Confessions of a Neocon - Page 3 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #21 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-25-2007, 07:30 PM
BenzWorld Elite
FeelTheLove's Avatar
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

Neoconservatism -- RIP
The moralistic ideology has utterly failed. But as long as Bush still abides by it, his disastrous "war on terror" will drag on.

By Gary Kamiya

Nov. 14, 2006

| The neoconservatives who dreamed up America's Iraq nightmare are rushing desperately about, searching for scapegoats. Their favorite whipping boy is yesterday's jutting-jawed hero, Donald Rumsfeld, who has been unceremoniously tossed onto the scrapheap. But they also blame the National Security Council, Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, Paul Bremer, Gen. Tommy Franks and George W. Bush himself. The only thing they don't blame is the actual culprit -- neoconservative ideology itself.

The neocon finger-pointing over who lost Iraq, recently showcased in Vanity Fair, obscures the fact that Bush's war was a laboratory in which their doctrine was tested -- and completely failed. This failure was manifested on the ground and confirmed by the midterms. Most Americans don't even know what neoconservatism is, but they know a failure when they see it -- and they decisively rejected it.

Unfortunately, Bush himself and the key figures in his administration continue to cling, with the fervor of true believers, to neoconservative ideology. Bush has taken some potentially positive steps, like dumping Rumsfeld and replacing him with the more pragmatic Robert Gates, and saying he's open to "any idea" on Iraq. And he is now under enormous pressure, not just from Democrats but also from his own party, to implement profound changes in his Middle East policies. But it remains doubtful whether a figure as dogmatic and inflexible as Bush, who regards his "war on terror" as a sacred duty, will be able to change his approach. It is essential that the fundamental failure of neoconservatism be recognized, to prevent more foreign policy debacles like Iraq.

Neoconservatism is a notoriously slippery and hard-to-define term, in part because its definition has shifted as its enemies have changed. The first generation of neoconservatives, including Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Irving Kristol and Norman Podoretz, were former liberals who believed that America needed to stand up and fight communism. Accusing their former colleagues on the left of going soft, they claimed that America's survival and the fate of the free world required toughness, not compromise. (Kristol defined a neoconservative as a "liberal mugged by reality," which goes a long way to explaining why the ideology gained new adherents after 9/11.) The second generation of neocons, including Robert Kagan, William Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz, continued to believe in American exceptionalism and the virtues of force, but they added an idealistic note: America should not just battle evil but also promote democracies around the world. The "good" they sought, however, was not purely altruistic but inseparably bound up with America's self-interest. They wanted America to exercise "benevolent global hegemony." It was axiomatic that what is good for America is good for the rest of the world.

In 1997, many leading neocons started a pressure group called the Project for the New American Century, which called for America to overthrow Saddam Hussein. A number of PNAC members, including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams and Richard Perle, went on to hold high positions in or to function as influential advisors to the Bush administration.

One of the reasons the neocons were obsessed with Iraq, as George Packer points out in his brilliant study of the Iraq war, "The Assassins' Gate," is that they "concluded it would be very good for Israel." Many neocon thinkers were closely associated with Israel's right-wing Likud Party; some went on to write a 1996 paper, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," that urged incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to roll back Syria, work to effect regime change in Iraq, and refuse to return the occupied territories to the Palestinians.

The neocons' attachment to the Israeli right naturally carried with it a whole series of assumptions about the Middle East, about terrorism, about Arabs, about the Palestinians, about Islam, and about how American should conduct its Mideast policy. The neocons, following the eminent pro-Israel Arabist Bernard Lewis, argued that the Arab world had only itself to blame for its backwardness. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was trotted out by a moribund Arab culture as an excuse. In any case the Palestinians had lost any moral claim because of their recourse to terrorism. America should stop trying to placate the Palestinians and impose a Pax Americana on the region. The Arabs, who respected only force, would fall in line.

Under Bush, these assumptions became U.S. policy -- notwithstanding their significant departure from traditional U.S. Mideast policy, which at least made a pretense of being even-handed. And neoconservative beliefs are enshrined in the Bush administration's "war on terror."

Bush's "war on terror" follows the neocon playbook in every particular. The salient features of that war are these:

1) "Terrorism" is itself the enemy. It is soft-minded and immoral to consider historical context or grievances. Any group that practices terrorism is to be smashed into submission.

2) All militant Islamic groups, from al-Qaida to Hamas and Hezbollah, are essentially the same. They all subscribe to a totalitarian ideology and must be destroyed.

3) Force works. If you smash the Arab world in the mouth hard enough, it will get the idea. If it doesn't, it will be necessary to continue smashing it indefinitely.

4) The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not that important, and the United States should not interfere with Israel's actions, however harsh.

5) The war on terrorism is so crucial that it merits suspending civil liberties, establishing secret prisons and using rendition of suspects in order to torture them.

This approach has been a colossal failure on every level. Iraq speaks for itself. The issue that most inflames the Arab-Muslim world against America, the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, is at one of its bleakest moments. The United States is more hated in the region than ever before. Hezbollah emerged stronger after Lebanon's war against it, and its leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, is the most popular figure in the Arab world. Iran has been greatly empowered. Arab moderates have been marginalized, afraid to be associated with the United States. Arab despots in "moderate" states like Egypt are increasingly threatened by Islamist parties. Afghanistan, which was never properly secured, is falling back into chaos. And as the National Intelligence Estimate pointed out, Bush's Iraq war has greatly increased the number of terrorists.

These are the achievements of the neoconservative approach to Mideast policy. And the problem is not, contrary to neocon claims, simply that Bush failed to properly execute the "war on terror." Well before the Iraq war started, many critics, including this writer, argued that the neocons' good vs. evil worldview was simplistic and dangerous, and that the Bush administration's approach to the Middle East was wrongheaded and if implemented would severely injure U.S. interests. It is no pleasure to be proved right at the cost of America's standing in the world. But as Republican and Democratic policymakers alike try to figure out how to salvage something from the Iraq debacle, it is essential that they also insist on a fundamental reorientation of America's Mideast policies -- and throw neoconservatism into the trash can.

The Bush administration used the shock of 9/11 to convince Americans that radical Islam was evil and that it was our calling to fight it to the death. Bush still believes this. No one disputes that what happened to America that day was terrible, or that terrorism is immoral. But the Iraq war decisively proved that these ethical truisms do not serve as a sufficient basis for foreign policy. You not only have to fight terrorism, you have to fight it smart. But in large part because of their ideological blinders about the Arab world -- dismissal of its grievances, failure to know its history, arrogant assumptions about what it "needed" to develop -- the neocons fought it crudely and stupidly.


Last edited by FeelTheLove; 03-25-2007 at 07:43 PM.
FeelTheLove is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #22 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-25-2007, 07:31 PM
BenzWorld Elite
FeelTheLove's Avatar
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)

The invasion of Iraq was the crowning glory of the neocons' great crusade. Yes, there were some genuine fears about Saddam's WMD, but those were secondary to the Bush administration's desire to smash the pathological Arab-Muslim world in the face (any face would do, and Saddam's was handy) and teach it a lesson it would never forget. Pro-war New York Times pundit Thomas Friedman summed up the neoconservative motivation for invading Iraq succinctly: a "terrorism bubble" had built up in the Arab-Muslim world, and we were going to burst it. Good would triumph and evil would be defeated. Beatings would continue until morale improved. America would show the rest of the world who was boss -- but we would be a benevolent boss, a disappearing boss, installing democracies in the Middle East and then pleasantly fading away to enjoy low oil prices and the glow of knowing that you can do well by doing good. As a bonus, the destruction of Saddam's regime, and the threat to do the same to the other regional evildoers, Syria and Iran, would force the Palestinians, deprived of their backers, to make peace on Israel's terms.

That was the hypothesis -- one that should never have left the ivy-covered walls of Neocon U. When it was field-tested using bullets and bombs in Iraq, not freedom and the triumph of the good but a witches' brew of violence and hatred bubbled up.

And what is likely to be the outcome in Iraq? The best-case scenario may be that we end up with an state run by an unpredictable Shiite strongman like Muqtada al-Sadr, whose rhetoric would be aggressively Islamist, anti-U.S. and pan-Arab but who might be willing to sell us oil. From a realpolitik standpoint, this would arguably be a worse outcome than if the nasty but non-ideological Saddam were still in power. And this is the best-case scenario.

The point is not that the Middle East is a hopeless, primitive mess, where tribal loyalties and the culture of revenge run so deep that it's better to stay away. That kind of Orientalist thinking -- which is now beginning to be heard again from disillusioned neocons on right-wing Web sites -- is too facile. The point is that the Middle East is far more complex in every way than the neoconservatives ever acknowledged. Take "terrorism," that bogeyman of neocon moralists. Both the Iraq mess and Israel's conflict with the Palestinians prove that reifying terrorism as an absolute evil, and basing foreign policy on defeating it without regard to the grievances or historical context out of which it comes, is self-defeating. As everyone who has studied terrorism knows, powerless people turn to terrorism.

In the case of al-Qaida and other jihadists, who have no legitimate grievances, strategic thinking dictates that we take actions to dry up public support for them while employing specifically targeted campaigns against them.

So-called realism, despised by neocons as instrumental and Machiavellian, turns out to be more effective, because more flexible, than the explicitly moralistic ideology of neoconservatism. At some deep level, the American people recognize this. The election was a repudiation, whether fully conscious or not, of lofty moral slogans and hysterical military crusades, and a demand that we take smaller steps. The heady days when neocons David Frum and Richard Perle could issue a book called "An End to Evil" are gone. Americans are at bottom pragmatists, and they now understand that the Middle East is not as black-and-white as Bush and the neocons insisted. Of course there are clear-cut bad guys, like al-Qaida. But the Bush administration's neocon attempt to link al-Qaida to every other militant group in the area we don't like is falling on increasingly deaf ears. It sounds too much like the same grandiose rhetoric used to justify the Iraq disaster.

The American people are not going to sign off on a new war against Iran or commit troops to battle Hezbollah. This isn't "appeasement" -- it's common sense. If the neocons still want to accuse their opponents of being appeasers, as they sit atop a pile of more than 2,800 American dead and hundreds of thousands of slain Iraqis, let them.

The neoconservatives' moment in the sun may have been cathartic for those Americans who wanted a credo that would echo their self-righteous rage. But it has left America despised and weakened globally, strengthened our enemies, and divided our country. It's time to put the crusaders' banner away.
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #23 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-25-2007, 07:49 PM
Surely A Large Human
Qubes's Avatar
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,234
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 482 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Originally Posted by deathrattle
9.00pm The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom
In the final programme, Adam Curtis looks at the steps made by US and British governments to spread a universal message of freedom in an attempt to craft a new form of democracy. The award-winning producer examines how this gave rise to the creation of an unstable environment which has resulted in terrorist attacks on British soil, leading Tony Blair to begin challenging laws designed to protect the public's freedom.
Funny you should mention US and British governments being linked to attacks on British soil (undoubtedly referring to the train bombings there a couple of years ago). Tonight, the American news show "60 Minutes" talked to a British-born Muslim extremist about his association to Al Qaeda and subsequent abandonment of extremist doctrine.
CBS) British police this week arrested three British Muslims in connection with the 2005 bombings on the London subway system in which 52 people were killed.

The world was shocked when the four suicide bombers blew themselves up that morning, especially when it turned out that they were British citizens. The four had been recruited to what is called the "Network," a web of radical Islamic organizations loosely affiliated to al Qaeda which has turned Britain into the western world’s richest breeding grounds for terrorists. How did this happen?

60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon met someone who knows. And for the first time he spoke about what it was like to be inside that network for ten years. His name is Hassan Butt. He’s only 26 years old, but some of the people he recruited were a lot younger than that.

Hassan Butt admits he sent a 17-year-old boy from England to Pakistan to be involved in terrorist training.

Butt was only 16 when he was recruited by the network. Like thousands of other young British Muslims, he became exposed to some of the most radical Imams in Britain – Imams who supported attacks on westerners all over the world and believed that they had a tacit agreement with the British authorities.

They could preach hatred, they could recruit followers, they could raise funds, and they could even call for Jihad – Holy war – as long as they didn’t call for attacks on British soil. London became such a safe haven for Muslim militants that it came to be known as "Londonistan."

"Do you think this was an unspoken deal with the establishment? That, do whatever you want here as long as you don't blow us up?" Simon asks Butt.

"Absolutely. I believe that sincerely," Butt tells Simon. "That was an unspoken deal. And as a result of that, what tended to happen is the British government lost count of how many people were going abroad getting trained and coming back and going into operational mode as sleeper cells."

If there was such a deal, it was shattered in July 2005, when the four suicide bombers blew themselves up on the London subway; three of the terrorists were born in Britain of Pakistani parents.

"The four men who blew themselves up all came from good families, good homes, good educations. How do you explain what they did?" Simon asks.

"I mean, for me, they did it simply because they were convinced that they were doing something in the name of God, in the name of Islam. And they honestly believed they would obtain paradise from doing the activities that they carried out, the terrorist attacks that they carried out," Butt explains.

Ringleader Mohammad Siddique Kahn made a video of his last will. Hassan Butt had met him but insists they never discussed specific operations. Khan told him he first became attracted to radical Islam because the tradition he grew up with was forcing him into an arranged marriage. The radical Imams were offering him a way out.

"A lot of guys I know, actually, have become radicalized, or initially took the first steps towards learning more about Islam and their way of life as a result of them being tried to being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry," Butt tells Simon.

And Butt says the radical preachers are in favor of men marrying whomever they went, as long as their wives are practicing Muslims.

"So this is a very effective and an important proselytizing technique?" Simon asks.

"Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely," Butt says.

But that’s just the start of the recruiting process – it’s bringing them into the tent. Hassan Butt would follow up with young men in his gym in Manchester, England, and in neighborhood pool halls. He says he personally recruited between 50 and 75 people to receive training in Pakistan; thousands more were being recruited elsewhere in Britain.

"We’d talk about the suffering of the Muslims all over the world," Butt tells Simon. "We were very well-versed in the Koran, in the verses of the Koran, in the sayings of the Prophet and show that how it was permissible for people to go around killing innocent men, women and children."

"You would explain to them why it's permissible to kill innocent men, women and children?" Simon asks.

"Well, a better way to put it is, we would take away the innocence from the person so they were no longer innocent men, women and children," Butt explains.

"So, men, women and children would become non-innocents?" Simon asks.

"Become non-innocent and hence, combatants and allowed to be targeted," Butt says.

Asked at what point he would say to a recruit it was time to head to Pakistan, Butt tells Simon, "Never. I would never say that, ever. It's not me forcing them. I mean, the network never, never pushes people in that way. We believe that if the person is convinced, has the conviction themself to come up to you and say they wanna go training, then they are the type of person who will most likely take that one step further and will be the reliable foot soldiers for you."

And a reliable foot soldier is all Hassan Butt wanted to be when he decided to move to Pakistan at age 20. Behind the scenes he was helping young British Muslims get to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban.

British Muslims had flocked to Pakistan for military training. But as the Taliban retreated, many of them wanted to take the fight back home.

In 2002, Butt warned BBC Radio in an interview from Pakistan that British Muslims fighting in Afghanistan would return home and take military action within Britain and that he was in favor of this.

Asked if, at the time, he really believed that British Muslims would attack their own country, Butt says, "Yeah. Absolutely. These were people that I was meeting and these were people who decided to return back to Britain to become, you know, sleeper cells."

"Sleeper cells that stayed asleep for a little while?" Simon asks.

"Yeah," says Butt.

Butt told Simon that he began associating with militants who had been involved in terrorist attacks in Pakistan in which people had lost their lives. So when he was tipped off that the Pakistani authorities were about to arrest him, he flew back to Britain where he was arrested, questioned for five days and released without charge.

He became one of the network’s star fundraisers. Over the next couple of years, he says he raised $300,000.

His biggest contributors? "Doctors. People who were businessmen. Professional people basically who wanted to donate substantial amounts of money," Butt tells Simon.

Butt says he openly told them he was raising funds for Jihad.

And he says he didn’t just solicit from the professional classes: he also targeted criminals, drug dealers who were told that their activities would be cleansed for a percentage of their earnings.

What kind of percentage?

"Twenty percent," says Butt.

The drug dealers were told the 20 percent would legitimize them in Islamic eyes and that the rest of their income was, in Butt's words, "purified."

"As long as the drugs weren't being sold to other Muslims. They were being sold to non-Muslims. In fact, we saw it as a tactic of war to keep, you know, one of the people that I sat with said, 'Well, let's keep poisoning the non-Muslim community in the West. Let's feed their addiction,'" Butt adds.

This was a tactic Butt discussed with the drug dealers and he says it made them feel better for the work they were doing.

How did the funds get from the U.K. to Pakistan? Butt tells Simon they used the Hawala system.

Asked to explain how the trust-based system works, Butt explains, "We'd contact someone here, we'd give them the money. They'd make a phone call to Pakistan, saying this amount of money is being deposited with us. Someone by this name, by this name and this age will come and collect this amount of money from you in Pakistan. They, obviously, would take a fee, which would pay, no paperwork. No trail."

There is no paper trail and Butt says it always works.

Butt says affiliates of al Qaeda received the funds, and used them for terrorist activities. He adds he did not know the specific operations that were funded by the money.

Last edited by Qubes; 03-25-2007 at 07:52 PM.
Qubes is offline  
post #24 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-25-2007, 07:50 PM
Surely A Large Human
Qubes's Avatar
Date registered: Jun 2006
Vehicle: '08 C219
Location: Between Earth and Mars
Posts: 34,234
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Quoted: 482 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Why is he revealing all this? Because, he told Simon, the London bombings changed him. He began asking questions of his handlers, theological questions. He wanted to know whether the bombings could ever be justified in Islam. He waited and waited for answers. Months later, he was summoned by his handlers to a meeting in the Middle East. But he wasn’t given answers, only new orders.

"They were trying to force me into Iraq to fight basically," Butt says.

"So, to summarize, you're asking, basically, why should we be killing innocent people?" Simon asks.

"That's correct," Butt replies.

"And the answer you eventually received is go to Iraq and perhaps carry out a suicide mission?" Simon asks.

"Go to Iraq to basically – the actual word that they used was that I needed 'reprogramming.' And Iraq would give me the opportunity to basically be reprogrammed for what I needed I mean. I was quite shocked at the analogy," Butt says. "To think that will, firstly, I'm neither a computer nor a robot. And I don't know on your say so, I do on God's say so. And if you can't justify to me or prove to me that this is what God wants, then I'm gonna have to go my separate ways."

Asked if he was frightened, Butt tells Simon, "Shocked more than frightened. But, yes, it definitely, I was intimidated at that point."

Butt says it was after that meeting that he began answering his questions, himself.

"What I've come to realize is that killing for the sake of killing, and killing in the name of Islam for the sake of killing, is completely and utterly prohibited. And there's a big disease, a big problem and a cancer in the Muslim world. And it's a very dangerous cancer, and it needs to be dealt with," he says.

How? "And I really believe, if Muslims can pluck up their courage to ask questions, regardless of the consequences, then I do see that there is still hope, you know, to solve, to cure this cancer," Butt says.

Hassan Butt made his about face public last January at Cambridge University, at the debating union. For the first time he revealed that he had left the network and announced his strategy to confront radical Muslims.

"The position of moderate Muslims is that Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Do you buy that?" Simon asks.

"No, absolutely not. By completely being in denial about it's like an alcoholic basically. Unless an alcoholic acknowledges that he has a problem with alcohol, he's never gonna be able to go forward," Butt argues. "And as long as we, as Muslims, do not acknowledge that there is a violent streak in Islam, unless we acknowledge that, then we are gonna always lose the battle to the militants, by being in complete denial about it."

Butt’s private life is a shambles right now. His family has called him a traitor to Islam and his former friends from the network have threatened his life. He’s writing a book about his transformation and his challenge to Muslims.

He says he wants to make right what he calls the bad work he did before – bad work that may have included more direct involvement in terrorism than fund raising and recruitment.

Asked if he considered the work he used to do bad, Butt says, "Yeah, absolutely, not just bad work. I mean, bad is an understatement. It's evil, wicked work."

What's the most evil, wicked thing he did?

"It's not something that I want to talk about on camera," he tells Simon.

Asked if he loses sleep over his past deeds, Hassan says, "Yeah."

How does he atone for them?

"Well, hopefully, by the work that I intend to now start," Butt says. "Whatever it costs, I'm willing to make sure I see this through to the end."

Hassan Butt may have left the Network, but if he did hear about the planning of any terrorist operations, he told us, he would inform the authorities. Barring that, he has no plans to turn in his former colleagues to the police. That, he says, would jeopardize his efforts to prevent young Muslims from being radicalized.
I know this is a deep blow to those voting Labour (or Liberals in this country) - that perhaps it's not rational to explain away the penchant of 17-year-old suicide bombers to target Westerners as a function of our foreign policy (which it's highly unlikely they're allowed to understand & judge on their own). Rather, the proliferation of radical muslims seems more to do with evil men - Imams - capitalizing on vulnerable, impressionable adolescents and brainwashing them into doing their evil bidding in a purposefully sinister and very loosely coordinated manner.

As Butt said in the interview, only Muslims can solve the problem of extremism in their ranks. It's a Muslim problem, and will require a Muslim solution. I sincerely hope more people like him turn sides, and help the "silent majority" to stand up to the totalitarian psychos.
Qubes is offline  
post #25 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-25-2007, 08:28 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
Shane's Avatar
Date registered: Aug 2002
Vehicle: And what was left was what was guilt was what u gave to me
Location: A cavalcade of strangers came to tear ur world apart
Posts: 41,520
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1725 Post(s)
Lifetime Premium Member
Originally Posted by Botnst
There are some thoughts that we liberals cannot allow, whether or not these people are legally elected by a majority of voters. We liberals are smart enough to run this government stuff without interference from people who don't think right.

That has nothing to do with what I stated, and everything to do with continuing your contrarian pseudo-neocon position. Where exactly did I say I do not still support this country? It is this type of MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY attitude of the stereo-neocon that is far too radical for ANY democracy. This should go without saying, but...
Shane is offline  
post #26 of 26 (permalink) Old 03-26-2007, 08:23 AM
BenzWorld Elite
mcbear's Avatar
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Now I might have to make a correction. The new President of the National Association of Evangelicals [Richard Cizik] has come out with positions that see Global Warming as a afront to God's World which is going against the grain of others of the Religious Right. He has also taken a strong stand against poverty. It seems he is actually following the teachings of Christ, not Dobson and Rove and Kristol. It will be interesting to see how he moves the Evangelical movement away from the NeoCons[NewConfused].

Then I saw this.

Comedy Central : Motherload


Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:


  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode

    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    How does 'neofascist' differ from 'neocon'? GeeS Off-Topic 49 10-16-2006 04:41 PM
    True Confessions GeeS Off-Topic 32 07-10-2006 03:23 PM
    True Confessions - Tell Your Trade-In Story Beleriand R171 SLK-Class 57 02-16-2006 11:09 AM
    Confessions dahappybanana General Mercedes-Benz 10 08-15-2005 07:11 PM
    How do you talk to a Neocon.... Shane Off-Topic 39 02-06-2005 10:09 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On


    Title goes here

    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome