Is there a legitimate case that the blood is on Saddam's hands?

NCfanNCfan Posts: 945
edited July 2007 in A Moving Train
While it is accepted these days to blame the death and destruction in Iraq on the Americans and especially BushCo, isn't there a case to be made that Saddam is the one who is responsible? And at the very least, isn't this worth talking about? I never hear anything about this in political discourse.

- It's pretty clear that Saddam was condemed by the UN and nearly every major country on Earth.

- Saddam refused to come clean about his weapons programs; stalling, lying and playing games with inspectors and the international community for over 15 years.

- Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was cleary stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.

Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 30,215
    yeah some of the blame has to be put onto his name but what good would that do now people are still being killed by the dz over there ?? is BUSH a relative of your's you allways wan't to defend his administration for what will turn out to be the biggest blunder this country has created that is my opinion ........
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • jlew24asujlew24asu Posts: 10,118
    I blame saddam more then I do bush. but bush made a huge mistake by assuming that sunnis and shittes would live happily ever after in freedom.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
    Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

    Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?

    So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?

    Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?

    Cui Bono?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    NCfan wrote:
    While it is accepted these days to blame the death and destruction in Iraq on the Americans and especially BushCo, isn't there a case to be made that Saddam is the one who is responsible? And at the very least, isn't this worth talking about? I never hear anything about this in political discourse.

    - It's pretty clear that Saddam was condemed by the UN and nearly every major country on Earth.

    - Saddam refused to come clean about his weapons programs; stalling, lying and playing games with inspectors and the international community for over 15 years.

    - Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was cleary stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.

    Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...

    no matter how you try to justify it..this war was a mistake....and it was a mistake to vote for Bush...and the second time even worse. Yea Sadaam was horrible..no doubt....problem is we invaded that fked up country...and that blood is on the hands of all those that voted for Bush and his henchmen.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
    Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

    Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?

    So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?

    Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?

    Cui Bono?

    ^^ ditto this. The term played like a card comes to mind...Interesting how the US govt even made up a deck of cards with Saddam being one of them... the fucking quacks. Saddam was a lunatic, but who knew this already selling him WMD?
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I blame saddam more then I do bush. but bush made a huge mistake by assuming that sunnis and shittes would live happily ever after in freedom.

    Sadaam's actions have nothing to do with our actions.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • This about sums it up...

    FYI some content is a bit disturbing:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1Iy32lIT8
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Did you forget about the part in history where the U.N. Weapons Inspectors were let back into Iraq in 2002/2003?
    Yes. Saddam Hueesin has blood on his hands. But, the blood was from the Iranians that he killed in the 1980s... the Kuwaitis killed in his 1990 Invasion and occupation of Kuwait... the Iraqis that died as a result of his poor military decisions... the Kurds and Shi'ites that died under his oppressive and brutal reign... the deaths of his own citizens as a result of the U.N. Economic Sanctions as he stole aid funds to furnish his homes. But, after his 1991 ass kicking and subsequent weapons inspection and the dismantling of hs weapons, he was pretty much rendered impotent. He still tormented his Shi'ite Majority and talked a lot of shit, but he was being contained. The threat was coming from Iran... it always had been.
    I'm sorry... but, as much as you'd like to, you cannot deny any responsibility on this one. What ever happened to 'Personal Responsibility and accountability' that everyone always claims? I guess it only applies to other people, right? This is OUR mess... the blood is on OUR hands. We need to quit pretending it belongs to someone else and get serious about fixing it.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • This about sums it up...

    FYI some content is a bit disturbing:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl1Iy32lIT8

    Good find! I'm gonna bulletin it.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • Good find! I'm gonna bulletin it.

    Why thank you. I believe it is a rock solid perspective, and a must watch by all.

    To save argumentative keystrokes in the future, I just put it in my sig :)

    (sorry Tenacious D)
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    NCfan wrote:
    - Be it right or wrong, the United States decided to act with the purpose of removing him from power. This was clearly stated several times, and Bush even gave Saddam and his sons a 48 hour ultimatum to leave the country or face invasion.

    Somebody please give me a legitimate reason why Saddam did not leave or come clean? His military was almost non-existant. He knew he and his sons would face certain death if invaded. Why is it that nobody blames fucking Saddam for this bullshit??????????? It is his ego, not Bush's that is to blame...

    The reason given for the invasion - and the only reason that the U.S Government thought had any chance of being supported at the U.N - was that Sadaam possessed wmd's. Everyone knew this to be complete bollocks. No one with any sense believed the lies prior to the invasion. If the U.S or Britain had based their case for war on the fact that they wanted to remove Sadaam then they wouldn't have even made it to the front gate of the U.N building. This was never about removing Sadaam. And it was never about WMD's. It was a land grab, and an attempt to steal that countries natural resources and establish yet another power base in the heart of the middle East. They have failed. And hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in the process.
  • Cover MeCover Me Posts: 22
    Byrnzie wrote:
    The reason given for the invasion - and the only reason that the U.S Government thought had any chance of being supported at the U.N - was that Sadaam possessed wmd's. Everyone knew this to be complete bollocks. No one with any sense believed the lies prior to the invasion. If the U.S or Britain had based their case for war on the fact that they wanted to remove Sadaam then they wouldn't have even made it to the front gate of the U.N building. This was never about removing Sadaam. And it was never about WMD's. It was a land grab, and an attempt to steal that countries natural resources and establish yet another power base in the heart of the middle East. They have failed. And hundreds of thousands of innocents have been killed in the process.

    Do you feel that a crime has been committed and someone should be held accountable?
  • pjalive21pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    jlew24asu wrote:
    I blame saddam more then I do bush. but bush made a huge mistake by assuming that sunnis and shittes would live happily ever after in freedom.

    i agree with you...thats what his biggest mistake was...not invading Iraq and dethroning Saddam, it was the planning AFTER we did that...thats what become the mess
  • pjalive21 wrote:
    i agree with you...thats what his biggest mistake was...not invading Iraq and dethroning Saddam, it was the planning AFTER we did that...thats what become the mess

    They knew very well what would happen. They've had their hands in this for years. Watch the clip Roland posted.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.

    Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?

    And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.

    Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.

    But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.

    After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.

    And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.

    People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    sponger wrote:
    It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.

    Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?

    And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.

    Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.

    But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.

    After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.

    And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.

    People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.

    Have you ever heard of Valerie Plame?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • Ahnimus wrote:
    Didn't the U.S. make it possible for Saddam to run Iraq to begin with?
    Didn't the U.S. provide Saddam with the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

    Let's see, the U.S. gave dictorial power to Saddam, and provided him with weapons to kill Kurds, then condemned the act and Saddam stopped killing people, right?

    So years later the U.S. decides its time to go back and clean up the mess they caused?

    Something is missing from this equation, could it be Oil or permanent military control of the middle east?

    Cui Bono?

    yes, indeedie.
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    ....we already knew this shit a long time ago.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • spongersponger Posts: 3,159
    Bu2 wrote:
    Have you ever heard of Valerie Plame?

    You didn't even remotely make a point in contrast to my post with the dropping of that name. Please just attempt to make a point so I can have a really good laugh at your reading comprehension. thank you.
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    Valerie Plame's husband was sent to Africa, as our US Ambassador, to see if Saddam had, in fact, been purchasing uraniam there.

    Valerie's husband realized the answer was no.

    Valerie's husband then turned around and tried to say so, to anyone who would listen.

    Valerie Plame, herself, then, was outed.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • sponger wrote:
    It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.

    Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?

    And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.

    Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.

    But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.

    After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.

    And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.

    People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.

    On March 21, two days after announcing the invasion, Bush wrote a letter to congressional leaders in which he said: "The use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001."
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    they didn't resort to THIS.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • Is someone going to make me say yellow cake? .....do not drop that shit!!

    Black Bush really isn't entirely a joke (or at all) you know :D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTZp1qwWdoA
    Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
    and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
    over specific principles, goals, and policies.

    http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg

    (\__/)
    ( o.O)
    (")_(")
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    ...once you've seen one Bush, haven't you seen them all?
    Feels Good Inc.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    sponger wrote:
    It's obviously stupid to think that Saddam had WMD's, but it's equally stupid to think that he didn't. There's just no way of knowing, and it's hard not to say that the circumstantial evidence wasn't strong. And regardless of how he may have gotten the means and the materials, he had a history of non-compliance and he had proven his willingness to use them.

    Everyone knows about the truckloads of secret goods that went streaming up to Syria just before the 2003 invasion. How can anyone say for sure that those weren't his WMD's being shipped north for safe keeping?

    And who is to say that they aren't buried somewhere in the middle of the desert somewhere? Anything is possible. Of any country in the middle east, Iraq is obviously the most likely to have possessed WMD's at that time no matter what inspectors or the White House Enquirer has to say.

    Of course, whether he did or didn't have WMD's really doesn't matter when considering that removal of those WMDs was never really the true agenda of the Bush administration to begin with.

    But that isn't to say that a Gore administration would have done any different. Other than the oil that lay beneath Iraq, I have no doubt there was another motive behind the invasion, and I believe that motive was the immortality that comes with being a war president.

    After all, it was what the country wanted at that time, and approval ratings are music to any politician's ears. To this day, I think most people in the US still cannot differentiate between a fanatical shiite fascist and a secular dictator.

    And let's face it....Bush never implicated Saddam in 9/11. He never implied that Saddam had anything to do with Al Qaeda. He never even suggested that Saddam was linked to terrorism. It was Cheney who made those misleading connections, and his choice of words when making those statements were vague and indirect.

    People in the US made that inference on their own. They dreamed up the Saddam 9/11 connection, and Bush merely capitalized on it to expand the fossil fuel empire and to transform himself from a Vietnam draft dodger to the emperor of a victorious army. I have no reason to believe Gore or any other president wouldn't have done the same. Well, maybe Nader wouldn't, but that's because Nader is a hippie.
    ...
    You know we're talking about the United states and the Iraq on this planet, right?
    IF there were truckloads of secret goods that poured into Syria... that EVERYONE knew or knows about... it isn't so secret, is it? And I didn't know about these... and why hasn't the White House brought this iformation forward to solidify their case? And if they DID know about these shipments... WHY wasn't anything done to stop them or AT LEAST... TRACK them when they reached their destination to VERIFY their claims??? You are basically making the claim that our military and intelligence agencies are a bunch of idiots that were out smarted by the buffons that lead the Iraqi military. I just don't see it that way.
    ...
    As for Weapons Of Mass Destruction... yeah, we knew he had them because:
    A. We sold them to him... and
    B. We destroyed them from 1991 to 1994.
    W.M.D.s may not have been the base agenda, but they were surely sold to the American people as the justification.
    ...
    Regarding Gore... I believe he would have gone after Bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan... that was a no-brainer. Hell... even President Vedder probably would have done that. It was the detour into Iraq that has screwed us up. Gore would have had no reason to go for Iraq, with Afghanistan as a work in progress. And IF Gore would have won the 2000 election and the same thing that have happened... happened on his watch... would you be defending President Gore from my attacks on him? Because I would certainly still be unleashing my rage against any President that took my country down this road.
    ...
    And I cannot speak for the rest of America, but me... personally. I was against this war from the beginning. I wanted us to 'Stay The Course'... in Afghanistan. To 'Finish The Job' that was there... to bring Usama Bin Laden to justice or give him a ride on a 2,000 lb. bomb to afterlife. I didn't want another Viet Nam/politician managed war for my country.
    Oh... and I can tell the difference between a Secular Dictator and a Shi'ite Religious Fanatic. The secular Dictator kept the flow of Iran from it's borders... the Shi'ite Religious Fanatic who holds Ayatollah Khomeini as it's Patron Saint opens the flood gates.
    ...
    And what kind of President allows his Vice President to call the shots for him?
    Answer: A weak President. And one who should not be Commander In Chief of our military.
    ..
    Finally, the American people did not make those inferences by themselves. We were sold this action with speeches of 'Mushroom Clouds' (by the way, made by the President in an address to the Nation, not Vice president Cheney) and constant reminders of September 11th when speaking of Iraq and Hussein. Don't place the blame of this action on the people of this nation... we were sold a bill of goods based on slanted information and half-truth and blatant lies. That is saying the person who is lied to is at fault... not the person who told the lie.
    I disagree with you in your assumption that "Any other President" would have taken this route. Maybe a President Cheney... or a President Rumsfeld or a President Wolfowitz... But, most other possible presidents would have more than likely kept the heat on the Taliban and their co-horts, al Qaeda and Pakistan... and kept the sanctions and no-fly zones with deadly response authorized in place over the contained Iraq... because they were working. I will even go so far as to say that President George H.W. Bush would have not gone this route. He would have used his previous successful model and applied it here.
    ...
    I don't know where you get the information to base you opinions on... but, you might want to go back and re-validate your sources.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    That's my first question.

    What do you propose we do now?

    That's my second.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Bu2 wrote:
    That's my first question.

    What do you propose we do now?

    That's my second.
    ...
    George H.W. Bush's previous successful model?
    Answer: Gulf ar of 1991. A coalition of NATO allies and Arab neighbors.
    ...
    What to do now?
    If you ask me...
    A. You either get serious and put the required manpower and resources in the country to create a secure environment for rebuilding efforts to kick off into full bore mode... a total of 350,000 to 400,000 quality boots on the ground should do the trick... at roughly double the cost it is today...
    ...
    OR
    ...
    B. Get the fuck out and let the Civil War that needs to take place in Iraq due to the collapse of their power base... take it's course and do whatever it takes to keep the fighting from expanding into surrounding countries.
    ...
    Either way.. it is shit.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    and put them back in Afghantistan, I suppose.....

    But maybe it's too late, in this nasty little chess game that Bush has started.
    Feels Good Inc.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    Bu2 wrote:
    and put them back in Afghantistan, I suppose.....

    But maybe it's too late, in this nasty little chess game that Bush has started.
    ...
    Either way... we're screwed.
    And it is our MILITARY people who are shouldering the entire weight. The American people are not feeling anything regarding this war... no rationing... no taxes... no nothing. Our military people and their families are doing ALL of the work. Waving flags and putting magnets on our tailgates and saying, "I Support The Troops" isn't doing shit.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • Bu2Bu2 Posts: 1,693
    the draft, luv.

    Or, do you want to wait that long?
    Feels Good Inc.
Sign In or Register to comment.