Ron Paul and a Timeline of CIA Crimes and Atrocities
-
Noooo... both of you have it wrong. You should be friendly with all, but entagle yourselves with none. Isolationism is usually only implemented in a totally authoritarian state (AKA Cuba, China...) We should defend our borders, but it doesn't mean that we seal the borders. Since the CIA deals in covert action, of course we have alliances that us normal folk don't understand at all. Why is there so much confusion? How about this: bring the troops home, destroy the NSA and CIA, and everyone would be happy again. The CIA and MI6 are the ones creating problems, not "extremist muslims" or "right-wing extremists" or "terrorists" in general. BTW: This is an opinion post. Citation not necessary.
If, by bringing the troops home, you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, then I agree with you. Do realize, though, that part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence. Just stumbled on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire[^], an interesting read with several sides to the issue. As for the CIA/NSA... The way I see it, being one of the larger countries, and one of the richest, makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders. I don't think I have to point out our position as one of the major hubs of commerce, finance, etc... That's enough to ensure that we WILL be a target. Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that. Now, having the CIA/NSA focus more on intelligence gathering than covert ops might be a good thing... But ditching them entirely would practically be an invitation. Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
ragnaroknrol wrote:
You want a country that is not seen as isolationist.
The purpose of boarders are to isolate. You want isolationism. Isolationism is good.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Isolationism is good.
Yep, obviously. Because it works so well. Like in the early 1900s Or after the Great Depression. Oh wait, World Wars all started while we were too busy minding our own business not to step in and stop things before they got out of hand. It doesn't work. You seriously think we shouldn't get involved in world politics when they directly impact us?
-
You are becoming an annoyance. You should check the inforwars site and you will see there are citations scattered about in the article itself. Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government for your TV show or something.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government
Like you do? Oh, wait, sorry, you don't do that either. You post in a PROGRAMMING site a bunch of youtube and infowars links and don't actually DO anything.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
He just reads them and thinks 'yeah, THAT'S why I have failed at life. The CIA'
I thought it was Climategate... Or was that last week's excuse? :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Yeah, it's a moving target, obviously.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
We need to have somewhat of an isolationism policy. We should only trade with economies that do not underpay their workers, and we should never ever allow trade imbalances. We should only send troops if we legally declare war on a country, and not some phony abstract war like terror or drugs.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
We should only trade with economies that do not underpay their workers, and we should never ever allow trade imbalances.
Well to me, that's not isolationist. That's just free trade. But yes I do agree.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
. We should only send troops if we legally declare war on a country
Technical point here: the term to use is "lawfully", not "legally". But yes, completely agreed. Only Congress can declare war, not the president on a whim. It MUST be debated.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
not some phony abstract war like terror or drugs
BINGO.
-
If, by bringing the troops home, you're talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, then I agree with you. Do realize, though, that part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence. Just stumbled on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire[^], an interesting read with several sides to the issue. As for the CIA/NSA... The way I see it, being one of the larger countries, and one of the richest, makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders. I don't think I have to point out our position as one of the major hubs of commerce, finance, etc... That's enough to ensure that we WILL be a target. Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that. Now, having the CIA/NSA focus more on intelligence gathering than covert ops might be a good thing... But ditching them entirely would practically be an invitation. Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence.
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?! what the hell do you really think is going on over there? I hope you're not getting all of your information from mainstream media sources. I don't think that wiki was very good at all. Yes, we are imperial. We have bases everywhere in the world. We're the policemen. We have bases in every country, even peaceable countries.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
one of the richest
We used to be THE richest... but now, ever since the federal reserve was enacted... (Ok let's not debate this Ian lol)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders.
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that.
You're right. We'd have to pull our troops out as well. Then we wouldn't look like bullies that start fights.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good. They are a demoralized group. They were created during the cold war to gather intelligence and do covert ops. In secret. Theoretically they're accountable to the Congress, but they don't tell Congress everything if they don't want to. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
part of the reason the world is in a state of relative stability (Wars are pretty much confined to small regions or individual countries nowadays) is because of our worldwide presence.
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?! what the hell do you really think is going on over there? I hope you're not getting all of your information from mainstream media sources. I don't think that wiki was very good at all. Yes, we are imperial. We have bases everywhere in the world. We're the policemen. We have bases in every country, even peaceable countries.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
one of the richest
We used to be THE richest... but now, ever since the federal reserve was enacted... (Ok let's not debate this Ian lol)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
makes us a target no matter what we do or don't do beyond our borders.
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Getting rid of the CIA and NSA wouldn't change that.
You're right. We'd have to pull our troops out as well. Then we wouldn't look like bullies that start fights.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Obviously I have no proof, but I'm of the opinion that there's a LOT of nasty stuff being prevented by those agencies without us even knowing about it.
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good. They are a demoralized group. They were created during the cold war to gather intelligence and do covert ops. In secret. Theoretically they're accountable to the Congress, but they don't tell Congress everything if they don't want to. I suppose ignorance is bliss.
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are. And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board? Keep in mind, nukes aren't all that hard to come by, particularly "dirty" ones (Which are more devastating from a terrorism standpoint), in some places. It's delivery systems that are difficult. Right now, the CIA and NSA are working around the clock to detect plots like that BEFORE they reach our shores. That's one of their main purposes. They're the first line of defense. See, I'm not talking about military invasions... The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple. Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all you need are a few WORKING ICBMs, and no soldier will openly set foot in your country. I'm talking about terrorism, or guerrilla warfare. Yeah, I know terrorism is the new thing that they hang over our heads to scare us, but it's always been there. 9/11 was just the first BIG one that the CIA/NSA/FBI didn't catch.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good.
Unfortunately, it's hard to debate this, since good facts are hard to come by. For all we know, they could have agents in almost every major terrorist organization in the world, preventing hundreds of potential attacks from reaching us. On the other hand, they could be doing absolutely nothing. They're so
-
You are becoming an annoyance. You should check the inforwars site and you will see there are citations scattered about in the article itself. Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government for your TV show or something.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are becoming an annoyance.
Do you resent the competition ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Let's put it this way: if you were being bombed and blown away, as a civilian, because of a foreign military presence, wouldn't you be mad and do anything to protect it?
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
josda1000 wrote:
Disagreed. Completely. Being rich would make us protected, if we didn't spread our troops everywhere. We could have built a large defense, instead of seeming like we'd attack at any given point we want. If we just defended the borders, we'd be fine. Think about it: What's going on with Russia? They aren't spread out everywhere, nobody's attacking them. It's actually pretty simple.
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are. And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board? Keep in mind, nukes aren't all that hard to come by, particularly "dirty" ones (Which are more devastating from a terrorism standpoint), in some places. It's delivery systems that are difficult. Right now, the CIA and NSA are working around the clock to detect plots like that BEFORE they reach our shores. That's one of their main purposes. They're the first line of defense. See, I'm not talking about military invasions... The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple. Ever since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, all you need are a few WORKING ICBMs, and no soldier will openly set foot in your country. I'm talking about terrorism, or guerrilla warfare. Yeah, I know terrorism is the new thing that they hang over our heads to scare us, but it's always been there. 9/11 was just the first BIG one that the CIA/NSA/FBI didn't catch.
josda1000 wrote:
I'm of the opinion that they are doing a lot more harm than good.
Unfortunately, it's hard to debate this, since good facts are hard to come by. For all we know, they could have agents in almost every major terrorist organization in the world, preventing hundreds of potential attacks from reaching us. On the other hand, they could be doing absolutely nothing. They're so
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
Circular logic, but how do you know it's not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are.
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board?
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, shit still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news: http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=888[] http://www.prisonplanet.com/bomber-had-no-passport-helped-to-board-plane-by-sharp-dressed-man.html[] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6968560.ece[]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple.
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
-
TLDR: The CIA is a bunch of jerks. Not really news here, everyone knows they have been stupidly overstepping their bounds and they have a bunch of guys with every James Bond movie in their collection to which they spend quality time with a tissue watching them and wishing they could just blow away bad guys all day long.
-
You are becoming an annoyance. You should check the inforwars site and you will see there are citations scattered about in the article itself. Instead of crying and browning your pants, why don't you just look into it. Use the Freedom of Information Act to get original scans direct from the government for your TV show or something.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
You know, I'm about to possibly have Dave Champion on the show soon. So guess what... YEAH! I'm DOING something, you moron!!! I don't need Freedom of Information Act requests if I can get a radio personality that's already done so ON the show. BTW!! I HAVE A SHOW!!! Ok sorry I'm done.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Instead of crying and browning your pants
The only reason I'd cry is if we get more oppressed. And again... you're not helping. So do something and help. Instead of calling everyone in the Back Room names. Something tells me that you're just an evil 12 year old or something. I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE!
-
You know, I'm about to possibly have Dave Champion on the show soon. So guess what... YEAH! I'm DOING something, you moron!!! I don't need Freedom of Information Act requests if I can get a radio personality that's already done so ON the show. BTW!! I HAVE A SHOW!!! Ok sorry I'm done.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Instead of crying and browning your pants
The only reason I'd cry is if we get more oppressed. And again... you're not helping. So do something and help. Instead of calling everyone in the Back Room names. Something tells me that you're just an evil 12 year old or something. I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE!
josda1000 wrote:
I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE! Quote Selected Text
Woah Woah Woah... You haven't finished debating Ian yet. You are not going anywhere until you finish that debate, and win.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
I'm done associating myself with you. PEACE! Quote Selected Text
Woah Woah Woah... You haven't finished debating Ian yet. You are not going anywhere until you finish that debate, and win.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
lol relying on me? not yourself?! That's the point. If you start a debate (and you do ALL the time), then YOU debate! He and I debate, but we never really finish it, because we just don't see eye to eye on much. I enjoy it, however, it's not going to happen. I don't think there's any real win. But no, I am done with you. You act like a child. And I have the inclination to say that you do this on purpose. I believe most on here would agree with it as well, and you have accepted it, in some whorish way. You've demoralized yourself. And that's the kind of thing that Alex Jones attracts, while at the same time saying that's the reason why the country's gone to hell in a hand-basket. And don't tell me what to do. I think I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
-
lol relying on me? not yourself?! That's the point. If you start a debate (and you do ALL the time), then YOU debate! He and I debate, but we never really finish it, because we just don't see eye to eye on much. I enjoy it, however, it's not going to happen. I don't think there's any real win. But no, I am done with you. You act like a child. And I have the inclination to say that you do this on purpose. I believe most on here would agree with it as well, and you have accepted it, in some whorish way. You've demoralized yourself. And that's the kind of thing that Alex Jones attracts, while at the same time saying that's the reason why the country's gone to hell in a hand-basket. And don't tell me what to do. I think I'm doing just fine, thank you very much.
Well, maybe you should take the spotlight here. There are approximately 350 people that read this forum, 150-200 daily. Take it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Well, maybe you should take the spotlight here. There are approximately 350 people that read this forum, 150-200 daily. Take it.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
But this forum screeches to a dead halt, and readers disperse if I do not post here. You should just go ahead and take over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
You're assuming that all of the violence over there is BECAUSE we're there, and that it wouldn't be otherwise. How do you know that's the case?
Circular logic, but how do you know it's not?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Russia hasn't been worth attacking since the USSR broke up, plain and simple. Switzerland is neutral, and that works because they're not worth attacking. We are.
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Ian Shlasko wrote:
And no matter how much defense we build, what's to stop someone from sneaking a nuke in through one of our ports? Or even sailing a freighter into New York Harbor with a nuke on board?
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, shit still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news: http://politicallore.com/blog/?p=888[] http://www.prisonplanet.com/bomber-had-no-passport-helped-to-board-plane-by-sharp-dressed-man.html[] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6968560.ece[]
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The way the world is now, nobody with working nukes gets invaded, plain and simple.
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
josda1000 wrote:
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
josda1000 wrote:
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, sh*t still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news:
The point I'm making is that the CIA/NSA is the first line of defense. Soldiers at the ports won't help, but the covert guys can keep watch for these things and intercept them before they reach us. Can't do that if we confine ourselves to our own country.
josda1000 wrote:
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
josda1000 wrote:
I completely disagree with this as well. You have to dig. Just as I'd said before with CSS. They're there... Search for them. This is why "conspiracy theories" are struck down so easily... people don't want to look at the truth, whether presented a logical argument or not. The truth is not opinionated. It is what it is... so look for it.
Sorry, should have been more specific... By "this", I meant that particular topic... Whether the CIA is actually infiltrating groups and stopping attacks before we even hear anything, or whether they're being useless. The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
-
But this forum screeches to a dead halt, and readers disperse if I do not post here. You should just go ahead and take over.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]
-
josda1000 wrote:
Say you were president of a country, a moderately sized one. Nothing is attacking you, or threatening you. And, let's say you WANT to attack someone, for the purpose of spreading your own power and jurisdiction. Would you go after someone smaller than you, or larger than you? Would you really go after someone with more wealth and military than your own? That is total nonsense. Come on. Plus: we're on a completely different continent, with only two neighbors (that is, the continental united states).
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
josda1000 wrote:
I think you're making my point for me on this one. No matter how much "security" we have, sh*t still happens. Nevermind what actually happened on Christmas Day that you never hear about on the news:
The point I'm making is that the CIA/NSA is the first line of defense. Soldiers at the ports won't help, but the covert guys can keep watch for these things and intercept them before they reach us. Can't do that if we confine ourselves to our own country.
josda1000 wrote:
We've never been invaded, except during the war of 1812. Plain and simple.
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
josda1000 wrote:
I completely disagree with this as well. You have to dig. Just as I'd said before with CSS. They're there... Search for them. This is why "conspiracy theories" are struck down so easily... people don't want to look at the truth, whether presented a logical argument or not. The truth is not opinionated. It is what it is... so look for it.
Sorry, should have been more specific... By "this", I meant that particular topic... Whether the CIA is actually infiltrating groups and stopping attacks before we even hear anything, or whether they're being useless. The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in? Author of Guardians of Xen (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novel)
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Again, not talking about military invasions... Talking about terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
No, I was actually talking covert ops. Think about it: if you're a terrorist, it doesn't matter who you go after. You just want to terrorize. I should have toned down my scenario a bit then: even if you were a terrorist, all you want to do is destroy. In general, you're not on a suicide mission, you're just out to destroy. So why in the hell would you go after the biggest military giant in the world?
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Yet again... Not talking about invasions, but about non-military attacks.
OK, continue with the logic. Go back to your original post. You did say that "nobody with nukes gets invaded, plain and simple". Sooooo... why were we then? This is precisely why it's abundantly clear to anyone with any kind of common sense that 9/11 was indeed an inside job, or at least, the executive branch knew that it would happen. We have no accountability on it, there are so many holes in the 9/11 commission report, and we went STRAIGHT into Iraq and Afghanistan, and we STILL HAVEN'T GOT OSAMA BIN LADEN!! HAHAHAH!! Look... bring everyone home. Think about the ramifications of that... people would actually live without the United States of America for a while (which is becoming more of a nation-state than a nation now), and see themselves resolve their own problems. WE create the problems.
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The trick with covert ops organizations is that if we hear about it, it means they screwed up.
I couldn't agree more. Which scares the living daylights out of me.
-
woah woah woah... now you're not going to post forum topics, you mean? that's a little like overkill.
Well, I don't think I can ever leave. I've been here since 05 or 06.
Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] Sons Of Liberty - Free Album (They sound very much like Metallica, great lyrics too)[^]