I think I might disagree with Biden on expelling Putin from the G20

[Razoo]

9/11 and Iraq: The making of a tragedy - Brookings​

https://www.brookings.edu › blog › 2021/09/17 › 9-11...
Sep 17, 2021 — President George W. Bush was obsessed with the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and deliberately misled the American people about who was ...
Missing: Grudge ‎| Must include: Grudge

• 
  

  The Bush Revolution: The Remaking of America's Foreign Policy​

  https://www.brookings.edu › uploads › 2016/06
  by IH Daalder · 2003 · Cited by 26 — The United States waged wars in. Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops went to Georgia, the Philippines, and Yemen to help those governments defeat terrorist groups ...

TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN ...​

https://www.govinfo.gov › content › pkg › html
The war had been conceived as a swift campaign with a single objective: defeat the Taliban and destroy Al Qaeda by capturing or killing bin Laden and other ...
Missing: Grudge ‎| Must include: Grudge

• 
  

  Text - Govinfo.gov​

  https://www.govinfo.gov › content › pkg › html
  1258 Impeaching George W. Bush, President of the United States, ... on a secret propaganda program to manufacture a false cause for war against Iraq.

 

[multivita-man]

That's like saying trump just believed people lying to him that the election was stolen.

There was absolutely no legitimate rationale for the election fraud claims, whereas there were at least some arguments for invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I personally didn't find those arguments valid, but it's not as black and white as everyone makes it out to be.

He ordered an illegal war.

In the sense that it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, yes, but it's complicated. The invasion of Iraq was arguably one of the worst, if not *the* worst, foreign policy decisions we ever made. But the invasion of Iraq was prosecuted to overthrow a dictator who regularly abused human rights, whereas that is not the case at all in Ukraine. In fact, Russia is deliberately perpetrating crimes against humanity on an industrial scale. I'm not saying that there aren't at least some parallels, but certainly not as a whole, and it's ridiculous to argue otherwise.

 

[Craig234]

There was absolutely no legitimate rationale for the election fraud claims, whereas there were at least some arguments for invading and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. I personally didn't find those arguments valid, but it's not as black and white as everyone makes it out to be.

And that's like saying 'there was at least some argument for Putin having security concerns about Ukraine for invading'.

Listen. Since you apparently don't know the history.

Bush wanted to be a 'war president' and he picked Iraq for his own reasons. It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam being nasty to his people.

Once Bush, as president, decided that, his large team looked for how to 'sell' the war to the American people. One of the participants frickin wrote an article describing this process. They then came up with the idea of WMD as a justification for the war and ordered the administration to serve that message. That included arm-twisting at the CIA, manipulating the press, attacking Joe Wilson, and much more.

Bush's justifications for the war had no more honesty than Putin's claims to be de-Nazifying Ukraine. They had to play along with some things like pretending to care what the UN inspectors would learn; when the inspectors were about to find there were no WMD the administration moved up the invasion schedule by months and ordered them out of Iraq before they could finish.

In the sense that it wasn't sanctioned by the UN, yes, but it's complicated. The invasion of Iraq was arguably one of the worst, if not *the* worst, foreign policy decisions we ever made. But the invasion of Iraq was prosecuted to overthrow a dictator who regularly abused human rights, whereas that is not the case at all in Ukraine. In fact, Russia is deliberately perpetrating crimes against humanity on an industrial scale. I'm not saying that there aren't at least some parallels

That was not Bush's motive any more than Putin's motive is his claim to protect people in Ukraine. The parallels are far stronger than you think. I'm not saying they're 100% - yes, Saddam was a terrible dictator while Zelensky is far different - but that's not the relevant issue in judging the wars are illegal and war crimes. That's like comparing two drive-by shooting victims shot by strangers and finding one was a criminal you don't sympathize with.

 

[multivita-man]

And that's like saying 'there was at least some argument for Putin having security concerns about Ukraine for invading'.

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and began massing troops along the Saudi border. He possessed chemical weapons and used them on his own citizens. I personally know two people who lived through the Halabja massacre - you can look it up online if you wish. I know you're not making the argument that Zelensky and Hussein are exactly the same, but in a way, that's what your argument amounts to. The only reason we didn't topple Hussein's regime in 1990 is because H.W. Bush's team was smart enough to figure out that it was a can of worms we didn't want to open. None of this necessarily makes the 2003 invasion 'right' or 'legal' or 'just', but it does properly nuance the history in a way your black/white parallels of Putin/Ukraine and Bush/Iraq does not.

Listen. Since you apparently don't know the history.

Oh I knew it was coming. Go ahead and Bernie-splain "history" to me, lol. This oughtta be good.

Bush wanted to be a 'war president' and he picked Iraq for his own reasons. It had nothing to do with WMD or Saddam being nasty to his people.

Bush absolutely had his own motivations and they weren't necessarily tied to Hussein's human rights violations - I'll agree with that. Moreover, his cabinet was full of right wing neo-conservatives who were part of a think tank called the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC for short. Among their interests and concerns were (at least in my view & recollection):

* securing control of Iraq's petroleum reserves
* setting up a military and political operation in close proximity to Iran
* protecting US dollar dominance of global commodities markets, and,
* 'defending' Israel from two enemies (Hussein and the Ayatollah)

No, Bush's motives weren't clean - I get all that. Still, Hussein was a murderous thug. There was a rationale for taking him out and replacing him with a democratically-elected government. That doesn't mean it was necessarily a legal or a wise thing to do, but again, it's ridiculous to compare Putin's prosecution of the war in Ukraine to Bush's war in Iraq. The parallels begin and end at unauthorized invasion and occupation.

Once Bush, as president, decided that, his large team looked for how to 'sell' the war to the American people. One of the participants frickin wrote an article describing this process. They then came up with the idea of WMD as a justification for the war and ordered the administration to serve that message. That included arm-twisting at the CIA, manipulating the press, attacking Joe Wilson, and much more.

Yep, I don't disagree that individuals on his team twisted the truth, particularly Cheney and George Tenet. They were both mother****ers. I think it's less clear, though, what GWB actually knew and believed as fact. You'd have to be a mind reader to do that, which nobody here is.

Bush's justifications for the war had no more honesty than Putin's claims to be de-Nazifying Ukraine. They had to play along with some things like pretending to care what the UN inspectors would learn; when the inspectors were about to find there were no WMD the administration moved up the invasion schedule by months and ordered them out of Iraq before they could finish.

I think the underlying problem in dealing with Saddam Hussein is similar to the one we now face with Vladimir Putin. When you're dealing with someone who shows total disregard for territorial integrity, national sovereignty, human rights, and international law, even after hostilities cease, how do you deal with that problem? That problem doesn't just go away. Once sanctions are over, a regime can rearm.

That was not Bush's motive any more than Putin's motive is his claim to protect people in Ukraine. The parallels are far stronger than you think.

Fair enough, I can accept that.

I'm not saying they're 100% - yes, Saddam was a terrible dictator while Zelensky is far different - but that's not the relevant issue in judging the wars are illegal and war crimes.

In judging legality? Fair point, even though we may disagree on the nuances.

In judging war crimes? Absolutely disagree with you on that one. Bush is not a war criminal. That's just ultra-left backpacking, granola-munching bullshit.

 

[Craig234]

Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and began massing troops along the Saudi border. He possessed chemical weapons and used them on his own citizens. I personally know two people who lived through the Halabja massacre - you can look it up online if you wish. I know you're not making the argument that Zelensky and Hussein are exactly the same, but in a way, that's what your argument amounts to. The only reason we didn't topple Hussein's regime in 1990 is because H.W. Bush's team was smart enough to figure out that it was a can of worms we didn't want to open. None of this necessarily makes the 2003 invasion 'right' or 'legal' or 'just', but it does properly nuance the history in a way your black/white parallels of Putin/Ukraine and Bush/Iraq does not.

First of all, you're talking about the first war on Iraq, I'm talking about the second.

Second, you are really not understanding the argument. I'm not arguing that Saddam and Zelensky aren't exactly the same - I'm saying they're extremely different and that is not the issue. You seem to think that listing bad things about Saddam will prove your point, because you are not understanding my argument.

I'll repeat. The issue is not how bad Saddam was, because that is not the issue in the illegality of Bush's war. Anything bad about Saddam was convenient for PR, not the reason for the war. I'm happy to discuss all the differences and nuances, which I think I'm as or more aware of than you, but they're not relevant to the issue at hand, that the parallels of the illegality of the wars is more comparable than you appreciate.

Oh I knew it was coming. Go ahead and Bernie-splain "history" to me, lol. This oughtta be good.

Sounds like a waste of time giving you information.

Bush absolutely had his own motivations and they weren't necessarily tied to Hussein's human rights violations - I'll agree with that. Moreover, his cabinet was full of right wing neo-conservatives who were part of a think tank called the Project for a New American Century, or PNAC for short. Among their interests and concerns were (at least in my view & recollection):

* securing control of Iraq's petroleum reserves
* setting up a military and political operation in close proximity to Iran
* protecting US dollar dominance of global commodities markets, and,
* 'defending' Israel from two enemies (Hussein and the Ayatollah)

You have part of the story. The neocons also had grand ideas that Iraq was a first step toward overthrowing every regime in the Middle East and replacing them with pro-US democracies. As I recall, PNAC wasn't a 'think tank', it was an ad hoc name for a group of these people to organize their advocacy, which led to a letter to Bill Clinton asking him to start the war. He declined.

 

[Craig234]

No, Bush's motives weren't clean - I get all that. Still, Hussein was a murderous thug. There was a rationale for taking him out and replacing him with a democratically-elected government. That doesn't mean it was necessarily a legal or a wise thing to do, but again, it's ridiculous to compare Putin's prosecution of the war in Ukraine to Bush's war in Iraq. The parallels begin and end at unauthorized invasion and occupation.

You are having a hard time not conflating the issue of the illegality of the war, with the 'side issues' such as how bad Saddam was. I made this analogy but I'll make it again. If you think it'd be fun to shoot into a crowd, how much is your crime mitigated if the person you hit happened to be a terrible person?

I point out the wrong of the shooting and you say, 'ya, but the bullet hit a MURDERER, a really bad guy!'

You have it backwards: Bush started the war for reasons unrelated to how bad Saddam was, but USED how bad he was for public relations looking for everything he could add to the list of justifications. You are determined to say how bad Saddam was was a reason for the war and partial justification.

Since you're having that difficulty, I'll point out what I said at the time of the war: that Democrats and anti-war advocated did not have a solution to the terrible problem of Saddam. We had our own problems because OUR position would leave a horrible monster tyrannizing Iraq at least.

And as the war was mishandled, I was a rare voice for Democrats saying that if Bush had just not mismanaged the post-war period so disastrously, he could have gone down very well in history - that he was right to invade and Democrats were wrong to oppose him, had the war simple overthrown Saddam and done well as handing the country over to Iraqis.

So I sure the heck appreciate the issues around how bad Saddam was. Had that been Bush's reason for the war, it would affect the discussion. Because it wasn't, Bush doesn't get credit for it in terms of the legality of the war. He can get some credit for it in terms of it offering some mitigation to the harm, but not to the illegality.

Look. The US for reasons overthrew Mossadegh, overthrew Guatemala's president, overthrew Salvadore Allende, had Patrice Lumumba assassinated, overthrew Saddam and other regimes. Some were good leaders and some were terrible. Since their being good or bad leaders weren't the reasons for overthrowing them, they don't get to just selectively pretend that was the reason if they were bad.

 

[Craig234]

I've already given you the analogy that that's like shooting in a crowd for run and if the bullet his a nasty person claiming that justified it.

I'll repeat. In *1998* Bush candidly told an interviewer that he wanted to be a war president because that would give him political capital that would help him pass his domestic agenda - his bills for plutocracy like privatizing Social Security. That's why within a few hours of 9/11 Bush was ordering his top people to find a link to Saddam. He saw it as his chance for his war. All the 'reasons' were invented later. Neocons? Sure. Saddam is bad? Sure. Saddam tried to assassinate his father? Sure. WMD? Sure. Iraq offering sanctuary to Al Queda? Sure. Saddam pursuing a nuclear weapon? Sure. You need to distinguish the justifications for the war, and the public relations case for the war. Either Saddam being a terrible dictator was a reason for the war and justified it, or it was a nice item to add to the list of justifications that happened to be the case.

The parallels on the illegality of the wars are a lot more black and white than you realize. Other things, like differences between Saddam and Zelensky, are not.

Yep, I don't disagree that individuals on his team twisted the truth, particularly Cheney and George Tenet. They were both mother****ers. I think it's less clear, though, what GWB actually knew and believed as fact. You'd have to be a mind reader to do that, which nobody here is.

The team of liars was a lot larger than that, and what you said is what someone who is not well informed about it says. Have to be a mind reader. If you learn the history, the picture is a lot more clear. That includes a lot of things like learning Bush's mentality and history and agenda. You might get a little idea for example of how seriously Bush took the WMD claims when you see he made a comedy video about their not being WMD as he walked around the White House looking under cushions for them. But it also includes specific things you show no indication you are informed about. Have you ever read that 1998 interview of Bush explaining why he was determined to be a war president? Have you read the Atlantic article by a participant confessing how the WMD claims came to happen? I heard Joe Wilson tell his story about how he was attacked for revealing a lie for the war - have you?

Your reaction looks very much like the 'early' reaction - give Bush the benefit of the doubt, a lot like Nixon before the tapes came out, give him the benefit of the doubt. You don't seem to appreciate the known history, or how powerful the machine is that creates defenses for a president, creates 'plausible deniability' - whether that was covering up LBJ's lying as shown in the Pentagon papers, or covered up crimes like Reagan's Iran-Contra where the administration was totally dedicated to shielding Reagan's involvement, to creating the 'Bush made an honest mistake' narratives.

When Bush said in a state of the union that Saddam was trying to by yellowcake in Niger, despite CIA officials who were not 'in on the fix' and doing their job investigated the claims and Joe Wilson had shown them false, that when Wilson couldn't get anyone in the administration to correct the error, instead the Vice President's office organized a smear campaign against Wilson and outed his wife as a covert CIA agent, destroying her career for spite - that was not an innocent mistake.

Look, I'll even give Bush just a little bit of the naivete you want him to have - he let Cheney run the show, including approving Cheney's request to put Rumsfeld in charge of Iraq instead of Colin Powell, and Bush did not totally go along with it all later. He eventually fired Rumsfeld over Cheney's objection. When Cheney's top aide was convicted, Bush commuted his sentence but refused to give him a full pardon as Cheney wanted (trump later did).

Learn the history, though, and the history is not that people came to Bush with claims about WMD and Bush was misled. That's not what happened. That's the lie created to try to protect Bush later. The political partisan propaganda.

I have no issue with your starting out considering more benevolent possibilities for Bush, being skeptical, but you need to learn more.

 

[Craig234]

I think the underlying problem in dealing with Saddam Hussein is similar to the one we now face with Vladimir Putin. When you're dealing with someone who shows total disregard for territorial integrity, national sovereignty, human rights, and international law, even after hostilities cease, how do you deal with that problem? That problem doesn't just go away. Once sanctions are over, a regime can rearm.

As I said, Saddam WAS a big problem, and Democrats didn't have a good answer. As illegal as the war was, if that had been Bush's motivation and he had handled the post-invasion well, he could have come out looking pretty good I think. But none of that changes the clear parallels between Bush's choice on that war and Putin's on Ukraine where differences between Zelensky and Saddam are irrelevant to that issue.

In judging legality? Fair point, even though we may disagree on the nuances.

In judging war crimes? Absolutely disagree with you on that one. Bush is not a war criminal. That's just ultra-left backpacking, granola-munching bullshit.

I think knowingly launching an illegal war makes one a war criminal. I think reckless disregard in much of how it's conducted makes one a war criminal. I think recklessly imprisoning innocent people for decades and torturing makes one a war criminal. Bush isn't guilty of every war crime Putin is; no one said that. That doesn't change his guilt for crimes he did.

 

[element94]

Maybe someone inside will slip Putin some polonium-210 and save everyone else the bother.

 

[Michael Cole]

Some government or something with integrity should mail P**** a letter saying he might be a big winner in the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes.

Nebraska?

 

[multivita-man]

I'll probably reply in multiple posts.

First of all, you're talking about the first war on Iraq, I'm talking about the second.

I'm referring to both because the second war was essentially unfinished business from the first. You remember the no-fly zones and sanctions, right? That lasted pretty much from 1991 right up until the invasion in 2003. I think you're having a hard time comprehending how all these events and factors are connected.

Second, you are really not understanding the argument. I'm not arguing that Saddam and Zelensky aren't exactly the same

Minor quibble, but I think you meant to say you're not arguing Saddam and Zelensky *are* the same; otherwise, this statement expresses a double negative, which in grammar is the same as it is in mathematics: positive/affirmative.

- I'm saying they're extremely different and that is not the issue. You seem to think that listing bad things about Saddam will prove your point, because you are not understanding my argument.

Maybe Bernie-splain less and augment your argument with actual evidence and facts.

I'll repeat. The issue is not how bad Saddam was, because that is not the issue in the illegality of Bush's war. Anything bad about Saddam was convenient for PR, not the reason for the war. I'm happy to discuss all the differences and nuances, which I think I'm as or more aware of than you, but they're not relevant to the issue at hand, that the parallels of the illegality of the wars is more comparable than you appreciate.

FTR, I've already acknowledged that the legality of the war is in question. That being said, it's not quite as black and white as you assume it to be. Under international law, the Bush administration, contrary to popular opinion, did not make the legal argument that it was using preemptive self-defense as a legal basis for its war in 2003; rather, it argued that Iraq was in 'material breach' of the 1990 ceasefire, which was sanctioned by the UN. The UN security council did not agree, but the US and UK decided that they have the authority to act independent of the UN to enforce not only no-fly zones, which they did constantly, but also the ceasefire through the use of force, irrespective of whether the UNSC supported their findings or not.

Controversial to say the least, particularly given the UNSC Resolution 678 was authored to address circumstances that were different in 1991 than they were in 2002-3. However, the Bush doctrine was not a radical departure from international law. I personally think they did need UNSC backing. I think they deliberately tried to exaggerate minor violations as evidence of material breach, and they exploited loopholes in UNSC R 678 to weave a legal justification for regime change that's specious. They certainly would have muted most of the criticism if they'd had UN backing. But they knew they weren't going to get it b/c each country on that council was thinking with their own interests in mind, just as they are now.

The above only addresses the legality of the invasion under international law. There are obviously concerns about abuses of power and potential criminal conduct under U.S. law, but most of those offenses would probably be low-level felonies such as perjury.

 

[multivita-man]

Sounds like a waste of time giving you information.

Sounds like a waste of time giving you information.

Yet here you are, lol.

You have part of the story. The neocons also had grand ideas that Iraq was a first step toward overthrowing every regime in the Middle East

Sorry, but this is total bullshit. Yes, there was some grandiose domino theory that overthrowing Hussein could bring about democratic revolution across the Middle East, but they idea that they wanted to overthrow every regime in the Middle East is nonsense. Truthfully, most administrations - certainly the Bushes - don't mind human rights abusers as heads of state as long as they're friendly toward the U.S. and align with our political and economic interests. Let's get this real clear: the U.S. would much rather deal with General Sisi or Hosni Mubarak than with the Muslim Brotherhood.

As I recall, PNAC wasn't a 'think tank', it was an ad hoc name for a group of these people to organize their advocacy, which led to a letter to Bill Clinton asking him to start the war. He declined.

Nope, it's a think tank. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Statement_of_Principles

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[6] The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[7]

 

[multivita-man]

You are having a hard time not conflating the issue of the illegality of the war, with the 'side issues' such as how bad Saddam was. I made this analogy but I'll make it again. If you think it'd be fun to shoot into a crowd, how much is your crime mitigated if the person you hit happened to be a terrible person?

I point out the wrong of the shooting and you say, 'ya, but the bullet hit a MURDERER, a really bad guy!'

Cool analogy, bro. Lots of other yada yada so I'll get to the bottom line:

Since their being good or bad leaders weren't the reasons for overthrowing them, they don't get to just selectively pretend that was the reason if they were bad.

Your original claim was that Bush's invasion of Iraq was virtually no different than Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and I think it was also you (too lazy to look back now) who suggested Bush was a war criminal like Putin for invading Iraq illegally. And I'm here to tell ya, it's bullshit. There's a world of difference in terms of degree, in terms of circumstance, in terms of prosecution of the war, in terms of command and control of the military all up and down the chain of command - it's just a quackery comet from outer space to suggest that these two conflicts are remotely the same and that Bush is analogous to Putin.

 

[Craig234]

Your original claim was that Bush's invasion of Iraq was virtually no different than Putin's invasion of Ukraine, and I think it was also you (too lazy to look back now) who suggested Bush was a war criminal like Putin for invading Iraq illegally. And I'm here to tell ya, it's bullshit. There's a world of difference in terms of degree, in terms of circumstance, in terms of prosecution of the war, in terms of command and control of the military all up and down the chain of command - it's just a quackery comet from outer space to suggest that these two conflicts are remotely the same and that Bush is analogous to Putin.

You're just being willfully uninformed, and it's a bit like talking to a wall as you repeat the same errors but don't listen.

I don't think you mean badly, you just have wax in your ears, so we'll leave it at that. You have it backwards - if the issue were drunk driving, I'd be talking about the impairment of the driver and you'd be talking about what a jerk the victim was - and you want to just keep pointing out how the cars weren't the same and how bad the victim was.

 

[multivita-man]

You're just being willfully uninformed, and it's a bit like talking to a wall as you repeat the same errors but don't listen.

Right, says the guy who said that PNAC advocated the overthrow of all regimes in the ME and didn't know that PNAC was actually a think tank. I'm the one who's uninformed? lol, please, you're embarrassing yourself now.

I don't think you mean badly, you just have wax in your ears, so we'll leave it at that. You have it backwards - if the issue were drunk driving, I'd be talking about the impairment of the driver and you'd be talking about what a jerk the victim was - and you want to just keep pointing out how the cars weren't the same and how bad the victim was.

No, you're suggesting that because Bush supposedly launched an illegal war he's a war criminal, which is an absurd argument. There's more to assessing the ethical conduct of war than the mere legality of it. There's the ethics of going to war (jus ad bellum) in the first place and the ethics of how war is prosecuted once hostilities commence (jus in bello). There are degrees, shades of grey.

 

[Craig234]

Right, says the guy who said that PNAC advocated the overthrow of all regimes in the ME and didn't know that PNAC was actually a think tank. I'm the one who's uninformed? lol, please, you're embarrassing yourself now.

No, actually you are, and being rather obnoxious, so I'm not planning to waste more time. You misread what I said, what I said is correct.. If you want to learn a little, here's one article. You probably can't be bothered. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/26/th...ative-think-tanks-on-american-foreign-policy/

 

[multivita-man]

No, actually you are, and being rather obnoxious,

lolololol! I'm being obnoxious? Why, because I'm basically exposing your ignorance on a topic you assume to have some sort of expertise on? lololol

Let's rewind the video tape and look at some of your condescension:

Listen. Since you apparently don't know the history.

Second, you are really not understanding the argument.

Sounds like a waste of time giving you information.

I'm happy to discuss all the differences and nuances, which I think I'm as or more aware of than you,

lol - except that I've already demonstrated incontrovertibly that you're not.

Since you're having that difficulty,

You are having a hard time not conflating the issue of the illegality of the war

I'll stop there - I think that's enough smug for one post, lol. Maybe check yourself before you call out others for being 'obnoxious'. I don't think I'm the only poster who's made this observation either.

so I'm not planning to waste more time. You misread what I said, what I said is correct.. If you want to learn a little, here's one article. You probably can't be bothered. https://www.e-ir.info/2014/05/26/th...ative-think-tanks-on-american-foreign-policy/

Since you don't specifically point out what it was that I misread, I can't really respond with any context. But since you're citing the PNAC again, you've yet to document that the PNAC supposedly wanted to replace all the regimes in the Middle East. That article you linked me to doesn't really go there, so again, it's on you, dude.

 

[Craig234]

lolololol! I'm being obnoxious? Why, because I'm basically exposing your ignorance

You are making idiotic statement such that I am not planning to read you further than the words above. You were given an article to learn a little something, which is more than you deserve.

 

[multivita-man]

You are making idiotic statement such that I am not planning to read you further than the words above. You were given an article to learn a little something, which is more than you deserve.

Do you have any idea how arrogant your writing seems?