IKE!!1 OMG!! we got sadam! iznt that 2 kewl? (1094 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.32 on 46 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <ise8.at.yahoo.com> (View user info) at 2003-12-14 19:07:30 EST
Yeah. This chick said that to me earlier today.
Am I happy that today the United States captured Saddam Hussein?
In a word, No.
"What, Ike, are you a fuckin terrorist? You crackpot liberal!"
No I am not. Let me explain.
I suppose on some level, I am glad that a tyrant was deposed. I do not condone torture in prisons, or genocide. However, I think that this entire war was wrong from the beginning. If any of you can remember, we did not start this war to liberate the Iraqi people. We did not start this war against a tyrant that was denying his citizens basic human rights. We did not start this war for oil. (I hope.)
Gulf War II was started because Bush believed Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological, and or nuclear weapons. The whole WMD thing. It's remarkable that already, most Americans have forgotten the threat of WMD Bush promised us that Iraq had.
Anyway, 1 year after the fact, there are no WMD. I think anybody can agree to that. I also think that makes the entire war a complete failure. In a media spin, to ensure that we weren't spending money and losing troops on nothing, we have been told that the war was to liberate the Iraqi people from the Tyrant. Which is crock. That's not why we attacked. IF that were the reason, why didn't we attack Iran? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Human rights violations in these countries are exponentially worse than they were in Iraq.
Well, if you forget all that, I suppose we really did do a good thing in Iraq. Destroying a country's infrastructure. Sending the country into an economic depression. (Yes, I know there is no more UN embargo. I know 'Saddam was keeping the country depressed'. But look at news articles on everyday Iraqis. Most of them say that they are experiencing more hardships now then they were under Hussein.)
Another thing I have to bring up is that all these atrocities commited by Saddam that are quoted by our government (gas attacks, genocide, invading Kuwait etc.) were commited before the first Gulf War. To bring those things up would be, in my opinion, the same thing as today accusing Germany of mass chemical warfare. (After all, it used Mustard Gas in WWI.)
I am not even going into the claims that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism and helped the 9-11 attacks because anyone with a shred of common sense in them knows that its not true. Also, by watching any news program in the past 6 months, you would realize that terrorism has increased since the war. As many experts said it would. (Bush dismissed these experts. He also dismissed the aids who estimated the war to cost into the hundreds of billions of dollars, which we see to be correct now.)
The largest thing that irks me is that now everybody is viewing the war as a success. Since when was catching Saddam the point of the war? It never was. We tried to kill him the first day of the war. If we had, it would not have meant victory. So why does it mean we've won now that we've caught him? He hasn't been bombing American interests. He's been hiding in a hole. So nothing has changed. NOTHING.
This war is not over. Like I said, other than the common good for a country of getting rid of a dictator (although there are many many worse than him), I am not glad that we got Saddam.
My apologies if a post has already been done like this.
Also, -2 me on my arguments not on me being a "crackpot liberal". (Ad Hominid). I'm not even all that liberal.
User Reviews
Submitted by Carlo Garbagnati <carlofg.at.ix.netcom.com> at 2003-12-31 20:24:47 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Read it only if you enjoy non-sensical rambling or if you work for the BBC.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2003-12-16 03:55:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
yeah, I did kind of puss out there toward the end.
-1 for me.
all these recent political interests are making me thirsty.
Submitted by MickGinny (user info) at 2003-12-15 18:34:01 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2003-12-15 18:29:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
Operation Iraqi freedom? ahahahahhahahhhhhhhhhahhahha!!!
You mean Operation Control Oil Reserves...
If it's about freeing people, why not Operation American Freedom.
Free us from this bad reputation we're getting as being overweight
bullies. I'm really not that proud at living here right now. But where
am I going to go? Doesn't matter, America is already there. Live with
it, deal with it, just continue speaking what's on your mind. In this
way, the weak are more easily exposed. By the weak, I mean the sheep and by
sheep I mean all the idiots who eat up the media like a bag of Mcdonalds to
go....where are you going with this kgbpasha? I don't know but the third
person weird thing you got going is annoying me.
Okay, sorry...to sum it up...I don't believe the Devil and the Devil right now
is George Dubya...If you National Security fucks are reading this, then I take
it all back.
pussy.
Submitted by kgbpasha (user info) at 2003-12-15 18:29:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Operation Iraqi freedom? ahahahahhahahhhhhhhhhahhahha!!!
You mean Operation Control Oil Reserves...
If it's about freeing people, why not Operation American Freedom.
Free us from this bad reputation we're getting as being overweight
bullies. I'm really not that proud at living here right now. But where
am I going to go? Doesn't matter, America is already there. Live with
it, deal with it, just continue speaking what's on your mind. In this
way, the weak are more easily exposed. By the weak, I mean the sheep and by
sheep I mean all the idiots who eat up the media like a bag of Mcdonalds to
go....where are you going with this kgbpasha? I don't know but the third
person weird thing you got going is annoying me.
Okay, sorry...to sum it up...I don't believe the Devil and the Devil right now
is George Dubya...If you National Security fucks are reading this, then I take
it all back.
Submitted by IkesApt (user info) at 2003-12-15 18:03:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Otter, I agree with you and value your opinion.
But where did I put that the war was for oil?
I didn't say that. I said I hoped it wasnt for that.
Submitted by Falconer (user info) at 2003-12-15 17:52:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Post good. Other saddam posts baaaaaaaad.
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2003-12-15 17:45:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
At least your rant here is not full of total BS, (except of course the whole this war was for oil argument) you make a few valid points, but there are other factors involved here with the capture of Saddam Hussain.
The capture of Saddam is a huge moral boost to the American troops stationed over there. It doesn't necciserily mean that they will be coming home sooner, but it really was one of the major goals for the outcome of this war. Gainbing a major sence of accomplishment like that makes the troops feel like they are really doing something over there.
It also hits the moral of those resisting the American troops over there. One thing they had going for them was they could say that with all the strikes against targets, Saddam always seemed to get away. The US military couldn't find him, therefore he was invinceable. Well, now the ol' boy has been captured and now that feeling of invinceability is gone.
Submitted by William_Q_Percy (user info) at 2003-12-15 17:43:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I just think its strange how a man may be re-elected as President for trying to fix all the problems in a country other than his own.
Submitted by Scott_James (user info) at 2003-12-15 17:39:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I had feeling that there would be a influx of Saddam posts when I heard the news. This is one of the better ones.
Submitted by IkesApt (user info) at 2003-12-15 17:28:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Saying that Saddam gassing the Kurds is the same as Germany persecuting the Jews in WW2 is completely ignorant."
Read my fucking post ass. I was referring to Germany using Mustard Gas against Allied troops in WWI. I'm saying you can't acuse a country of commiting crimes after you've already gone to war with them over it. ass. as in, we already went to war with iraq for saddam using chemical weapons. so you cant use it as a basis for a new war.
and then i did kindly ask people to rate this based on the arguments and not on political ideology. but i guess that is a little too much to ask. its weird how i can disagree with ONE thing about Bush and im labeled a worthless liberal spreading worthless liberal lies through the liberal news.
(i actually disagree with more than one, but yall dont know that)
get over yourselves. EVERYBODY. fuck you if youre liberal. fuck you if youre conservative. if youre too set in your own goddamn views that you can no longer see the truth without twisting it or labelling it as a lie because your party doesnt agree with it then i dont think you should vote.
clear and simple.
and im going to expand on that in a future post
peace
ikes apt (aka ise8)
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-15 11:22:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
** You left-wingers are only complaining and attacking, not providing answers, that's all you do.**
Anyone else see any answers in this statement? I sure as shit don't. I love it when people do exactly what they accuse other of doing.
Submitted by Random Joe at 2003-12-15 11:04:59 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You left-wingers are only complaining and attacking, not providing answers, that's all you do.
Submitted by Deisangua (user info) at 2003-12-15 08:35:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
No Comment
Submitted by ZeroSignal at 2003-12-15 08:19:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Saddam, however, hated us far more and had terrorists in his country who would gladly destroy us..."
This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Terrorism is everywhere! Every country has terrorists and some of them even have WMD. What is Bush doing about Pakistan? Or Isreal? Iran and Saudi Arabia are known for terrorism and both intend to aqquire nuclear weapons, and we still havent invaded them. If theres one thing I know, it's that NOBODY likes Americans. No matter where you go theres going to be terrorists that would love to destroy America, even in America. I'm tired of right-wingers playing the terrorism card.
Submitted by AlwaysAnEagle (user info) at 2003-12-15 07:51:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bingo, Grizzly!
Take care of home first...honestly I personally care much less about US citizens than those of other countries. It's important to work to benefit the international community, but a.) not by (unilaterally) attacking them based on over inflated to nonexistant charges, b.) not by worrying about everyone else's stuff. Every country needs to look internally first, before they can benefit the world as a whole...there's nothing more beneficial to the global community than stability. If you're not falling apart, no one has to worry about you.
Submitted by digsy (user info) at 2003-12-15 07:48:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OK you are full of shit.
Saying that Saddam gassing the Kurds is the same as Germany persecuting the Jews in WW2 is completely ignorant. For a start, he WILL be tried because he ordered it, and he WILL be tried because it happened under his rule, regardless of how long ago it was, just the same as fugitive Nazi war criminals are still tried to this day.
The ignorance of people like you makes me laugh. It's all president Bush's fault when some terrorists fly planes into the world trade center, as you argue he didn't try to prevent it. Well here he is trying to prevent anything of the kind happening in the future, and he gets slated for it.
Granted, the guy is a complete wanker, but you guys need to get your heads straight and decide who's side you are on.
Submitted by GrizzlyHunter62 (user info) at 2003-12-15 04:19:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Look, I'm not taking sides here, 'cause I'm not sure what caputring the bastard dictator will accopmlish, but let's be honest here:
Wouldn't all of America's men and women fighting overseas be better use patroling the boarders and ports? Then no one could attack us, and then no one could get in, and they'd be within shouting distance of their loved ones.
Chasing terrorists around the world is just an embelished game of Cat And Mouse. We'll never get the mouse, so why not just guard the home.
-1, 'cause this topic is so overdone, even if it has the new "WE GOT SADDAM!!!!" spin on it.
Submitted by C8H10N4O2 (user info) at 2003-12-15 02:02:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Saddam funded Al-Qaeda? Bull.
Whatever proof you have of that is probably just as forged as the "intelligence" documents that said Iraq was trying to get chemical grade uranium.
God Bless America, Selected/Fraudulent Intelligence, and Hali-Burton, since they're bending over every american while inflate oil prices and overcharge on contracts.
Submitted by C8H10N4O2 (user info) at 2003-12-15 01:56:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Spite: clearly you know very little about anything. I pray that you are not eligible to vote. You are the reason cults exist. You seem to be very passionate that Bush tells the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And that alone makes you a dangerous idiot.
Iraq did not hate America as much as you think it did. If you're associating Hussien with Bin Laden like every other jackass, then you should quit posting now. Those two hated each other and have nothing in common other than they are from the middle east. Hussien was a despot trying to control a country and have power using traditional dictatorial methods. Bin Laden is a twisted religious nut case trying to "free" the islamic world and better the region in a very extremist way.
The American media is not left. Just because they said something that went against your ignorance doesnt make them left at all. Watch CBC or BBC. That good news, and it is indeed left, but and far more unbiased. Did you know that the Bush administration prevented people that tradtionally picked up CBC signals from watching CBC when the "operation: iraqi freedom" started. So much for freedom of speech and media eh? Good thing theres no propoganda north of 60, thats all i can say.
And whoever said "operation: iraqi freedom" was for the benifet of the citizens was a moron. NO it wasnt. Just the name of that mission pisses me off because its just beggin for sympathy. The Iraqis didnt have it all THAT bad compared to other dicatorial nations!! Just because you cant confuse Kim Chong-Il with Bin Laden, doesnt make him any less "evil" y'know? Too bad there's dick all to exploit in North Korea. Then maybe this "American Imperialism" would "Liberate" a very very very impoverish nation.
I think I'll close on the WMD note, by saying there are none. And if there ever were any, it's because America gave them to Hussien when Iraq was fighting Iran. And CNN "reported" they found one old burnt trailer that nobody had touched for 20 years that was used for making chemical agents.... So *that* one trailer was the big threat that Saddam was gonna blow up America with eh? Iraq posed a big threat to America as a few of poor, tired, hungry eskimos with spears.
Submitted by ieuph (user info) at 2003-12-15 01:51:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Spite,
You're right that accidental deaths, suicide bombs and the like were included in both the civilian "count" and the military count, as they should be. I wasn't implying that all of those deaths were the because of the United States, I was simply saying that this "freedom" seems to be rather elusive for quite a few people and certainly was low on the priorities list of the Bush administration.
As far as the media, it all depends on what you think the numbers are saying. The number of US deaths (now at 317; total military at 456 see http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx) is certainly tragic, and whether someone dies from a helicopter crash or an accident, they deserve to be reported and mourned. Now perhaps you think that including those numbers clouds the reality of the situation, but I would disagree with you. Not all deaths within war are combat-related, just look at the recent discussion in mainstream news media of apparent suicides in Iraq. And certainly suicide bombs and other "retaliatory" (or whatever you want to call it) violence ought to be included as well in the costs of war.
Whether troop deaths or civilian deaths are the direct cause of US guns and bombs does not reduce culpability for being there in the first place; attempting to compare those deaths with those in CA is simply silly, we (obviously) ought to do something about those deaths as well. That doesn't excuse the ones in Iraq.
But I've digressed much, sorry about that.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-12-15 01:46:41 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
4thly- Links to Al-Qaeda (sp?) HAVE been found. Saddam WAS funding them. Read a newspaper such as the Liberal dominated Wall Street Journal.
Submitted by chipolatte (user info) at 2003-12-15 01:43:34 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Ignorance.
First off, it hasn't been a full year. 9 months, in fact.
2nd. It took this long to find Saddamm, it could take equally as long to find WMD.
3rd, there WAS an explicity purpose of freeing the Iraqi people stated at the beginning of the war. That is a fact, not an opinion. Bush SAID that in several speeches preceding the war.
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-15 01:02:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Once again...
That is far worse than (soldiers) in Iraq.
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-15 00:57:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Whoops, forgot information (update in brackets).
On average, five people die violent deaths in California [every day] alone.
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-15 00:55:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Hmmm... Ieuph, it seems that they included people killed in events such as car bombs. Is the U.S. to blame for this, too? I hate the media, it is very, very liberal; don't say otherwise.
Example: I want to know the true number of soldiers killed in action in Iraq, because it is less than you think. The death tolls include accidents. Why? Why is the British soldier who froze himself in a freezer on that list? Why is a man who drove his hummer of a cliff on that list? These are accidents, but you don't know by listening to the media because the worse a situation sounds, the better the story. If you listened to the media, you would think that all 420 some people (that number also includes foreign troops) were KIA. I would say that those lists are smaller than what they show. Really, how many were killed by soldiers, bombs, ect.?
On average, five people die violent deaths in California alone. That is far worse than in Iraq. But the media won't tell you that comparison, will it.
Submitted by ieuph (user info) at 2003-12-15 00:37:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-14 23:43:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
" Are you trying to tell me that Operation: Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do with liberating Iraq?"
You might be interested in something called "media spin." Bush and his administration have shown themselves to be rather adept at it; this is a case in point. Quite probably the liberation of Iraq was a motivating factor, out of many, many other ones. And it most certainly wasn't the primary one. If it were, would the US have used cluster bombs? Given away lucrative contracts to large US companies? Ignored peaceful solutions suggested by other nations? Surely the 7,935-9,766 Iraqi civilians who are dead don't feel very "free."
The stats (obviously a rather large range) are from www.iraqbodycount.net. Information on the methodology for this count is at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods
Submitted by ieuph (user info) at 2003-12-15 00:04:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
spot-on.
"Human rights violations in these countries [see post] are exponentially worse than they were in Iraq."
You could also add a long list of human rights violators and dictators that are currently supported by the US government.
"all these atrocities commited by Saddam that are quoted by our government (gas attacks, genocide, invading Kuwait etc.) were commited before the first Gulf War. To bring those things up would be, in my opinion, the same thing as today accusing Germany of mass chemical warfare."
But those are hardly analagous to one another; Saddam was in control of the government and armed forces (in general) both then and currently (to use current in a very loose sence). Certainly HE (though not Iraqi people by any means) is culpable for his actions. As are others who were in positions of power at that time. Though prehaps I miss your point.
Another point to note on this is the level of backing that Saddam's government was recieving from the US when the majority of these attrocities occurred. It's not like Saddam invaded Kuwait without the *tacit* approval (or at least acknowledged ambivalence) of the United States. Saddam may be a dictator, but he isn't suicidal.
"The largest thing that irks me is that now everybody is viewing the war as a success."
Indeed, although people were viewing it as a "success" long before this as well.
Submitted by Persecuted (user info) at 2003-12-14 23:43:42 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Are you trying to tell me that Operation: Iraqi Freedom had nothing to do with liberating Iraq?
Jackass.
Submitted by AlexTheSplendid (user info) at 2003-12-14 23:38:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
It's too bad we caught saddam --- He looked like Santa...
Submitted by IkesApt (user info) at 2003-12-14 21:42:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"stop crying over spilt milk"
i think its important to point out mistakes that were made so that when it's time to vote we make an informed decision...
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-14 21:25:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
ignore spite
Submitted by dakingisdead (user info) at 2003-12-14 21:23:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
It doesn't really matter any more why we went to war. Stop crying over spilt milk and start thinking about how we can manage to extricate ourselves from the mess somewhere in the next twenty years.....
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-14 21:09:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
IkesApt-
Quite simple. Think: Why would Korea declare that it had WMDs if it was going to use them? It wouldn't. It is just a political move, a political way of saying we have WMDs and we are not going to use them (hence why they declare it), but in a harsh tone to also mean, "Fuck off America." Openly asserting that you have WMDs boosts you up as a world power.
Saddam was doing this in secret. If New York goes up in one big mushroom cloud, we would have little way of telling who did it, other than terrorists which would probably lead to Saddam; the only difference with this scenario, is that it would be too late. I'm not saying that this would happen, but the chance of could is too strong to ignore.
And K.M.-
Sorry, that paragraph got out of order; WMDs were discussed at the end of it. And people over here often associate WMDs with chemical and biological weapons; after all they do create mass destruction, don't they? Don't assume too much.
Submitted by IkesApt (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:26:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And a plus 2 for me because I honestly don't think Spike meant to bring me down so much. I think he enjoyed my article. (well, if you enjoy arguing, anyway)
But how is it North Korea wants to get Nukes to be a world power, but Iraq wants Nukes to be a terrorist nation?
Who decided that?
Is there a quiz?
Or do you read minds
Submitted by K.M (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:21:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"About the WMD, first I would like to say that we did find weapons grade chemicals in Iraq, even CNN said that."
Some people are so fucking stupid it blows my mind.
Submitted by Prime (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:18:20 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
I must be drunk because it sounds like you are bitching about being lied to by a politician.
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:12:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ZeroSignal-
I have said this a million times: Korea has no initiative to use WMD, they just made them to up their position as a world power. Saddam, however, hated us far more and had terrorists in his country who would gladly destroy us...
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:10:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Spite please just stop being an idiot. No one is singing Saddamn's praises, but this has once again everyone JACK SHIT to do with 9/11. Show me where your boy said woo hoo let's go to war so we can give free dental care to Iraqi kids.
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:08:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, I don't mean to bomb you with -2s, but must also post this.
Loki, even your divine Howard Dean said that this was a good thing, shouldn't you get back to blindly following him? Oh well, he will probably change his decision in a week or two, like after 9/11, because the bastard can't do anything but hate Bush. Would make me wonder what he would do in office, if he had no one to spite... oh, wait, he has nothing but hatred for him!
Submitted by ZeroSignal at 2003-12-14 20:03:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Theres no way the war could have been about weapons either. Saddam never claimed to have WMD. North Korea claims they have nuclear weapons, and are we invading them? No. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia have displayed interest in obtaining atomics. Are we invading them? No! All this war could have been about is hiding the Enron scandal, Bush's shitty economy, and putting dollars in the pockets of the crooked leaders of the US (Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton!).
Submitted by IkesApt (user info) at 2003-12-14 20:03:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
The comment about the war being over is directed to all those who are saying "yay saddam is gone!"
I don't think your point are valid either.
Chemicals were found in Iraq?
What was it? Mustard gas? Nerve agent? Bleach? I've heard of no significant chemical weapon finds except for some brief mentions of industrial agents which, of course, are not used for weapons.
The trucks leaving compounds before inspections... sure, they could have been nuclear bombs. Prove it. Its more likely that's saddam trying to make it look like he has more power than he does.
Finally, He would have gone to any length to destroy America (or something like that?)
Theres no fact in that statement at all. What did he do to destroy America? He attacked us? He funded Al-Qaeda?
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-14 19:57:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Oh, yeah, and about the war not being over, Bush even said that himself, so I don't know what your trying to gain there.
Submitted by Spite (user info) at 2003-12-14 19:47:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
About the WMD, first I would like to say that we did find weapons grade chemicals in Iraq, even CNN said that. Besides, don't you remember? When we had weapon inspectors in Iraq, not only the inspectors themselves even the media told us that as soon as they would arrive at a suspected location, tarp covered trucks would exit the buildings. All of the time! These weapons are probably far away now, if they were there in the first place (I say "if" because there is a shred of doubt, but the evidence is in Bush's favor here). The inspectors failed.
"Yes, I know there is no more UN embargo. I know 'Saddam was keeping the country depressed'. But look at news articles on everyday Iraqis. Most of them say that they are experiencing more hardships now then they were under Hussein."
-Don't you know by now that if there were only two people in Iraq that were suffering worse conditions than before the media WOULD find them and interview them? The media is pessimistic, that's how they get a story.
"I am not even going into the claims that Iraq was sponsoring terrorism and helped the 9-11 attacks because anyone with a shred of common sense in them knows that its not true."
-Saddam hated America and would got to any lengths to harm us.
"So nothing has changed. NOTHING."
We eliminated the chance of him returning and being a further menace.
This is all I need to point out, to confute more would be to confute the entire article.
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-12-14 19:42:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
erps, I meant:
SNEEZEBARFBELCH COOOOUUUUGGGHHHH
Hahahaha
-Tom
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2003-12-14 19:39:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
please tell me you vote
Submitted by Tom (user info) at 2003-12-14 19:22:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
SNEEZEBARFBELCH COOOOUUUUGGGHHHH
Hahahaha
-Tom