their will, they had willingly participate in this constitutional process with the minority Kurds and Sunnis.

It amazes me that the media in the US should be so pessimistic about Iraq when things are proceeding so well, given the circumstances.

[pistol]

And even on the question of progress in Iraq, much progress had already been made. Life has returned back to normal in most of the countries, with fully functional local government and infrastructure.


Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? Define normal. Is "normal" living in constant fear of drive-by shootings, car bombs, mortars, abductions, and masked terrorists roaming the street? Is a stampede that kills 186 people (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/) started out of fear of being suicide-bombed normal?



In terms of security, there's no general unrests throughout the country.
The terrorists had only been able to launch spectacular attacks within Baghdad itself, probably because they are concentrating on soft targets that will guarantee headlines from the press corp concentrated in the hotels there.


Have you been to Qaim recently? Its no Sunday afternoon picnic. Reports of violence and lawlessness are certainly not limited to Baghdad.



The Sunnis are playing hardball because this is the only means that they know they could significantly influence the process to their advantage. Withdrawing from the process and turning to an insurgency and igniting a civil war would not be in their interest, and they know it.


I'm not so sure that they know this, and the attack on the Shiite pilgrimage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083100379.html) today may be a grim taste of what is to come.



It amazes me that the media in the US should be so pessimistic about Iraq when things are proceeding so well, given the circumstances.

Puff puff give...

[ogukuo72]

And even on the question of progress in Iraq, much progress had already been made. Life has returned back to normal in most of the countries, with fully functional local government and infrastructure.


Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? Define normal. Is "normal" living in constant fear of drive-by shootings, car bombs, mortars, abductions, and masked terrorists roaming the street? Is a stampede that kills 186 people (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/31/iraq.main/) started out of fear of being suicide-bombed normal?



In terms of security, there's no general unrests throughout the country.
The terrorists had only been able to launch spectacular attacks within Baghdad itself, probably because they are concentrating on soft targets that will guarantee headlines from the press corp concentrated in the hotels there.


Have you been to Qaim recently? Its no Sunday afternoon picnic. Reports of violence and lawlessness are certainly not limited to Baghdad.



The Sunnis are playing hardball because this is the only means that they know they could significantly influence the process to their advantage. Withdrawing from the process and turning to an insurgency and igniting a civil war would not be in their interest, and they know it.


I'm not so sure that they know this, and the attack on the Shiite pilgrimage (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083100379.html) today may be a grim taste of what is to come.



It amazes me that the media in the US should be so pessimistic about Iraq when things are proceeding so well, given the circumstances.

Puff puff give...

Nope, but I was in Basra and Mosul each for a couple of days end May at the kind invitation of the US State Department. :roll:

Things are not peachy. But things are getting better. That is a fact.

[James]

Pistol, have you been to Iraq? Just curious - I have not. I don't want to start anything, but I'm curious if you've had your own experiences there, or if you get your information from the media. In my own limited experience in the big bad world, I know that there is a huge gap between what the media says and what is actually happening.

Just curious. Have a good one.

[SFWanabe]

SFWanabe
Thanks for proving me with the info that you're nothing more than a worthless trollYea ok think what you want.

For you, it's too late.He is a troll for the simple fact he has nothing of any value to say.

Actually SFWannabe your value on this forum has reached absolute zero.

Stop now before I begin editing your posts :|Thats only because these forums are fill with Bush lovers,crazy libbys,and dumb asses. I havent been able to have a decent debate since I got here because of that.

[Baboonass]

SFWanabe
Thanks for proving me with the info that you're nothing more than a worthless trollYea ok think what you want.

For you, it's too late.He is a troll for the simple fact he has nothing of any value to say.

Actually SFWannabe your value on this forum has reached absolute zero.

Stop now before I begin editing your posts :|Thats only because these forums are fill with Bush lovers,crazy libbys,and dumb asses. I havent been able to have a decent debate since I got here because of that.

Here, I'll start a decent debate with you.

Ghost Recon sucks, Counter Strike rules!!!

You have a poopie butt!

I figured I'd go ahead and start a meaningful debate at a leval you could understand.

[Luno]

SFWanabe VS mods :D
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/2005/namnls2zv.jpg

[digrar]

Thats only because these forums are fill with Bush lovers,crazy libbys,and dumb asses. I havent been able to have a decent debate since I got here because of that.

Feel free to bugger off if your not finding the place to your liking.

[Argyll]

You can't debate because you lack the IQ to do so!

Multiple accounts are against forum rules........and as you're also posting under p90 lover then it's time up for you!!