Bush again.

[PariahWolf]

Also - I'd like to know where you're drawing your "unusually high" conclusion. Do you have data on all conflicts from everone in the past 60 odd years with numbers on troops involved on both sides, weapons used, collateral damage, armed force and civilian casualties? Or are you just kowtowing in line with fashion?

 

 

So lets cut to a DISCUSSION: Should Iran have nuclear weapons?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vietnam: the americans carpet bombed whole villages flat, napalmed hills and did nothing to comfire their targets. This does not require me to dig up proof, it is a well known fact. You may also notice the french did not resort to this when they where in Vietnam.

 

This whole Japan and the bomb thing, you guys are forgetting that the Americans used an untried weapon on hundreds of thousands of innocents. Not only did it kill a massive 180,000 instantly it has killed probably that number again due to cancer or later injuries.

 

I would rather trust Iran that Bush with an A-bomb. After all Bush only went to war because God told him. America is in no way responsible about things, in Iraq 1990 they used 450 tonnes of depleted uranium rounds, these untested weapons where used in areas of high civilian population. Depleted Uranium rounds aerosol on impact spreading highly radioactive dust to the wind. When this comes into contact with humans it causes massively excelerated cancer and the most horrifying birth defects you have ever seen. This is another case of america not thinking about what it does during war. Since then birth defects in Iraq have gone up 400% with hundreds of cases a year and cancer rates have gone up 700-1000%. On top of this the American government still denies that depleted uranium has a detimental effect on health, despite hundreds of goverments banning its use, including the UK.

 

So that's three wars where america have killed a large amount of civilians, in two cases with untried and untested weapons. Lastly modern day Iraq, many service men are claiming stories of kill raids and such, or even door to door executions.

Seems where ever america fights nowadays there are large amounts of unwanted civilian casaulties.

 

As for your case for America to have nuclear weapons, "oh we have not blanketed the world in nuclear war yet, there fore we are resposible" is just weak, Russia could have done the same, so could Britain. I would not say that is anything to be proud of.

 

Bush to Hitler, hmm.... good comparison.

 

@ Evilhippy, there where two bombs in Japan

 

Why Iran should be allowed to have nukes? everyone else has, they would be to afraid to use them for fear of reprisals. So they threatened a country with religious reasons, Bush invaded a country for religious reasons.

[Ubar]

Difference:

a. We already have them. And so does Britain, France, Russia, China, Germany, and everyone else on the UN Security Council.

b. The US is not govern'd by a religious sect that supports terrorism and has publicly called for the complete annihilation of another nationstate.

c. Our nuclear arsenal has be going down, not up, since the 1960s.

 

"Double standard" for the whole world then, not just George Bush.

 

Basic difference is the "haves" have demonstrated they can "have" and not unleash them. The "have-nots" have ...not. I myself (and apparently the rest of the nuclear countries in the world agree as well-  thats all of yours on this forum too btw) would rather not take the chance of such an entity gaining possession of such a weapon based on the technicality of not wanting to be seen to be professing a double standard.

 

I have a gun, you don't have a gun. You're a raving lunatic. I'm not. You want a gun too, as "it'd only be fair". Guess what? Tough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

this whole post is jam packed with 400% of your RDA for wholegrain faggotry

[Slade xTekno]

I find it slightly entertaining that Bush said that children needed to know math and science, yet conveniently left out english and speaking coherently...

[Robot 2000]

Pakistan and India, 2 of the most volatile countries in the region, are equipped with nuclear weapons and almost permanently on the brink of war. Osama Bin Laden is even supposedly hiding in Pakistan. Is anyone suggesting we go and disarm them? No.

 

Of course, the fact that Pakistan is probably a handy place for the CIA to have people tortured doesn't make any difference . . .

[doc_newstead]

LOUD NOISES!

 

[Night_raven]

LOUD NOISES!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*fruitcage* hell newstead i just listened to that loud noises thing and i jus realised that my speakers were turned on full blast

[Crazy_Harry]

ok, from a purely realist stance, this is the deal:

 

Iranian leadership goes on abou the distruction of Israel in the same way our leaders go on about "no child left behind" or "education, education, education"

 

sounds good, gets votes, but they aren't actually going to DO it.

 

sorry, but its true. not saying they wouldn't if they thought they'd get away with it (a big difference to simply being able to- I'm sure old georgey-boy has a nice big list of countries he personally would like to just sweep under the carpet too), but they wouldn't, and such an attempt would result in the annihilation of Iran. they ain't stupid, just reactionary, just like us.

 

should Iran have nuclear energy? irrelevant question. Tehy'll do it someway or other, whether we want them to or not, unless we invade and blow them into extinction. Should we be on the ground, helping them implement a system so we KNOW WHAT THEY ARE UP TO?

 

Should they have nuclear weapons? well, from THEIR perspective (and frankly, this is the perspective with most clout), they've just seen a next door neighbour invaded and kicked into the dirt by pro-israeli countries. they've had the leader of them openly declare that Iran occupies a position on some Axis of Evil that justified the invasion of said neighbour. Other member of said axis of evil, north korea, is left alone.

 

why? um, they have nukes. not saying I personally agree with them, but you can see why, once you start thinking as an iranian politician or citizen, a bit of nuclear protection might not be a bad thing right now.

 

sorry, thats how it is.

[Hillslam]

This whole Japan and the bomb thing, you guys are forgetting that the Americans used an untried weapon on hundreds of thousands of innocents.  Not only did it kill a massive 180,000 instantly it has killed probably that number again due to cancer or later injuries.

We got there first, we used it first. To end a war with a country that attacked us. As would any of the other WWII combatants who had aquired it in time to deploy it.

180,000-ish. A drop in the bucket compared to the number of deaths from conventional weapons used by both sides, (and that number was well and truly exceeded before the US even entered the war in '41) in a conflict ultimately brought on by the fact that 2-3 countries (read, not the USA) decided to attack the rest of the world. 180,000 - far smaller than the Japanese casualties would have been had an island invasion been required to get them to stop waging the war they started. I'm not going to, and I doubt America or China as a state will apologize for, not stopping until the aggressor was forced to cease hostilities. Japan, you're welcome.

I would rather trust Iran that Bush with an A-bomb.  After all Bush only went to war because God told him.  America is in no way responsible about things...

 

...As for your case for America to have nuclear weapons, "oh we have not blanketed the world in nuclear war yet, there fore we are resposible" is just weak, Russia could have done the same, so could Britain.  I would not say that is anything to be proud of. 

You dismiss this as weak? Amazing. I disagree. Tell me, is disarming something to be proud of? But in any event none of us get a choice who to trust once people aquire nukes. But me, I kind of give a nod toward the one who had far far more than anyone else, restrained from using them, and then on top of that started scrapping them of their own accord.

Depleted Uranium rounds aerosol on impact spreading highly radioactive dust to the wind.  When this comes into contact with humans it causes massively excelerated cancer and the most horrifying birth defects you have ever seen.  This is another case of america not thinking about what it does during war.  Since then birth defects in Iraq have gone up 400% with hundreds of cases a year and cancer rates have gone up 700-1000%.

Please disclose your source.

Why Iran should be allowed to have nukes? everyone else has, they would be to afraid to use them for fear of reprisals.  So they threatened a country with religious reasons, Bush invaded a country for religious reasons.

Bush didn't invade for religious reasons. But it makes for a good soundbite. Please keep in mind I don't support Bush. But I don't buy into ###### either.

 

So if I understand you - your core position is you want Iran to have nukes.

 

this whole post is jam packed with 400% of your RDA for wholegrain faggotry

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aw, now you hurt my feelings. Enjoy your group-think.

[paranoidandroid]

 

 

Anyone ever noticed the similarity between george bush and a pug.

 

Maybe its just me then

 

*gets coat*

[Agent47]

What the *fruitcage*!?

 

That's almost the crappiest most irrelevant post I've ever read.

Do you have ANY values? Can you put priority on anything!? Any idea what is important!?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

the amount of nonsensical Bush-bashing ticks me off sometimes. While a lot of things (Iraq War, Patriot Act, torture (?)) were his fault (at most), he isn't the cause of everything else wrong - and some people do make him out to be some sort of monster - rather than an appropriate dimwit. But he's still human, he still has the capacity for kindness, and it's probably in your best interest not to rebuke someone or still think of someone as a tard just for being nice, no matter how evil or good they are, simply because it is demeaning to them...among other things. This whole bush-bashing bandwagon stuff is just getting out of hand.

 

and I've gotten the morality question a lot, so I'll say here:

 

I'm an independent - and very much mercenary, and perhaps a utilitarian or realist. I try not to take and cement down positions too much, and do try to adapt or switch around if it benefits me at any moment, so I can't be pinned down on anything most of the time.

 

Or I could say you wouldn't understand my political views.

 

I DO realize there is a little tiff here about Iran having nuclear material (NOT Nukes), however, at this moment I do not have enough information to try and form a more thorough (that still can be altered) argument or a statement. Judging from the current intel I have, I COULD say that Iran should be given material for ONE reactor, but Ahmendijahblablah has to expect military escalation any time.

 

EDIT: and now Crazy Harry has provided me with intel, and I probably would have taken his position.

[Zero_DgZ]

Iran's promises to erase Israel + nuclear "projects" = A-Bombs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um. Said who?

 

You? You don't count. Let's see your sources for that particular bit of knee jerk conjecture. The Iranians have already proposed to outsource their uranium production and disposal to the Russians. The Russians already have nukes, as well as Israel, but you don't see the chimpanzee pointing his finger at them, do you?

 

I wonder why.

 

It has to do with oil and euros.

 

Also note that Mr. Bush seemed to have some sort of trouble with his memory during his address. While he could remember with startling aclarity every scripted detail about his fallacies in the interpretation of american law rationalizing his illegal wiretapping (notwithstanding the fact it was going on before 9/11) but as soon as anyone brought up the topic of Jack Abrimoff his memory failed him and all the sudden he became a blithering idiot.

 

Well, moreso than usual.

 

Notice that he first said that he didn't remember if he had any pictures of himself taken with old Jack. The next time he was pressed he said that well, he takes pictures with a lot of guys but he didn't know Jack Abrimoff. Then he said that yes, he took campaign contributions from him and also met with him while he was lobbying. The next time the name cropped up he suddenly forgot and claimed not to know Abrimoff again.

 

What is he trying to dance around? Even if this sign of government corrupion is about an innocuous issue it's still corruption. And he's still lying about it, through his teeth, on TV, to the american people.

[Crazy_Harry]

what would annoy me most if I didn't have such a deeply cynical understanding of humanity, is the fact that so many people form opinions without for one second trying to put themselves in the other persons shoes.

 

I don't support what Bush stands for, for example, but I can completely understand why America, at this juncture in its existence, would have a rpesident like him. In the same way, i understand why at this precise moment in history Iran is seeking nuclear energy. I don't doubt they might not seek to develop a nuclear bomb in the future, frankly they'd be crazy not to. Not only is it a bargaining chip, as well as a means to push Iran into a more affluent position which would, in turn, lead to a gradual liberalising of society from the bottom up as citizens became richer, more educated, more relaxed about their position, rather than now where their position is, essentially, one of fiendish adversity to how they perceive the world to be operating under that rule of America and its allies.

 

The biggest danger right now is to force Iran onto the defensive, thus encouraging them to procure illegal nuclear products without the worlds knowledge. we do this at our peril, but thankfully (though for their own reasons, I do not doubt) China and Russia have both stepped up, bizarrely, as the conciliatory voice in the debate.

 

no situation is ever truly black and white. think of them more as a violent rainbow of eye-watering intensity

[hivemind]

I move we just shitcan all political discussion. I'm pretty tired of watching people drag my country, it's constitution, it's laws, it's foreign policy, and it's leaders through the mud on a bi-weekly basis here. Is this an airsoft forum or an anti-american support group? Is this an international airsoft forum, or is it a UK forum where Americans are only allowed to visit if they toe the line, to be subjected to abuse like Ubar's if they try and make intelligent discussion?

[Zero_DgZ]

Hey, I'm an american and I bash my country and its government all the time!

 

It's part of our right to do so. If you don't want to get mired in it, don't hang around in the political threads.

[DrewLawson]

But we could also say the British dont know a military base from a refugee city, because British Commander "Bomber" Harris ordered the firebombing of Dresden, a city of almost no military targets, thousands of refugees, and American POW's on February 13, 1945. Death toll 44,000.

[rifleman]

While I deplore the fact that any nation has nuclear weapons, the fact is that Mutually Assured Destruction has probably kept the world safe from the nuclear holocaust. What worries me more is countries which appear to actively seeking weapons specifically designed to defend against nuclear attack. I believe that this is a far more dangerous course, because I envision a point where someone will say "We've got this wonderful system that means we're safe - we can now bomb everyone else with impunity".

 

If I was Iranian, I have to say I'd probably be ###### myself given that Coalition Forces currently occupy countries on both sides of Iran (Iraq and Afghanistan) and also have the capability to land troops on Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf coasts meaning that if they chose to invade, Iran would be forced into fighting a war on at least three fronts (never a healthy prospect). The Iran/Iraq war lasted years and cost both sides hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives and neither side gained a damn thing.

[Aidan]

I think Hillslam is getting a bit confused.

 

Nobody's mentioned nuclear weapons except Dubya.

 

Dubya seems to be saying that he wants for the USA to develop different energy sources so that when the oil runs out, in a few decades, then the USA will be all set to not worry about it but, on the other hand, he's doing his best to vito Irans attempts to do the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

er, dubya has not once mentioned "nuclear weapons" he refers to "Nukular Weapons" which are really just panda bears..........................................never mind, that's a long story.

 

Also, he mentioned "human/animal hybrids"..............can he source this info, as it sounds like complete BS to me, but then again, so does everything else he says.

 

Sid, no reason to say "sorry americans", I cannot stand the guy, just check out my sig!!

[Aidan]

Hey, I'm an american and I bash my country and its government all the time!

 

It's part of our right to do so. If you don't want to get mired in it, don't hang around in the political threads.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me too!!!! I cannot stand the current administration. Any man that will start a war over a lie is, as Steve Colbert would say "DEAD TO ME".

 

As for the Nuclear issue (not bushes nukular panda issue), I too think that it is deploreable that any country has such weapons. Were it up to me, an immediate disarming would be in effect. Here are a couple of links for those of you who loathe the current US government.

 

www.truthout.org

 

www.commondreams.org

 

clemsy.blogspot.com

 

^my dad is the blogger behind that last one

 

Edit: oops, I double posted, sorry all

[sturgis]

I think Crazy Harry has got it spot on...

not that i think it would be wise for them to have nukes, anyone for that matter...

It does always get on my tits on how religion is always dragged in to it, as it being to dangerous for Iran to have nuclear resources because of their religious believes...

Most of the time i see no difference in what the person rants on about, then with extremist muslims...

to be very frank, i see little difference, in the man who invades countries to chase a religious nut, then claiming to be send by god to lead his country and countrymen where ever it need leading (in his mind?).

 

to who may disagree with me,can you honestly not see, someone saying:" oi, ang on a minute?" when hearing that from that particular person?

 

see, i avoided using that certain persons name, as to not instill any more b...bashing

[evilhippy]

Ahhh Harry, how I have missed your deeply cynical and unshakeably realistic insights Where ya been baby?!!!

 

People are people and people are inherrently bad. Yes, they will always act in self-interest. Hippies need not apply; you are all self-gratifying yes-men

 

Btw I know there were 2 bombs in Japan at the end of WWII but I still believe fewer people overall died thanks to the use of A-bombs. Civilians or squaddies, they are all people, there's no real difference. Sue me, thats my opinion. Do I like it? Hell no, but its true.

 

Neither do I like the other fact - that Harry is almost certainly correct and Iran will develop its own nuclear program in secret unless we instill it for them/with them (read: FOR them, can you see it any other way if it were to happen?) but that goes a-waaay against what the public will allow to pass. Never gonna happen.

 

As for the main thrust of this topic, which seems to be all too clouded with Bush-Bashing (or Chimp Thumping - sorry ) then I reckon, right *don's armchair sociologist cap* that Iran is just about unstable enough to actually use nuclear weapons, and I base this on ....

 

absolutely nothing. Like the best South Park characters, I have no evidence, just a terrifying feeling (perhaps created solely by western media, who knows) that the control of Iran is not permanent enough or consistent enough, or even sane enough to properly realise the consequences of nuking Israel.

 

This is a military and religion-dominated country that is about half-a-step away from lapsing into `might is right` control at the best of times, the difference between the USA and Iran in this instance is that the US is answerable and on the whole cares about and to worldwide political and public opinion, whereas Iran openly detests worldwide opinion as a CULTURAL ideal, not just an arbitrary or transient political ideal.

 

The very nature of Iran as a whole (or so we are led to believe by all media worldwide except Al Jazeerar and IranBroadcastingCorporation) is to despise and disbelieve the opinions of the rest of the world.

 

And the control of Iran is likely to flicker between hastily elected figureheads who may suddenly find themselves at the head of an army where before all they had was some kind of mob, please tell me if I'm way off the mark here but this is a country of political assasinations and shady elections, yes?

 

I think that is the most dangerous element here, and that if they had Nukes right now then someone in Iran could be about to do something very stupid, and not care about the consequences because they simply don't believe in them.

[Foxtrot]

Wow is this arguement even going on?

 

 

Iran with nuclear material?

 

 

It's like giving a kid pipe bombs and saying 'here, go have fun.'

 

 

1. Middle east region, no matter how much people want to think other wise, is NOT stable.

 

2. Iran has already DECLARED their intentions to go after nuclear weapons. THUSLY why they wouldn't agree to the agreement that was offered to give them TWO non-weapons grade producing reactors.

-Excuse me, but why would they pass up TWO reactors for FREE to give up their weapons grade one?

- Yes, thats right, THEY WANT TO MAKE *fruitcage* BIG BOMBS AND BLOW THE *beep* OUT OF THE NEIGHBORES. Easy concept.

 

3. Chances are, with how Iran is doing politically - they're going to blow them selves up. Sounds good, no? Not really, hundreds of thousands of people don't need to be killed.

 

4. Why in the name of jebus are you bringing up Afganistan? It was a TERRORIST harboring country, with a goverment that excuted people for FUN. There was no ifs-ands-or-possibilites that terrorists were hiding there, We KNEW there were, the world KNEW there was, and they supported it. No, it was not a full blown invasion, but it was 20,000 boots on the ground. There is NO debate over the right/wrong of the actions in afganistan, DROP IT.

 

5. Why are you bringing up WWII? It was 60 freaking years ago thank you.

- Estimated casualties allied forces would of taken to take over japan: 1 million. (U.S., Russia, China, U.K., etc.) So, some of you MIGHT not be here.

- Using the bomb, YES, killed alot of civilians no doubt, BUT it broke the will to fight. I dont know about you, but my grandpa's life who PROBABLY would of been in the invasion, is worth alot to me.

- Just freaking drop it. It's WWII, it's done, it's over with, ALOT OF POLICIES have changed.

 

6. Wow, what the hell happened to you guys? Liberalism is NOT a way to think. It's been proven. Neo-liberalism... possibly, but come on. Take some political science classes before you argue. Power = Speaks.

 

Iran, wants nukes so they have power. But, it's misleading. Anyone who WANTS nuclear weapons anymore, is a fool. Little thing called retaliation. Iran nukes isreal, we blow the *beep* out of Iran. Same reason why N. Korea will never use nukes, or threaten to. Kim, is indeed an arrogent *beep*, but he's not stupid.

 

Now, the guys in Iran... they might just be stupid. Which, is why we DONT want them to have weapons grade material.

 

 

Seriously... take some political science classes. Yeah, bush is screwed up... but he's old age. He's used the Democratic Peace Theory to justify pretty much every thing he's done... but that theory was proven wrong in the early '90's...

[Robot 2000]

Wow, what the hell happened to you guys? Liberalism is NOT a way to think. It's been proven.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

"Being Liberal in your political views is plain wrong. Just ask this scientitian!"

 

Seriously, how can you "prove" that a political standpoint is "wrong"? This isn't maths, for crying out loud. There are no right answers.

 

The fact is that both our countries are saddled with governments determined to flout international law, erode civil liberties in the pursuit of some nebulous, ill-defined terrorist threat with the excuse of a very small number of attacks, and squander the lives of our soldiers in ill-advised overseas actions with little or no hope of any valuable result. Afghanistan is rapidly becoming the world's largest heroin producing country - around 90% of farmers now grow poppies for a living. Iraq is on the brink of anarchy and will topple over the second the last American soldier leaves the place (God forbid you should leave us to hold it down as is being done in Afghanistan). Overall, the last few years have been a big wake up call for me and I hope everyone about the extent to which we're prepared to trust in the benevolence and the openness of democratic government.

[Foxtrot]

"Being Liberal in your political views is plain wrong. Just ask this scientitian!"

 

Seriously, how can you "prove" that a political standpoint is "wrong"? This isn't maths, for crying out loud. There are no right answers.

 

The fact is that both our countries are saddled with governments determined to flout international law, erode civil liberties in the pursuit of some nebulous, ill-defined terrorist threat with the excuse of a very small number of attacks, and squander the lives of our soldiers in ill-advised overseas actions with little or no hope of any valuable result. Afghanistan is rapidly becoming the world's largest heroin producing country - around 90% of farmers now grow poppies for a living. Iraq is on the brink of anarchy and will topple over the second the last American soldier leaves the place (God forbid you should leave us to hold it down as is being done in Afghanistan). Overall, the last few years have been a big wake up call for me and I hope everyone about the extent to which we're prepared to trust in the benevolence and the openness of democratic government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Yes, there is a problem in afganistan with poppies. And there's also a problem in columbus with Coke, and there's problems in mexico with weed... As long as there's a demand, farmers will grow it. That's one of the biggest pushes in re-construction money I've read about recently is re-developing the afgani agriculure.

 

Will that be fixed any time soon? No. But I don't see Afganistan falling down any time soon. Majority of the country is under democratic control, the last of the warlords are falling fast, and it's just going to go faster. Reconstruction has boosted schooling from 20,000 kids a year, to over 5 million. I'd call that a MAJOR boost.

 

Afganistan, does have problems - but, solvable ones. There's no major terrorism unlike some countries, and there's not a *major* chance of it falling into anarchy.

 

2. Yes, Iraq is rather chaotic right now. And, I would DAMN well expect it to be chaotic while forign terrorists are fighting Iraqi groups AND americans, and the Americans are fighting BOTH groups, and the Iraqi's are fighting the Americans AND the forign terrorists.

 

Yes, it's a rather large cluster*fruitcage*. Given. Nor did I ever say we had a *right* to invade iraq. Personally, I think Syria was/Is a bigger threat to us then Iraq ever was. Jordan stopped a shipment of 20 tons of VX gas at the boarder and set it back. So yes, Syria IS a bit more dangerous then Iraq. But hey, first level of analysis in politic science: It was a personal choice by Bushy to invade Iraq. I never agreed with it, but WHILE WE ARE THERE, we might as well DO the job we are there for.

 

 

I wasn't refering to political stand point. There's mental standpoints in life, which people justify their choices from.

 

Some common ones:

 

Realism (roughly 75% of the educated world, are realists, study done by Cambridge, across the world. Little over 3 million people polled from the U.K., U.S., France, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc.)

 

Classic Liberalism - Old, now completely defuct way of justifying the means, was famous for thinking people are good.

 

Neo-liberalism - Modern spin on classic liberalism, much of a turn though. Very hobbisan in nature/though, they just differ from realists on the use of power for the means.

 

 

Theres alot of others, but those are the major ones. Right now, people are thinking like classic liberalists, because they beleive 'its the right thing to do!"

 

Well, sorry. The morally right thing to do, is rarely the right thing to do as well.

 

 

What ###### me off the most, is the majority of developed countries goverments are NOT listening to anyone else. (And no, Im not JUST refering to the US, it's a GLOBAL problem.)

 

Right now the majority of world leaders are professional politicans, which is extremely bad. Because, how the hell is a politican that's been sheltered his/her entire life going to know anything about the person thats not? It's completely ######.

 

I firmly live by this:

 

"Those who have the ability to get elected into office, should by no means be able to hold, that office."

 

Btw, the Brits are scheduled to pull out later/mid this year, so no big worries, everyone nearly will be out cept for the Americans.

[Sledge]

Oh no! America in "Being made to clean up own mess shocker!"

 

[Foxtrot]

Oh no! America in "Being made to clean up own mess shocker!"

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Did anyone expect us not to? We've cleaned it up every time before. The U.N. Stopped us from going all the way back in '91