Clinton

Post Reply
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Digby wrote:
rowan wrote: The statistics for casualties resulting from US wars and interventions since WWII, and specifically relating to Muslims since the beginning of the 1990s, were given by American sources themselves. However, exact figures would be nearly impossible to attain, partly because the US military doesn't do body counts on non-Americans. Your viewpoint nonetheless comes across as denialist.
You may be some distance from others agreeing all those wars are US wars, and too making any claim all those killed were in fact murdered by the Americans when it seems somewhat likely most were not killed by the Americans is attributing too much to the US.

If one simply wanted to claim the USA is spending a lot of money destabilising large areas of the world and ideally they'd cease doing that without simply pursuing an isolationist stance as an alternative then fair enough.
Obviously nobody is ever really going to know, since the Americans don't do body counts on non-Americans. So I'm only quoting what I read, and I have to say that, if anything, the figures seem fairly conservative to me, and could easily be much, much higher, especially if we include the fate of countless refugees who have been forced to flee from these conflicts.


US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II – Here’s How

Recently, the world commemorated another anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, which changed the world as we knew it, and has since, cast a terroristic haze over the planet. The War on Terror was engaged; the premise was a globally united citizen, freedom was under attack, “God Bless America.”

Admitting, in the famous Bush speech, to rally the world to a new war, he stated this:

“The Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941 [Pearl Harbour].”

It is with this quote that I bring the attention to the countless deaths over not 136 years, but only those since World War II, that the United States of America can be partially held culpable.

Proxy wars, particularly, hold some of the highest numbers; there is barely a nation where the U.S. has not permeated its military might through borders. Yes, wars are messy and incredibly complex. But it is important to recognize, that although Russia, China, North Korea and all the other nations accused of bloodshed are guilty in their own rights, the United States must share a large part of the responsibility.

One study, compiled by James A. Lucas, explains with hard evidence, 37 nations deeply affected by U.S. involvement. However, anyone with a history book can see for themselves that the self-proclaimed freedom fighter – the U.S. – is not all that it seems.

Afghanistan and Russia

Most are familiar with the ‘Mujahadeen’ name. It conjures up Russians, war, and the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan.

What a lot don’t know is how the proxy war came about, or that Afghanistan – a secular nation at the time – was friendly with its Russian neighbors.

So what happened?

In 1998, Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted to a CIA-instigated battle which saw 12,000 deaths in Afghanistan directly attributed to the United States. The Carter administration, at the time, had agreed to provide “secret aid” to rebels wanting to overthrow the pro-Soviet regime. Well aware that providing this aid would create a Soviet military intervention, the act was signed off.

In Brzezinski’s words in 1998, “Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it?”

6 billion dollars later and a 10-year war, over a million were reported dead.

Zbigniew Brzezinski happily admitted to CIA involvement to lure in the Soviet Union.

There are smaller nations, less notable in the history books, but equally devastated by the overthrows, coups and interventions that took place, courtesy of the United States.

Angola’s civil war lasted 26 years, with a reported 300,000 to 750,000 dead, depending on the literature you read.

It was reported that Kissinger had claimed that the US had to intervene in Angola because “the Soviet Union was already providing military aid to the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA) in the form of Cuban troops.” It was, years later, discovered that he lied and that the Soviet Union was very reluctant to become involved in Angola, in the first place.

Chad saw around 40,000 killed and over 200,000 tortured after the CIA assisted Hissen Habre into power in 1982.

Then there is the famous CIA intervention with Chile’s elections and Salvador Allende, who became elected president. On Sept. 11, 1973, Allende either suicided or was assassinated. General Augusto Pinochet rose to power in 1974 – much to Henry Kissinger’s approval, and thousands were murdered, tortured or simply disappeared.

In the 1960s the Dominican Republic witnessed 3,000 deaths after a CIA coup overthrew Juan Bosch. When the citizens tried to reelect the man, the U.S. invaded with 22,000 military.

Chilean President Salvador Allende, flanked by body guards during the coup on 11 September 1973. Later that day, Allende was reported dead.

The Korean War? The “U.S. dropped 650,000 tons of bombs, including 43,000 napalm bombs.” Fatalities stand anywhere between a few hundred thousand to 4.5 million for the Koreans and Chinese, depending on the literature read.

The Vietnam War? If you include Laos, where an estimated 200,000 died from U.S. bombs, it bumps up the already 5.1 million deaths estimated by the Vietnam government – but just a little bit.

Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge? Millions were slaughtered after the U.S. left the country in tatters, providing a vacuum of power for Pol Pot’s psychopathic tendencies.

Or we could focus on the pivotal role the U.S. played in placing General Suharto as leader of Indonesia after the East Timor atrocities of 1975, leaving over a quarter of the population dead. That was Gerald Ford and Kissinger’s handy work, providing Suharto with American arms…

In 1991 it happened again, with East Timorese protesters in Dili gunned down by Suharto’s military.

Notably, we can’t forget the Iraq Wars, post sanctions: “excessive deaths among children” under 5 stand at 227,000 with a real estimate closer to 350,000, according to some statisticians. Let me say that again: Quarter of a million children under 5. Dead.

In Conclusion…

As one goes through statistics like these, it becomes increasingly difficult to remain impartial.

Did the past wars create the build up to the 9/11 tragedy?

I don’t say it lightly; the victims of that time, and all the innocent civilians caught up in America’s wrath since Bush’s War on Terror commenced, have suffered greatly. Everyone since, is suffering.

Stepping into civil wars, instigating coups, disrupting functional regimes, baiting nations into proxy wars…how did 9/11 not happen sooner?


http://anonhq.com/war-on-terror-lest-we ... oup-detat/
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

So basically the US didn't kill most of those people, and rather are involved in influencing actions like a great many others
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Interesting . . .

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
WaspInWales
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm

Re: Clinton

Post by WaspInWales »

rowan wrote:I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.
I didn't watch the debate but could some of those questions which you say were not asked of Clinton, could've been asked to Trump too...especially the support of the Iraq invasion? Trump has gone on record before to say he supported the invasion, only to change his tune when public opinion started to change. He is a fuckwit of the highest order. This is not an endorsement of Clinton who is morally deranged.

Anyway, gonna try to watch the debate later today to form more of an informed opinion, just wanted to point the above out.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

Trump simply continues his lunacy by it would seem trying to say his bad answers were down to getting the wrong questions, which given a president can expect the odd unexpected event is perhaps a questionable defensive play on Trump's part.

Yes there could have been different questions, but frankly he could've had much worse thrown at him.
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Well, if you're going to interrogate one candidate on war more than the other it should be the one who officially supported the invasion of Iraq and oversaw the destruction of Libya as Secretary of State, and not the one who might have said this or might have said that at any particularly time.

Don't let that lead you to support for Trump, however. I've stated all along I only regard him as an actor playing a role.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
WaspInWales
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm

Re: Clinton

Post by WaspInWales »

40 minutes in...Trump is a fucking idiot. Clinton comfortably ahead so far. Articulate, reasoned and pretty clear.

Trump's hand gestures and promises without actually giving any policies is just insane but for some daft reason, some Americans love it. I can't understand his complaints about how he was treated during the debate but he has constantly butted in and made remarks when it wasn't his turn to do so. The constant denials of what he has previously said is ridiculous as it's easy to check the truth.

If I were an undecided US voter with no pre-conceptions of either candidate, I'd definitely be leaning towards Clinton. As it is, I'm an outsider looking in and I'm astounded that these two fucktards are the best people a nation of over 300 million in population can come up with to lead them!
WaspInWales
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm

Re: Clinton

Post by WaspInWales »

Trump on Iran:
I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day, believe me, he's not a happy camper
Wonder what else Donald can help Bibi with?
WaspInWales
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:46 pm

Re: Clinton

Post by WaspInWales »

I just don't get Trump's repeated denials to comments he has previously made. It's easy to check the truth and his denials about Iraq, Libya and a host of other issues just make him look like a lying cunt. A competent politician will sidestep, divert, deflect these kind of questions but Trump just straight up lies about it.
User avatar
Eugene Wrayburn
Posts: 2308
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: Clinton

Post by Eugene Wrayburn »

rowan wrote:I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.
Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

NS. Gone but not forgotten.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

WaspInWales wrote:Trump on Iran:
I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day, believe me, he's not a happy camper
Wonder what else Donald can help Bibi with?
Well if the $40bn military aid package isn't enough maybe Trump can get him a place on Celebrity Apprentice
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
rowan wrote:I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.
Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.
No, it would simply make me a racist apologist for her war crimes if I didn't loathe her. That's very clear.

I also loathe G W Bush and Tony Blair and have come to despise Obama as well - not because I'm racist, only a racist apologist for warcrimes themselves would come to that conclusion, but because he's a war criminal.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

rowan wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
rowan wrote:I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.
Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.
No, it would simply make me a racist apologist for her war crimes if I didn't loathe her. That's very clear.
On a list of say 500 people most responsible for the current mess in the middle east where would you be placing Hillary Clinton?

I don't doubt the current situation is making you very angry, but it does also seem an odd target to pick on. There have been 4 Secretaries of State since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, the Secretaries of State are by no means the strongest voice in such actions, the main decisions all took place years before Hillary arrived on the scene, and it's just one government office of the many offices of the many governments involved.

It'd be akin to looking at the resignation of Fat Sam from the England football job and seeking to put the blame on Karen Brady.
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Digby wrote:
rowan wrote:
Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.
No, it would simply make me a racist apologist for her war crimes if I didn't loathe her. That's very clear.
On a list of say 500 people most responsible for the current mess in the middle east where would you be placing Hillary Clinton?

I don't doubt the current situation is making you very angry, but it does also seem an odd target to pick on. There have been 4 Secretaries of State since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, the Secretaries of State are by no means the strongest voice in such actions, the main decisions all took place years before Hillary arrived on the scene, and it's just one government office of the many offices of the many governments involved.

It'd be akin to looking at the resignation of Fat Sam from the England football job and seeking to put the blame on Karen Brady.
Firstly, it's topical. There's an election going on right now, in case you didn't happen to notice it, and even though I don't personally think it has any credibility, it is something I am reading about every day.

Secondly, it is the defense of Hillary Clinton and excuse-making for her war crimes that is itself sexist. Nobody would get upset if I were ranting on about Bush, Blair, Cheney, or Rumsfield. They might play the racist card if I were banging on about Obama, yes, but they would be wrong. I was the guy's biggest fan when he came to office. But if he were running for office now I'd been on his case big time.

Thirdly, what really gets my goat about this current election is how an obvious actor is being used to make the democratic nominee look good. You ask where I would rate her in terms of responsibility, and I would have to say very highly, due to the fact she was Secretary of State at the time of the Libyan invasion, due to the fact she is deeply involved in arms sales negotiations with the Saudis, and due to the adamant support I have heard her giving to Israel while trying to blackmail opponents of the regime into silence with claims of 'anti-Semitism.'

Finally, it is totally ridiculous that I even have to explain all this and field accusations from those who would wish to silence others in their criticisms of an undeniable war criminal who is currently running for the presidency of the most powerful nation on the planet, and who is being ushered in as supposedly the 'lesser of two evils' in this childish charade.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

If you're going to get het up about her support for war mongering given she's now running for office it might be an idea of have a take on and feel for just how responsible she is. And when her opponent has come out with many barking ideas, and too is a (these days) member of the more militaristic of the two main parties why one would get so worked up about questions being sexist in not focusing on just one candidate isn't clear, unless we just suppose such vexations stem from sexism.
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

I made my observations about the biased nature of the questioning during the opening round of the debate. In fact, I was commenting on an analysis of the debate and actually agreeing with the observations made therein. Trying to blackmail people into silence on a current election in the world's most powerful country is a cowardly, narrow-minded tactic designed to stifle freedom of opinion. It is also extremely sexist to try and defend an undeniable war criminal of criticism of her war crimes simply because she is a woman, because you know as well as I do that you would not play the gender card to get the likes of Bush or Blair off the hook. It is your view, therefore, which is sexist, and that is because you have been educated to think in sexist terms.This is an election, it gets down and dirty, the gloves are off, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Simple as that.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
User avatar
Eugene Wrayburn
Posts: 2308
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: Clinton

Post by Eugene Wrayburn »

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

NS. Gone but not forgotten.
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Exactly, you've been brainwashed by propaganda. Why do you think they chose Hillary Clinton? Why do you think they chose Barack Obama? So that they could carry on with their mass-murdering antics in the Middle East and then accuse anyone who criticizes them of racism and now sexism. And you guys are so dumb you actually buy into this.

So we can hate Bush and we can hate Blair, but we must not hate Hillary Clinton, we must praise her every move or else we are sexists. Never mind the fact she voted for a genocidal war (that I myself actively protested against), don't worry about the fact that as Secretary of State she oversaw the invasion of Libya and murder of its leader - which she laughed about, don't worry about her deals with the Saudis, her blind support for Israel nor her backing for a murderous dictatorship in Honduras. If anyone criticizes her just blackmail them into silence with childish accusations; just as the Israelis still try to blackmail their critics into silence with the term 'anti-Semitism.'

You have walked straight into the trap the American government has laid out for you. Doh!
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

I wasn't making any attempt to defend the actions of Bush or Blair on the basis of their sex, nor was I doing so for Clinton. What I thought was odd was your seeming concern that someone who served as SoS for Obama's first term, and Obama basically being against major moves on the international scene, draws such concern from you when there are much bigger players at work than Clinton, there have been much bigger events which took place outside her tenure as SoS, and to place her front and centre of your opprobrium and claim her not getting questioned in sufficiently harsh manner warrants claiming the questions were sexist.
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Digby wrote:I wasn't making any attempt to defend the actions of Bush or Blair on the basis of their sex, nor was I doing so for Clinton. What I thought was odd was your seeming concern that someone who served as SoS for Obama's first term, and Obama basically being against major moves on the international scene, draws such concern from you when there are much bigger players at work than Clinton, there have been much bigger events which took place outside her tenure as SoS, and to place her front and centre of your opprobrium and claim her not getting questioned in sufficiently harsh manner warrants claiming the questions were sexist.
You obviously don't understand what's been going on, that's why. Anyway, it's an election. If I cannot criticize one of the candidates, who I have very good reasons for opposing, then I must discontinue my participation in this thread. The reason being that I object to this kind of tactic, which is not about the election or the candidates at all, but simply a shoot the messenger approach.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

rowan wrote:Exactly, you've been brainwashed by propaganda. Why do you think they chose Hillary Clinton? Why do you think they chose Barack Obama? So that they could carry on with their mass-murdering antics in the Middle East and then accuse anyone who criticizes them of racism and now sexism. And you guys are so dumb you actually buy into this.

So we can hate Bush and we can hate Blair, but we must not hate Hillary Clinton, we must praise her every move or else we are sexists. Never mind the fact she voted for a genocidal war (that I myself actively protested against), don't worry about the fact that as Secretary of State she oversaw the invasion of Libya and murder of its leader - which she laughed about, don't worry about her deals with the Saudis, her blind support for Israel nor her backing for a murderous dictatorship in Honduras. If anyone criticizes her just blackmail them into silence with childish accusations; just as the Israelis still try to blackmail their critics into silence with the term 'anti-Semitism.'

You have walked straight into the trap the American government has laid out for you. Doh!
It still seems barking mad to me that someone is choosing Hillary to be the poster child for war, or at least some specific wars. Okay post 9/11 she speaks very differently on foreign interventions and probably thinks quite differently about it too, but there'd be many more pro war candidates who'd be more easily elected than Hillary to get behind.

Somehow you seem to think someone who can't even keep their emails secure is involved in and behind what would have to be one of the largest and most complex frauds ever undertaken. And there's just no way such an undertaking wouldn't involve a huge number of people, and with that many people involved it would've gotten out by now, somebody always talks. It'd just be so much easier to find a Democrat who was for example from Florida and a former General and get them elected than it would be Hillary, it'd be a lot cheaper too.
Digby
Posts: 13436
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 11:17 am

Re: Clinton

Post by Digby »

rowan wrote:
Digby wrote:I wasn't making any attempt to defend the actions of Bush or Blair on the basis of their sex, nor was I doing so for Clinton. What I thought was odd was your seeming concern that someone who served as SoS for Obama's first term, and Obama basically being against major moves on the international scene, draws such concern from you when there are much bigger players at work than Clinton, there have been much bigger events which took place outside her tenure as SoS, and to place her front and centre of your opprobrium and claim her not getting questioned in sufficiently harsh manner warrants claiming the questions were sexist.
You obviously don't understand what's been going on, that's why. Anyway, it's an election. If I cannot criticize one of the candidates, who I have very good reasons for opposing, then I must discontinue my participation in this thread. The reason being that I object to this kind of tactic, which is not about the election or the candidates at all, but simply a shoot the messenger approach.
Criticise away. Just don't perhaps anyone to take you all that seriously, not that I suspect anyone takes anyone that seriously on here.
User avatar
rowan
Posts: 7750
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Location: Istanbul

Re: Clinton

Post by rowan »

Sure, Digby, the poor helpless little female didn't have a clue what was going on around her - in your opinion...



G W Bush didn't have a clue either, but I'd still rate him the biggest war criminal since Hitler :evil:
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Post Reply