The online racing simulator
America now invading Africa.....
(67 posts, started )
I don't mean to derail the original topic, but how can you have mixed feelings about illegal aliens?
They are living and exploited like slave labor. It will be better for everyone (except greedy crooks and politicians) when the laws are respected, and immigration + employment done according to the rules.
In so far as immigration, I have no problem with immigration from Central America, in fact I think it is UNAmerican to deny it.

On one hand, I can see exactly why people from Mexico and Central America come here in droves; America still is the land of opportunity, whereas in my opinion, and from what I see, Mexico has a caste system of sorts. Now, if you are Mexican and poor, if the opportunity came about that you could get across the border and work for $15,000 or less a year, but be better off than living in Mexico, would you do it?

Oh, HELL yes! Personally, I think the Mexican / US border is a sort of political safety valve of sorts. I am willing to bet that if the US built a 20 foot, impenetrable wall across the border, a political revolution would incur in Mexico. And maybe it should be done, because on the other hand...

Why should America inherit problems that Mexico should be fixing themselves? And also why the lax immagration policys? My ancestors came from Denmark and Norway the legal way, and they were no better off than the average illegal Mexican immigrant. One side of my wifes family all immigrated to the US form Mexico legally...

The laws of immigration need to be changed. Make it easier to immigrate legally, and make it virtually undesirable to immigrate illegally, because right now it is completely the opposite.

Damn politicians...liberals want them for votes and to exploit them as victims, and conservatives want them for cheap labor (and who doesnt?) and support our capitalist country, which make no mistake, I am all for. But there must be a better way...
Quote from XCNuse :hell africans need to be safe have you seen life there??? look around every corner and every kid has a damn gun, its scary as anything!
they need to freaking calm down, so many people are killed in africa every day it makes the war on terror a joke

You can't really generalise Africa as one big area - I lived 10 years in Senegal and never saw a single gun. Although Senegal is quite a peaceful country, I suppose most of Mauritania, Mali, Morocco, Burkina Faso, Algeria etc. are quite the same.
eh.. okay so you took it the wrong way, i dont mean everywhere, but "we" (i still haven't heard anything about this by the way) are only going into the regions that need the help (obviously)
Quote from Breizh :I don't mean to derail the original topic, but how can you have mixed feelings about illegal aliens?
They are living and exploited like slave labor. It will be better for everyone (except greedy crooks and politicians) when the laws are respected, and immigration + employment done according to the rules.

LOL traction control... what did Charlie Gordon get?

Uh yeah, it's hard to explain cause I pretty much see it and deal with it on the ground level. It used to be this "acceptable" problem. It's not all a bunch of desparate people locked in a rail car somewhere. It's not always a factory full of people that are willing to work under Carnegie conditions so the manufacturers could sell whatever it is they got cheaper than the next guy and STILL be able to afford that yacht.
There are people here in my neighborhood that aren't here legally, they pretty much came and went throughout the years and their families have been doing so for generations. Probably even since before the formation of certain states. Ok they'd come here and pretty much do odd jobs here and there. Maybe make enough to get a car and a TV. & go back south. well they have friends and relatives here that are here legally. they show back up later, them or one of their cousins and do the same odd jobs again and go back with money for who knows cattle feed or barbed wire. I don't see where these people are really doing anything detrimental at all.
But now, especially post 9-11, things have gotten completely outta hand.
I don't know how many times I've heard in the news where some illegal alien, driving drunk, has taken out a family. And not only that, but it was like their second or third DUI and they wasn't deported after the first one!!!
And more and more people coming across, not for economic reasons as much as running from the law. I also can't stand those little labor stalls
or going to certain convience stores on my way to work in the mornings to be mobbed by a bunch a losers smelling like piss and beer wanting to know how many guys I need when all i really wanted was a pepsi.
Also, the summer before last, there was this "safehouse" in my neighborhood. the local gangbangers wanted their cut and wasn't getting it. they responded by spraying the house with gunfire. no one got hurt. I don't even think it made the news here.
That in a nutshell, is how I can have mixed feelings about it
It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. I don't see the ambiguity.
well you asked how I could have mixed feelings and that's why.
I didn't say anything about it right or wrong. And I didn't say it was all fine and wonderful and it should be left alone.
But then again, a fence ain't gonna work, and some sort of mass roundup would be the equivalent to economic suicide. A "temporary worker" permit would be a red-tape nightmare. Enforcing current laws to a "T" would also be shooting ourselves in the foot. We're kinda screwed on this.

I Got it!!! Why didn't I think of this before???

The Social Security Card Rental Act. Where by an individual can "sponsor" an illegal alien. The alien pays a fee to use the person's card to that person. The owner of the card is responsible for paying the Social Security on their taxes that the illegal alien generates thru annual income. The Alien is responsible for finding his own employment, shelter, food and internet.
and has to reapply after each phiscal year.
The illegal has like 90days to do this and report all activity, like how we supposedly make sex offenders do. If they fail to do so, they are locked up in a private prison and do labor that is contracted from the garment industry.
Now the cardholder will have to set the fee up high enough to anticipate what the renter will make in earnings to make a profit. hmm... maybe be able rent out multiple accounts. Think about it! we won't have to work any more!
This idea is almost perfect.
some of these people pay coyotes like 1500 a piece to get across, they then pay up to 200 for a SSC. I think they would gladly pay someone $500 or 600 dollars even 1000 to be able to stay here one year. And they can pretty much set their own work conditions by simply being an organized entity Employers can't just simply exploit them because then they are messing with the Government and could get nailed for fraud and tax evasion. In their home countries there could be Foreign Worker's health insurance offered where available. If not, they have the healthcare automatically deducted from paychecks.

Yeah I know. there are some many holes in this... but wouldn't it be cool?

By the way, What does Charlie Gordon get?
some sort of mass roundup would be the equivalent to economic suicide. A "temporary worker" permit would be a red-tape nightmare.
No, and certainly no worse than a massively unregulated swarm of parasites, like now.

Enforcing current laws to a "T" would also be shooting ourselves in the foot.
No, it'd mean everything would be as it should be.
Laws are not meant to be followed.. that's a good one.

We're kinda screwed on this." .. As long as politicians are so crooked.

By the way, What does Charlie Gordon get?
Burnt rubber?
um. we have 12 million illegals that are willing to be counted as such.
Just using common sense, I think that is just the tip of the Iceberg.
There may be as many as twice that much.
I don't favor the Guest worker program because of simply where to draw the line. Also, I feel that loop holes would be created all thru it and social services and the welfare system would be burdened way more than what it is. Also I see all kinds of lawsuits resulting as well. Like How come Guatemala is allowed to have so many temp visas while Nicaragua only gets so many... those kinds of suits.
You draw the line that best benefits the economy.

Loop holes bigger than the ones that've let those 12M+ through already?
You "feel", but don't have any hard facts to base it on? That's just blind speculation, then.
The simple math of it is that all the negative side effects of the illegal population would disappear (DUI hit and runs, ER clogging, ID theft, voting fraud, trash in the streets, etc), and all the positive side effects of a respectable portion of that population residing and being employed legaly would remain, and in fact, be improved, if only because they'd actually follow the laws and unburden the system, rather than dodge them and add to the overhead.

Lawsuits because your country hasn't got the same quota as others? Are you serious? Why not lawsuits because green card lottery quotas of a certain year aren't advantageous to one country or another?
Frivolous lawsuits aren't an immigration or guest workforce problem, they're a stuck on stupid problem by lawsuit-happy unhappy people.
And if Us does invade Africa; as of now we are suffering from inflation and will go for broke and borrow money from countries we can't evn spell. USA is dumb esp. Gw bush is he is gonna take every goddamn us citizens down with him
lol you really have no idea what you're talking about do you?

1: every country is suffering from inflation... all the time, its a constant problem and will never end or stop
2: every country "borrows" money, and its not even money at that, its goods and services, so really.. it doesn't matter because every country just about is in debt anywho
3: i think its countries... just you can't spell
4: US isn't that dumb or else no one would be immigrating here
5: well besides your repeat incase you didn't notice, Bush isn't going anywhere but out (and thats because he has to because he's on his 2nd term), but once again that isn't the problem
Quote from anik360 :And if Us does invade Africa; as of now we are suffering from inflation and will go for broke and borrow money from countries we can't evn spell. USA is dumb esp. Gw bush is he is gonna take every goddamn us citizens down with him

Uhhh..yeah. I suggest taking up a course in civics and economics, and after completing both, reread your statement.

I am old enough to remember that Ronald Regan was lambasted for all the woes of the United States, I remember when he told Gorbachev to "tear down that wall!" Well, you can imagine some left leaning folks got in a tizzy about that, and seriously thought World War 3 was going to happen with nukes. Same with George Bush Senior. Yet, Bill Clinton comes along, and all is well with the world. Same with Jimmy Carter, the same Jimmy Carter who left America in 1980 with double digit inflation and out of control, failed social programs...and he is hoisted up as a hero! For anyone reading who is American, ask your parents about being employed from 1980-1982.

My memories are based from media resources, and again I have to stress to individuals who live outside North America, just how biased the American media is toward left wing (liberal) politics.

And that is why I rely on other sources of objective truth rather than the mainstream media. And truth be known, if the American media was biased to right wing politics, I would hold the same opinion. It seems to me, that the American media has an agenda; and that would be alright if they declared as much. But instead, both sides lie to the consumer of news and claim to be "objective".
Quote from Breizh :You draw the line that best benefits the economy.

Loop holes bigger than the ones that've let those 12M+ through already?
You "feel", but don't have any hard facts to base it on? That's just blind speculation, then.
The simple math of it is that all the negative side effects of the illegal population would disappear (DUI hit and runs, ER clogging, ID theft, voting fraud, trash in the streets, etc), and all the positive side effects of a respectable portion of that population residing and being employed legaly would remain, and in fact, be improved, if only because they'd actually follow the laws and unburden the system, rather than dodge them and add to the overhead.

Lawsuits because your country hasn't got the same quota as others? Are you serious? Why not lawsuits because green card lottery quotas of a certain year aren't advantageous to one country or another?
Frivolous lawsuits aren't an immigration or guest workforce problem, they're a stuck on stupid problem by lawsuit-happy unhappy people.

So much for invading Africa....

I have to say "feel" because I lack the intelligence to put all the "hard facts" into a proper perspective that would make sense in this thread.
So I say "feel" to get out of that problem (a loophole )
And the Lawsuits? Of course I'm serious about that. And the "green card lottery quotas of a certain year aren't advantageous to one country or another?" LOL Dude, don't be giving them any ideas. As ridiculous as that may sound to you, it would most likely be a stark reality. And because of partisan politics and influence peddling (think PAC for the Gov't of Belize or somewhere) it would be a constant. If I'm not mistaken, didn't some group of illegals sue or attempt to sue the state of Arizona for not providing enough water relief stations in the desert or something? I know here in Texas, a deputy sheriff got sued for criminal negligence for shooting at fleeing illegals that almost ran him down. He got charged with a felony too.
So if that kind of nonsense is happening now, then....... yeah, I see alot of lawsuits. Frivolous or not.
LOL Just build yourself a bunker That way you don't even have to pretend to have any sovereignty in your own country!
Whatever you do, there will always be frivolous lawsuits, and other assorted BS, like you admit yourself. So why even account for them in what you (supposedly would) do?
They will happen anyway. The only stark reality would be judges not knowing better and giving credence to those cases.
Here's a bit more information for those who are interested, especially as our favorite terrorist group have just become active in the area.


It is sincerely mysterious how “al-Qaeda” has a knack of showing up in places targeted by the neocons. For instance, Africa, in particular Somalia and, more recently, Algeria. “Terrorist bomb attacks in Algeria yesterday show al-Qaeda and its allies pose a ‘very real threat’ in North Africa, the U.S. State Department said,” reports Bloomberg. “Al-Qaeda is a ‘current and persistent’ threat in the region, department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington yesterday…. Islamic militants are becoming more active in North Africa, particularly in the Maghreb region of Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria where they have joined forces with al-Qaeda.”

“AFRICOM came into being shortly before the United States used the Ethiopian armed forces, supported by US air power and small teams of special forces, to destabilize the Islamic Courts Union which had stabilized of most of Somalia and, for the first time in years, brought a semblance of normalcy to the country,” writes Matthew Good. “U.S. Special Forces accompanied the Ethiopian Army when it stormed across the border in late December to support the besieged and isolated Transitional Federal Government (TFG). The United States also provided the Ethiopians with “up-to-date intelligence on the military positions of the Islamist fighters in Somalia,” Pentagon and counterterrorism officials told The New York Times,” adds Conn Hallinan, writing for Foreign Policy In Focus. “The ostensible reason for U.S. participation in the invasion was the ICU’s supposed association with al-Qaida, a charge that has never been substantiated. U.S. warplanes and ships shelled and rocketed parts of southern Somalia where, according to Oxfam and the UN Refugee Center, 70 civilians died and more than 100 were wounded.”
Hallinan continues:
The White House’s plans for Africa, which reach far beyond the Horn, are part of a general militarization of U.S. foreign policy. A recent congressional report found that “some embassies have effectively become command posts, with military personnel in those countries all but supplanting the role of ambassadors in conducting American foreign policy.” The United States is already pouring $500 million into its Trans-Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative that embraces Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria in North Africa, and nations boarding the Sahara including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, and Senegal. A major U.S. base in Djibouti houses some 1,800 troops and played an important role in the Somali invasion.
With Africa expected to provide a quarter of all U.S. oil imports by 2015, a major focus of AFRICOM will be the Gulf of Guinea. The gulf countries of Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, and the Congo Republic all possess enormous oil reserves. Some of them are plagued by exactly the kind of “instability” that AFRICOM was created to address.
It hardly comes as a surprise the usual suspects are behind AFRICOM, most notably Elliot Abrams, yet another Iran-Contra criminal. Abrams is not only a schoolbook version of a neocon—hooked up with PNAC, CSP, the American Jewish Committee, and the Hudson Institute—but he is also a former member of the Council on Foreign Relations, thus demonstrating once again the kissing cousin aspect between neocon and neolib. As the Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy at the National Security Council and point person on Israel, it is an understatement to declare Abrams has pull.
“In 2002 he was appointed senior director of Near East and North African Affairs, just as the Bush Administration began basing troops in Djibouti on the strategic Horn of Africa,” writes Conn Hallinan elsewhere. “Some of those forces took part in the recent invasion of Somalia. Abrams also helped launch the Trans-Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative that has drawn a number of countries in North Africa and areas bordering the Sahara into a web of military alliances.”
And, of course, military alliances are pointless without strife and conflict, thus the fortuitous “al-Qaeda” attack on Algerian PM Abdelaziz Belkhadem’s office and a police station in the suburbs of Algiers. “Al-Jazeera television reported yesterday that a man identifying himself as al-Qaeda’s spokesman in North Africa called the station’s Rabat bureau to say the group carried out the bombings,” Bloomberg informs us. “The attacks come before Algeria’s May 17 parliamentary elections, and after a week of gun battles in coastal mountains between security forces and the GSPC, or Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, Algeria’s largest remaining Islamic guerrilla group which is closely allied to al-Qaeda.”
“Collusion between the GSPC and al-Qaeda is not a new phenomenon,” the CFR explains. “According to a report by Emily Hunt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Osama bin Laden provided funding for Algerian Islamists in the early 1990s and was involved in the GSPC’s early formation. Many of the group’s founding members trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The GSPC declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda as early as 2003, but al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahari, officially approved GSPC’s merger in a videotape released on September 11, 2006. The GSPC claimed responsibility for February 2007 attacks against Algerian police stations under its new name.”
A bit of clarification is required: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was established to expand AIPAC’s control over U.S. foreign policy, as its founding director, Martin Indyk, is the onetime research director of AIPAC, and WINEP’s methodical process of foreign policy colonization began during the Clinton years.
As for Afghanistan, a well-read ninth grader will tell you that’s where “al-Qaeda” was formulated out of selected Mujahideen remnants (i.e., the “Afghan Arabs”), the result of a well-honed collaboration between the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI.
Thus, when the CFR and WINEP tell us “Osama bin Laden provided funding for Algerian Islamists” and “Ayman al-Zawahari … officially approved GSPC’s merger,” we can rest assured this relationship was not engineered in a cave or hovel located somewhere in Pakistan’s wild frontier.
Naturally, the GSPC, teamed up with “al-Qaeda,” is a threat to white people far and wide. “Analysts point to thwarted attacks in France and several arrests of GSPC-linked groups as evidence the group is capable of attacks in Western Europe. Authorities arrested a London-based GSPC militant who conspired to launch a chemical attack, and arrested four members of a GSPC cell in Frankfurt for possession of chemicals and arms,” the CFR warns.
And thus the “al-Qaeda” threat keeps on rolling, out of the Middle East and right into the midst of Africa, where there happens to be no shortage of strategic minerals and such. Of course, for the neocons, the mineral wealth of Africa is secondary to making certain Muslims are demonized far and wide and making sure the WOT has a very long shelf life, maybe a hundred years or more.
Obviously, there is no shortage of “bad guys,” that is to say useful patsies and dupes, and Africa is their new designated stomping ground, within convenient striking range of Europe from Algeria, Morocco, and the entire Maghreb north of the Sahara Desert and west of the Nile.
Quote from Racer X NZ :Here's a bit more information for those who are interested, especially as our favorite terrorist group have just become active in the area.


It is sincerely mysterious how “al-Qaeda” has a knack of showing up in places targeted by the neocons. For instance, Africa, in particular Somalia and, more recently, Algeria. “Terrorist bomb attacks in Algeria yesterday show al-Qaeda and its allies pose a ‘very real threat’ in North Africa, the U.S. State Department said,” reports Bloomberg. “Al-Qaeda is a ‘current and persistent’ threat in the region, department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington yesterday…. Islamic militants are becoming more active in North Africa, particularly in the Maghreb region of Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria where they have joined forces with al-Qaeda.”

“AFRICOM came into being shortly before the United States used the Ethiopian armed forces, supported by US air power and small teams of special forces, to destabilize the Islamic Courts Union which had stabilized of most of Somalia and, for the first time in years, brought a semblance of normalcy to the country,” writes Matthew Good. “U.S. Special Forces accompanied the Ethiopian Army when it stormed across the border in late December to support the besieged and isolated Transitional Federal Government (TFG). The United States also provided the Ethiopians with “up-to-date intelligence on the military positions of the Islamist fighters in Somalia,” Pentagon and counterterrorism officials told The New York Times,” adds Conn Hallinan, writing for Foreign Policy In Focus. “The ostensible reason for U.S. participation in the invasion was the ICU’s supposed association with al-Qaida, a charge that has never been substantiated. U.S. warplanes and ships shelled and rocketed parts of southern Somalia where, according to Oxfam and the UN Refugee Center, 70 civilians died and more than 100 were wounded.”
Hallinan continues:
The White House’s plans for Africa, which reach far beyond the Horn, are part of a general militarization of U.S. foreign policy. A recent congressional report found that “some embassies have effectively become command posts, with military personnel in those countries all but supplanting the role of ambassadors in conducting American foreign policy.” The United States is already pouring $500 million into its Trans-Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative that embraces Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria in North Africa, and nations boarding the Sahara including Mauritania, Niger, Mali, Mauritania, Chad, and Senegal. A major U.S. base in Djibouti houses some 1,800 troops and played an important role in the Somali invasion.
With Africa expected to provide a quarter of all U.S. oil imports by 2015, a major focus of AFRICOM will be the Gulf of Guinea. The gulf countries of Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Angola, and the Congo Republic all possess enormous oil reserves. Some of them are plagued by exactly the kind of “instability” that AFRICOM was created to address.
It hardly comes as a surprise the usual suspects are behind AFRICOM, most notably Elliot Abrams, yet another Iran-Contra criminal. Abrams is not only a schoolbook version of a neocon—hooked up with PNAC, CSP, the American Jewish Committee, and the Hudson Institute—but he is also a former member of the Council on Foreign Relations, thus demonstrating once again the kissing cousin aspect between neocon and neolib. As the Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Democracy Strategy at the National Security Council and point person on Israel, it is an understatement to declare Abrams has pull.
“In 2002 he was appointed senior director of Near East and North African Affairs, just as the Bush Administration began basing troops in Djibouti on the strategic Horn of Africa,” writes Conn Hallinan elsewhere. “Some of those forces took part in the recent invasion of Somalia. Abrams also helped launch the Trans-Sahel Counterterrorism Initiative that has drawn a number of countries in North Africa and areas bordering the Sahara into a web of military alliances.”
And, of course, military alliances are pointless without strife and conflict, thus the fortuitous “al-Qaeda” attack on Algerian PM Abdelaziz Belkhadem’s office and a police station in the suburbs of Algiers. “Al-Jazeera television reported yesterday that a man identifying himself as al-Qaeda’s spokesman in North Africa called the station’s Rabat bureau to say the group carried out the bombings,” Bloomberg informs us. “The attacks come before Algeria’s May 17 parliamentary elections, and after a week of gun battles in coastal mountains between security forces and the GSPC, or Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, Algeria’s largest remaining Islamic guerrilla group which is closely allied to al-Qaeda.”
“Collusion between the GSPC and al-Qaeda is not a new phenomenon,” the CFR explains. “According to a report by Emily Hunt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Osama bin Laden provided funding for Algerian Islamists in the early 1990s and was involved in the GSPC’s early formation. Many of the group’s founding members trained in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. The GSPC declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda as early as 2003, but al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahari, officially approved GSPC’s merger in a videotape released on September 11, 2006. The GSPC claimed responsibility for February 2007 attacks against Algerian police stations under its new name.”
A bit of clarification is required: the Washington Institute for Near East Policy was established to expand AIPAC’s control over U.S. foreign policy, as its founding director, Martin Indyk, is the onetime research director of AIPAC, and WINEP’s methodical process of foreign policy colonization began during the Clinton years.
As for Afghanistan, a well-read ninth grader will tell you that’s where “al-Qaeda” was formulated out of selected Mujahideen remnants (i.e., the “Afghan Arabs”), the result of a well-honed collaboration between the CIA and Pakistan’s ISI.
Thus, when the CFR and WINEP tell us “Osama bin Laden provided funding for Algerian Islamists” and “Ayman al-Zawahari … officially approved GSPC’s merger,” we can rest assured this relationship was not engineered in a cave or hovel located somewhere in Pakistan’s wild frontier.
Naturally, the GSPC, teamed up with “al-Qaeda,” is a threat to white people far and wide. “Analysts point to thwarted attacks in France and several arrests of GSPC-linked groups as evidence the group is capable of attacks in Western Europe. Authorities arrested a London-based GSPC militant who conspired to launch a chemical attack, and arrested four members of a GSPC cell in Frankfurt for possession of chemicals and arms,” the CFR warns.
And thus the “al-Qaeda” threat keeps on rolling, out of the Middle East and right into the midst of Africa, where there happens to be no shortage of strategic minerals and such. Of course, for the neocons, the mineral wealth of Africa is secondary to making certain Muslims are demonized far and wide and making sure the WOT has a very long shelf life, maybe a hundred years or more.
Obviously, there is no shortage of “bad guys,” that is to say useful patsies and dupes, and Africa is their new designated stomping ground, within convenient striking range of Europe from Algeria, Morocco, and the entire Maghreb north of the Sahara Desert and west of the Nile.

Africa still huh? Please... just by using your logic, wouldn't you think if there was any thing left in Africa to steal that was worth it, that we'd a done it 30 years ago?

So what are you saying about Al Queda? that since they've started a chapter in Africa, we should just leave them alone? Stay the hell outta Somalia lest we cash in on the Khat market?

Al Queda, America's Terrorist group LOL... Yeah we shouldn't have helped people to overthrow a Soviet controlled territory, We shoulda just used that $$$ on some more nukes.
Um I don't know if you realize this, but after the Soviets left, there was a massive blood bath between the winning factions. Unlike Iraq, there really wasn't any sort of peace keeping force or organization there to help keep the peace (or the level of death down), there was just one big Quentin Tarantino movie happening there. Some one had to win. And the most brutal are the ones that usually do in situations like that.

Here's an idea for you dude.
We knew about the potential for al queda. Especially after the Cole, Somalia, and the first WTC bombings and the embassy attacks in Kenya. We also realized they gained their strength by operating in basically unstable or ruogue nations like Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan. Now these countries had no real resources with which to build off of except humans.
but there was this one country that was rapidly heading to instability and did have resources that they could exploit and build off of. And I know Hussein wasn't a friend of Bin Laden. But his regime was heading to an end whether from us or within. which would you rather have?


I dunno breizh, I think I'm gonna go to home depot and get me some bricks and mortar and get to work on that bunker I can go down the street and get these couple a guys for about $40 to put it together for me.....
At least I won't get sued.
Yeah, gang bangers, illegals, violent crime. At least I ain't gotta deal with a home owner's association.

America now invading Africa.....
(67 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG