Life After Iraq -- With Certain Lessons in Mind

[dmz]

This has to do with the rancor over at the Surge Report thread, let's look at the future for a moment, instead.

What the world had in Saddam was order -- order by rape room and plastic shredder -- but it was order all the same. For one reason or another -- and that means variations of a complete misreading of Iraq -- the invasion has opened up a serious Pandora's box. It seems to me that the ME is full of several Iraqs, (or even Gazas?) just waiting for their genies to be let out by "bad" foreign policy.

Take Pakistan and Egypt. Both are run by strongmen, (read: clever thugs) and IIRC, both are attempting to stifle some seriously fundamentalist Muslim interests that would control the country, if democracy were allowed to run its course.

What we should do in terms of continuing to prop up those regimes, and what would be the consequences of continuing/not continuing to support [specifically] these two regimes?

[BRussell]

I've got an idea: How about we neither prop them up nor overthrown them!

An Islamic state need not conflict with the US or world interests. Turkey is a good example. The problems seem to start when we (the US) props them up and/or overthrows them.

[Nightcrawler]

Saddam Hussein and his regime represented modernity, secularism and evilness in Iraq. The genocide against the kurds during the Iraq-Iran-war was symptomatic.

Iran supported the kurds in Northern Iraq in an attempt to destabilise Iraq, the kurds used that support to build up insurgent-groups that fought against the Baath-regime. The regime reacted with a genocide, destroying villages, emprisoning the populations in concentration camps and massexecuting the male-part between 15 and 70 years old, of course after being tortured to reveal any possible information about Iran and the kurdish insurgency.

All the while, the US was a key-ally to Iraq and taking it off of the list of states supporting terrorism in order to be able to better prop it up with weapons and technology, espescially WMD's, like chemical and biological agents.

When Iran then occupied a kurdish town, Iraq used chemical bombs against the town.

After this indiscrimate attack on civilians, the US tried their best to make the case that Iran were responsible for the chemical gas-attack, and changed that argument only reluctantly, under the pressure of massive proof to the contrary, in 1999.

The reason for the reluctance was that the US was a complice in the attack, having helped to build up Iraq's chemical weapon-programme.

I'm happy that the amoral baath-regime and saddam hussein are gone and history, but their big supporter the US-regime is unfortunately still existing.

That the US-regime has disposed the Baath-regime is not something to thank the US for, because it was the US that installed the Baath-regime and built it up, and only turned against it when the interests of itself and Israel came in danger.

All this evilness installed and propped up, only in order to suppress communism and islamism.

Nightcrawler

[segovius]

Originally Posted by dmz

What the world had in Saddam was order -- order by rape room and plastic shredder -- but it was order all the same.

***cough***
plastic shredder propaganda conclusively debunked
***cough***

[dmz]

Originally Posted by segovius

***cough***
plastic shredder propaganda conclusively debunked
***cough***

Then just substitute "police state" - you silly.

Now answer the darn question!

[dmz]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I've got an idea: How about we neither prop them up nor overthrown them!

An Islamic state need not conflict with the US or world interests. Turkey is a good example. The problems seem to start when we (the US) props them up and/or overthrows them.

I'm assuming that, especially with Mubarak, that not propping him up == Muslim Brotherhood in the next election cycle, and that that is a bad thing.

I guess I'm asking if either one of those two assumptions are faulty -- but if they're not, what would it mean of the MB to be running Egypt?

[dmz]

Originally Posted by Nightcrawler

Saddam Hussein and his regime represented modernity, secularism and evilness in Iraq. The genocide against the kurds during the Iraq-Iran-war was symptomatic.

Iran supported the kurds in Northern Iraq in an attempt to destabilise Iraq, the kurds used that support to build up insurgent-groups that fought against the Baath-regime. The regime reacted with a genocide, destroying villages, emprisoning the populations in concentration camps and massexecuting the male-part between 15 and 70 years old, of course after being tortured to reveal any possible information about Iran and the kurdish insurgency.

All the while, the US was a key-ally to Iraq and taking it off of the list of states supporting terrorism in order to be able to better prop it up with weapons and technology, espescially WMD's, like chemical and biological agents.

When Iran then occupied a kurdish town, Iraq used chemical bombs against the town.

After this indiscrimate attack on civilians, the US tried their best to make the case that Iran were responsible for the chemical gas-attack, and changed that argument only reluctantly, under the pressure of massive proof to the contrary, in 1999.

The reason for the reluctance was that the US was a complice in the attack, having helped to build up Iraq's chemical weapon-programme.

I'm happy that the amoral baath-regime and saddam hussein are gone and history, but their big supporter the US-regime is unfortunately still existing.

That the US-regime has disposed the Baath-regime is not something to thank the US for, because it was the US that installed the Baath-regime and built it up, and only turned against it when the interests of itself and Israel came in danger.

All this evilness installed and propped up, only in order to suppress communism and islamism.

Nightcrawler

Sure, it's understandable that Iraq was backloaded for disaster -- but what about now with Egypt, what's bound to happen if we stop supporting Mubarak?

[segovius]

Originally Posted by dmz

I'm assuming that, especially with Mubarak, that not propping him up == Muslim Brotherhood in the next election cycle, and that that is a bad thing.

Why is it a bad thing?

[dmz]

Originally Posted by segovius

Why is it a bad thing?

That's what I'm implicitly asking -- to point out if that's a false path.

I'm assuming that if a fundamentalist group takes control, that we would have Afghanistan lite -- another country with modesty police and a willingness to export terror, or some variation on that theme.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by dmz

That's what I'm implicitly asking -- to point out if that's a false path.

I'm assuming that if a fundamentalist group takes control, that we would have Afghanistan lite -- another country with modesty police and a willingness to export terror, or some variation on that theme.

Well the MB are hardly the Taleban. I think the point is something tangential to your question. Perhaps something more like; if a given populace WANTS to surrender their freedoms (or some of them) to a Governing body then on what basis is it anyone else's business?

Really all nations are the same here - what we are really discussing is the 'flavour' of the ruling group.

Examples:

Many US and UK people state that they are prepared to 'give up their freedoms' in return for what they imagine to be protection from their rulers.

This exactly the same as in an Islamist state with the only difference being that the freedoms are being exchanged for a perceived protection on the spiritual rather than material level (ie wear a burkha be protected from hell etc).

So it is exactly the same - the debate is merely about who tells you to give up which freedoms. Which is why when Hamas were democratically elected (and Ahmedinejad) then the process of democracy is not respected by the west.

Or, conversely if you prefer, why when anti-democratic Nazis like the Sauds and Musharaf oppress their people it is ok. As I say, it's all about the flavour not the principle.

[segovius]

@DMZ: one more thing:

As long as such choices ARE really choices (unlike Saudi and Pakistan say) then I think it is ok. What is wrong is over-riding the will of the people.

For example; personally I have a lot of criticism for the West and Western Society in general but as it is clearly the will of the shee...err...people then one has to accept that is how things are.

BUT that does not mean that it should be introduced somewhere it does not exist and I think many Islamist groups are 100% right to oppose western interference in their countries and affairs.

They are also 100% wrong to try to impose their values on the west by the same token.

[screener]

Originally Posted by segovius

***cough***
plastic shredder propaganda conclusively debunked
***cough***

How many like minded know this when it is still being passed off as true?
Very dishonest of you dmz

Then just substitute "police state" - you silly.

But the original line works better in your neck of the woods to keep up support for for the "Clusterfuck", right?

[screener]

Originally Posted by dmz;1140200What we should do in terms of continuing to prop up those regimes, and what would be the consequences of continuing/not continuing to support [specifically

these two regimes?

All you can do is wait out the Bushy's and hope they don't fuck up the area anymore than they have.
I can't see these bumbling boneheads doing anything positive in the region to gain trust from the populace.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=594

Yet there remains a strong current of opinion across the Arab world that is characterized by hostility toward U.S. policies in the Middle East, which overwhelms concerns about rising Shiite influence, the results of the University of Maryland/Zogby International 2006 Annual Arab Public Opinion Survey show.

When asked to identify two countries that pose the biggest threat to them, 85 percent of respondents said Israel and 72 percent said the United States.

Indeed the Bush administration has a job ahead of it to win over hearts and minds in the region. Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed stated they had unfavorable attitudes -- 57 very unfavorable and 21 percent unfavorable -- towards the United States. More than two-thirds of those surveyed, or 70 percent, said their attitudes towards America were based on U.S. policy, while only 11 percent said they was based on American values.

It's not US values, including freedom that pisses them off, it's Bush's policy in the region.

These people aren't stupid,

Despite the fact that Middle East democracy promotion forms the core of the Bush administration's rhetoric, 65 percent of those surveyed said they did not believe democracy is a real U.S. objective in the region. In fact when asked what they considered to be motivating U.S. policy in the Middle East, "controlling oil" (83 percent), "protecting Israel" (75 percent), "weakening the Muslim world" (69 percent), and "desire to dominate the region" (68 percent) were identified as extremely important factors.

[dmz]

Originally Posted by screener

How many like minded know this when it is still being passed off as true?
Very dishonest of you dmz


But the original line works better in your neck of the woods to keep up support for for the "Clusterfuck", right?

We let the genie out of the bottle by thinking that Enlightenment principles would fly in a region of the world that simply doesn't recognize the legitimacy of those ideas. The Iraq CF problem is pretty much analogous to the Palestinian situation and begs an answer to the Pakistan/Egypt situations. This extends to the broader ME: Syria, what's percolating in Turkey, and some interesting things coming out of Malaysia.

One thing should be clear: in the ME, and SE Asia, with a few exceptions, the people will elect a blend of democracy-autocracy, wholly informed by Muslim theocratic principles, if allowed to.

The question is still whether the West should "allow" that to happen, and what would the world look like if it did? (and yes, that assumes we have the right, bla, bla, bla.)

[segovius]

Originally Posted by dmz

We let the genie out of the bottle by thinking that Enlightenment principles would fly in a region of the world that simply doesn't recognize the legitimacy of those ideas. The Iraq CF problem is pretty much analogous to the Palestinian situation and begs an answer to the Pakistan/Egypt situations. This extends to the broader ME: Syria, what's percolating in Turkey, and some interesting things coming out of Malaysia.

One thing should be clear: in the ME, and SE Asia, with a few exceptions, the people will elect a blend of democracy-autocracy, wholly informed by Muslim theocratic principles, if allowed to.

The question is still whether the West should "allow" that to happen, and what would the world look like if it did? (and yes, that assumes we have the right, bla, bla, bla.)

I think that people who are denied their rights to self-determination by Western powers that 'assume they have the right' themselves have the right to oppose such powers, violently if necessary.

What do you think?

[screener]

Originally Posted by dmz

We let the genie out of the bottle by thinking that Enlightenment principles would fly in a region of the world that simply doesn't recognize the legitimacy of those ideas. The Iraq CF problem is pretty much analogous to the Palestinian situation and begs an answer to the Pakistan/Egypt situations. This extends to the broader ME: Syria, what's percolating in Turkey, and some interesting things coming out of Malaysia.

One thing should be clear: in the ME, and SE Asia, with a few exceptions, the people will elect a blend of democracy-autocracy, wholly informed by Muslim theocratic principles, if allowed to.

The question is still whether the West should "allow" that to happen, and what would the world look like if it did? (and yes, that assumes we have the right, bla, bla, bla.)

Isn't that the cause of so much grief in the world?
Imposing your ideals, "Enlightened" as you believe them to be, on a culture that has it's own ideals.

Allow it to happen, arrogance yet again, will you never learn that respect demands more than threats, payola and our way is the right way.

There are other ways to "impose" your will, the crowd "running things" now, haven't got a clue other than force.

[dmz]

Originally Posted by segovius

I think that people who are denied their rights to self-determination by Western powers that 'assume they have the right' themselves have the right to oppose such powers, violently if necessary.

What do you think?

I think so.

I'm going to have to go Ron Paul on that one. It's probably none of our business (unless they attack us directly.)

I can see Dububbubba's point in trying to have his wedge and eat it too, in Iraq -- but they've misread the Muslim ethos so badly, they literally don't know how to deal with it once they have it in hand. With the statist mindset, too, prying them loose from the impulse to preemptively solve the world's problems might be a little tough.

With Egypt and Pakistan, it may be time to let it go, and literally hope to God there is there's a reward for acting on principle.

[spindler]

This thread by DMZ is truly amazing. It is the first post I've ever read from him that seems to have sincere, kind intentions. He is really saying "This is a bad situation, what can be done?" It isn't one of those "If fat people just chose moderation and came over to God's grace they wouldn't be outcasts." threads. It isn't one of those threads where he does something selfish, like sending other people off to war, and then stonewalls when anyone asks him if he notices the downsides of the whole thing. It isn't veiled bigotry, like when he once condemned "abortioninsts, drug users, and homosexuals", carefully forgetting that the third once is not an actual choice. And it isn't one of those "We should teach abstinence in schools even though 95% of people have always had premarital sex and teaching abstinence has no chance of making anything better."

Really amazing. I was wondering where the catch was going to be when I was reading it, but it was actually fairly nice.

[Fellowship]

The first thing that would benefit the entire world would IMHO be for Sean Hannity and those like him to stop their echo chamber rhetoric of "evil doers" "islamofascists" etc. etc. etc. in their spirited rush to find any reason like a bad itch to start war with Iran for example. I would also hope that Rudy Giuliani tone down his rhetoric of the "T" word in regard to 9/11 as he is so good at. The "T" this, the "T" that T T T T T T and the T want to do this to us and that to us and on 9/11 the T....yada yada yada. With 9/11/2007 just around the corner and Rudy running for president I will be paying attention to see if the man has any self control or if the rhetoric will only get louder and more pronounced.

The United States in my view needs to stop playing World and should manage itself at home first. This could mean less work for defense contractors but I think we need to reflect on what matters in life not how much money can be kicked back to politicians and how many votes can be bought when certain defense business is floated with tax payer funded contracts related to war activity.

Ron Paul has the best take on this in my view with the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGyk4TbEiaI

and:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HD9n...5Fdebate%2Ehtm

Fellows

[vinea]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I've got an idea: How about we neither prop them up nor overthrown them!

An Islamic state need not conflict with the US or world interests. Turkey is a good example. The problems seem to start when we (the US) props them up and/or overthrows them.

Um...Turkey is a secular state that is muslim. Not a muslim state. There is cause to think that Turkish Army may intervene if the muslim president does anything too religious.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vinea

Um...Turkey is a secular state that is muslim. Not a muslim state. There is cause to think that Turkish Army may intervene if the muslim president does anything too religious.

Um... That is exactly the point. The ruling party is an "Islamist" party that stands for secularism and democracy.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Um... That is exactly the point. The ruling party is an "Islamist" party that stands for secularism and democracy.

And although they are not democracies in the Western sense (but who says that is the only way to skin the cat) one could also cite Jordan, Syria and Morocco as States where 'things work' in the religious sense and there is a co-existence of secularism, Christianity and Islam.

That is not to say there are no Islamist elements but for various reasons they have not taken root as they have elsewhere in the region.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Um... That is exactly the point. The ruling party is an "Islamist" party that stands for secularism and democracy.

I guess I was too vague in my point. Iran is not a secular state. Having Egypt or Pakistan go the way of semi-democratic Turkey would be one thing.

Having Egypt go the way of Iran likely means yet another war with Israel.

Having Pakistan go the way of Iran likely means a nuclear war with Israel.

I don't have that big an issue with Iran getting the bomb per se. I DO have a big issue with the IRG getting the bomb. Those guys would lob a bomb at Tel Aviv because they could. And given the IRG controls Iran's missile forces...

[vinea]

Originally Posted by segovius

And although they are not democracies in the Western sense (but who says that is the only way to skin the cat) one could also cite Jordan, Syria and Morocco as States where 'things work' in the religious sense and there is a co-existence of secularism, Christianity and Islam.

That is not to say there are no Islamist elements but for various reasons they have not taken root as they have elsewhere in the region.

Syria was secular and only recently became more religious. Are you forgetting that they were fairly ruthless in stamping down militant Islam in the past? How the current flirtation with militant islam pans out should be interesting.

Jordan and Morocco are constitutional monarchies not religious states and both are considered secular.

Equating secular governments like Turkey with a muslim population with a muslim states is disingenuous. For example Turkey is not governed under Sharia law. Iran is.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by vinea

Syria was secular and only recently became more religious. Are you forgetting that they were fairly ruthless in stamping down militant Islam in the past? How the current flirtation with militant islam pans out should be interesting.

Jordan and Morocco are constitutional monarchies not religious states and both are considered secular.

Equating secular governments like Turkey with a muslim population with a muslim states is disingenuous. For example Turkey is not governed under Sharia law. Iran is.

No difference from the pov of the people.

But if you like let's look at it from the opposite view; you cannot get more shariah than Saudi - far more than Iran for example which tolerates many other religions (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians) which are all banned in Saudi - and they are #1 ally and Bush even occasionally praises the way their society is.

So, what's the problem?

At worst there would be a new country to build airbases in to bomb other people.

[franksargent]

All I can do is post some links;

History of the Middle East

Petroleum politics

Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

History of the State of Israel

1973 oil crisis

1979 energy crisis

Gulf War

Oil price increase of 1990

Iraq War

Oil price increases of 2004-2006

World Nominal Oil Price Chronology: 1970-2007

I "guess" you could say that ... the ME has US "over a barrel?"

[segovius]

Originally Posted by franksargent

All I can do is post some links;

Yes, they have your sig on them too:

This article does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.
This article has been tagged since November 2006.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by segovius

Yes, they have your sig on them too:

Please google;

"This article has been tagged since November 2006." site:wikipedia.org

Or be more explicit in your reply! Because I have NO idea what you're talking about.

[@_@ Artman]

Originally Posted by franksargent

All I can do is post some links;

History of the Middle East

Petroleum politics

Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

History of the State of Israel

1973 oil crisis

1979 energy crisis

Gulf War

Oil price increase of 1990

Iraq War

Oil price increases of 2004-2006

World Nominal Oil Price Chronology: 1970-2007

I "guess" you could say that ... the ME has US "over a barrel?"

One more link regarding this subject...

Oil Fields as Military Objectives: A Feasibility Study, Report Prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess., August 21, 1975

Question. Mr. President, both you and Secretary Kissinger have said that in case of strangulation of the West by the oil producers, you would use military force. * * * The American people would like to know whether you would require a congressional declaration of war or whether you would bypass that constitutional process, as some of your predecessors have done?

Answer. I can assure you on any occasion where there was any commitment of U.S. military personnel to any engagement we would use the complete constitutional process that is required of the President.

President GERALD R. FORD, Press Conference,
January 21, 1975.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by franksargent

Please google;

"This article has been tagged since November 2006." site:wikipedia.org

Or be more explicit in your reply! Because I have NO idea what your talking about.

Ok, I should have realized that subtlety would be inappropriate.

I merely found it amusing that you as someone who never cites sources or references their frequently outlandish allegations, would in trying to remedy this cite an article which is labeled as desperately needing references and citations....

Seemed amusing that's all....

[Outsider]

Originally Posted by spindler

This thread by DMZ is truly amazing. It is the first post I've ever read from him that seems to have sincere, kind intentions. He is really saying "This is a bad situation, what can be done?" It isn't one of those "If fat people just chose moderation and came over to God's grace they wouldn't be outcasts." threads. It isn't one of those threads where he does something selfish, like sending other people off to war, and then stonewalls when anyone asks him if he notices the downsides of the whole thing. It isn't veiled bigotry, like when he once condemned "abortioninsts, drug users, and homosexuals", carefully forgetting that the third once is not an actual choice. And it isn't one of those "We should teach abstinence in schools even though 95% of people have always had premarital sex and teaching abstinence has no chance of making anything better."

Really amazing. I was wondering where the catch was going to be when I was reading it, but it was actually fairly nice.

I LOLed.

[segovius]

Originally Posted by vinea

I guess I was too vague in my point. Iran is not a secular state. Having Egypt or Pakistan go the way of semi-democratic Turkey would be one thing.

Having Egypt go the way of Iran likely means yet another war with Israel.

Having Pakistan go the way of Iran likely means a nuclear war with Israel.

I don't have that big an issue with Iran getting the bomb per se. I DO have a big issue with the IRG getting the bomb. Those guys would lob a bomb at Tel Aviv because they could. And given the IRG controls Iran's missile forces...

You clearly do not know much about Iran and its structure of power.

The IRG are under the direct control of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ahmedinejad has no power over them.

It is Khamenei who would issue orders for 'lobbing bombs at Tel Aviv' if indeed, such bombs were to be lobbed.

Luckily - unluckily for wingers and their fatuous arguments - Ayatollah Khamenei is the same man who issued a fatwa banning the production of nuclear arms and stating that a nuclear weapon is un-Islamic and haram.

Of course we all know that all ragheads are liars intent on wiping Israel off the map so this probably means he has one fired up and ready to go.....

[vinea]

Originally Posted by segovius

But if you like let's look at it from the opposite view; you cannot get more shariah than Saudi - far more than Iran for example which tolerates many other religions (Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians) which are all banned in Saudi - and they are #1 ally and Bush even occasionally praises the way their society is.

So, what's the problem?

At worst there would be a new country to build airbases in to bomb other people.

You can't argue it both ways the Sauds are thugs propped up by the west and that they are the same kind of state as Iran and thus no problem. The head of state is a monarch anyway. Not a cleric like the Supreme Leader Khamenei.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by segovius

You clearly do not know much about Iran and its structure of power.

The IRG are under the direct control of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Ahmedinejad has no power over them.

Yes. Because Khamenei outranks Ahmedinejad. The IRG is also a force unto itself outside the professional military of Iran.

It is Khamenei who would issue orders for 'lobbing bombs at Tel Aviv' if indeed, such bombs were to be lobbed.

So he ordered the taking of the British sailors?

Luckily - unluckily for wingers and their fatuous arguments - Ayatollah Khamenei is the same man who issued a fatwa banning the production of nuclear arms and stating that a nuclear weapon is un-Islamic and haram.

Of course we all know that all ragheads are liars intent on wiping Israel off the map so this probably means he has one fired up and ready to go.....

Really? He has declared that nuclear weapons are haram حرام? Nice if true but it appears to be some contention to that and the prohibition on nuclear weapons failed in the legislature and Rahbar commented that same year as the fatwa that "There are no Sharia or legal restrictions on having such weapons as a deterrent".

So there's a real fatwa against nukes that is accepted by other marjas مرجع? But oddly the legislature that he nominally controls didn't pass a bill saying the same thing and and there are still folks that say there are no religious restriction on having nukes? Sounds like maybe not.

And of course the prohibition against music, repression of women, axing reformist political parties from the elections and rejecting Khatami election promise for a Sunni mosque in Tehran is still on the books.

Yeah. I have a dislike for clerics controlling a state outside a tiny city-state like the Vatican. I wouldn't trust the Pope with nukes either and these days the Catholic church is pretty benign.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by segovius

Ok, I should have realized that subtlety would be inappropriate.

I merely found it amusing that you as someone who never cites sources or references their frequently outlandish allegations, would in trying to remedy this cite an article which is labeled as desperately needing references and citations....

Seemed amusing that's all....

Five of the 10 wikipedia links have various disclaimers of various forms. So? Either those events occurred or they didn't, I would contend that all five of those "suspicious" events DID occur, but perhaps are not as accurately written as they need to be for wikipedia's standards.

Think big picture, OK? I'm talking about the West's (particularly GB and the US) meddling in the ME for the past century! That was my main point, something you apparently couldn't see if it hit you in the head! Get it yet?

And please address with specificity this part of your reply - " ... you as someone who never cites sources or references their frequently outlandish allegations ... " since I think I post more links per post than anyone else around here, when I'm not being sardonic, that is!

Some people are just bound to be a little slow I suppose.

BTW, I'm very busy these days, so if I didn't do my usual fact checking, well EXCUSE ME!

[@_@ Artman]

Originally Posted by franksargent

Think big picture, OK? I'm talking about the West's (particularly GB and the US) meddling in the ME for the past century! That was my main point, something you apparently couldn't see if it hit you in the head! Get it yet?

Got it? Good. Now back to work.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Got it? Good. Now back to work.

You could at least try to tell me something I don't know already, which seems to be pretty tough for most of you people!

[@_@ Artman]

Originally Posted by franksargent

You could at least try to tell me something I don't know already, which seems to be pretty tough for most of you people!

Unfortunately your methods of communication is lacking too. Maybe you're next on the ignore list...

Unless you can supply links to support your rhetoric too.

[franksargent]

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Unfortunately your methods of communication is lacking too. Maybe you're next on the ignore list...

Unless you can supply links to support your rhetoric too.

Please do! Rhetoric?

[@_@ Artman]

Originally Posted by franksargent

Please do! Rhetoric?

Dunno, I think you're on my side...but your replies and posts are damn confusing sometimes...