Where were all those loud-mouthed hysterics when George W. Bush was holding hands and kissing the lips of the head of state of Saudi Arabia? Seems his fans didn't see anything wrong with George engaging in the customs of the Saudi Muslims when George was president. No president that I can remember ever kissed a head of state on his lips and walked hand in hand with him. But George did, because it is showed respect to his Muslim BFF. That behavior is customary and polite in Muslim culture. And George obliged.
The rightwingers are having apoplectic fits because Mr. Obama acknowledged a customary greeting in Japan. Mr. Obama did exactly what George W. Bush did, vis-a-vis respecting a local custom.
But rightwingers can't grasp the essential the truth of the matter.
George W. Bush kisses a Muslim leader on the lips and holds his hand, showing deep, loving, and humble respect for a Muslim custom.
*crickets* from the politically correct Right.
Mr. Obama shows respect for a Japanese custom, and the rightwings' heads explode.
Here's what the rightwingers, who are howling over Mr. Obama's show of respect, did not know and did not bother to research. This makes them look like ninnies:
Richard Nixon bowed to Emperor Hirohito--you know, the guy who was the head of Japan when it attacked the US at Pearl Harbor? Nixon BOWED TO HIROHITO when he visited THE UNITED STATES! Dwight Eisenhower BOWED to Charles DeGaulle during a state visit. And George W. Bush BOWED TO POPE BENEDICT, who is a head of state. And finally George W. Bush bowing to a Communist Chinese head of state.
So please, rightwingers, spare us your spittle flecking anger. Get upset over something important, like the millions of Americans without health care, and the thousands of veterans dying for lack of health care.
86 comments:
Oy vey!
These malcontent righties would give an aspirin a headache.
I like the clown suits they're wearing in the last picture!
Look Mz. Obama apologist. NO AMERICAN IS SUPPOSED TO bow TO ANYONE! NO ONE.. He is a disgrace as a president. We fought a war so we could be free and NOT have to bow down to royalty EVER again. NEVER! American presidents bows to no one. So don’t give us that BS about Bush, it’s always about Bush isn’t it! Did Dick Cheney BOW to the Emperor of Japan when he was there? NO, he shook hands. But you didn’t post that picture did you!
Why do you have to rush to this creeps defense every time he screws up?
In fact NO Head of State is supposed to bow to another! Remember when Barack Obama bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia at the G-20 summit in London last April? Even though the bow was captured by still and video photographers, the White House denied that it had taken place. "It wasn't a bow," But it WAS a bow, as was this one. . I lived in Japan for about 9 months and in all my time there I never saw a grown man bow so deeply to another man as we see in the Obama-Akihito photo and I also never saw such an one-sided gesture (one party bowing deeply and the other not at all). Then again, I never saw anything but Japanese subjects bowing before the deity. In essence, then, this Obama bow before the Emperor is likened to a subject bowing before a god. Any way you try to spin that, it's not good for America's image abroad. I don't care how much Obama wants to "repair" our so-called tainted image. How long must we endure this disgrace posing as the U.S. President? Ane why does Obama have to wear a Muslim tunic or a MAO outfit? I for one am disgusted by these pathetic displays every time he goes out of the country. I guess this is the “Change” he was talking about!
Or maybe he mistook the Emperor for George Soros.
Well at least he didn't give the Emperor a fist bump or a highfive, or ever worse a chest bunp.
To malcontent,
You've completely disregarded the photographic proof of other presidents [GOP presidents, at that] bowing to heads of state. It apparently is a GOP tradition to bow to Emperors [see Nixon].
And then there's your last hysterical comment:
Well at least he didn't give the Emperor a fist bump or a highfive, or ever worse a chest bunp.
You mean an "ever worse a chest bunp" like the last president did when he gave out diplomas at the Air Force Academy? You believe that's the worst thing a preznit can do?
You are dogged in your relentless hatred of Mr. Obama. I'll give you that.
I feel your pain.
Bow-Wow!
To which, Tha Malcontent says,
"You always take my words and twist them around..."
Which translates into "..You Liberals are evil because you make us look stupid...."
By the way, Cheney was vice president and Bush was doing enough bowing, kissing, and groveling for the both of them....
And all of us!
In the last picture GWB even lets other leaders dress him up in funny clothes if it made them happy!
That's really hysterical TAO, now go play in traffic.
News Flash Bush is not the president anymore, this story is not about Bush!
Why is it that when Bush was president you blamed everything on Bush and now that Obama is president you Still blame all of Obama's screw-ups on Bush.
You people who have nothing good to say about anything. If you didn't like Bush, fine, he's gone. I don't like Obama, and I will try to vote him out in 3 years. In the meantime, tell it like it is. We can’t blame Bush for everything this peabrain does. I spent eight years listening to the "he's not my President" crowd who confuse legitimate dissent with the vitriol thrown President Bush's way. While I didn't vote for President Obama and I disagree with his stated approach to many of the problems we face as a nation, he is my President and I sincerely hope he is successful, I’ll be damned if I’m going to cover up for his stupidity.
Why is it that when Bush was president you blamed everything on Bush and now that Obama is president you Still blame all of Obama's screw-ups on Bush.
Dear malcontent,
I'm going to type this really, really slowly so you will understand it:
No one is blaming Mr. Bush for anything. I challenge you to find anywhere in this post any assignment of blame to anyone.
You are either hopelessly confused or you don't know how to read.
You are the one who implied in your last comment that a very bad piece of behavior would be if a president chest bumped someone.
I merely pointed out and posted evidence of Mr. Bush doing exactly what YOU, not I, believe is stupid behavior.
In your mind, that means blame?
I also posted several photos--more evidence--of other presidents {all GOPers], including George W. Bush, BOWING TO HEADS OF STATE.
For some unexplainable reason you interpret this as "blaming" while other, more lively minds see it as hypocrisy.
We wonder if your were so wildly outraged when Mr. Bush conformed to local customs and kissed a Saudi and held his hand while entertaining his Muslim friend.
We wonder if you were so monstrously incensed and scandalized when Mr. Bush BOWED to the head of state of Vatican City, Pope Benedict.
See, the puzzlement on our part is how quickly, with bricks of indignation, you assault Mr. Obama for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING as your GOP presidents have done to heads of state, i.e., show deference to their customs of greeting.
You and your fellow resentment-mewlers don't seem to be able to understand this very, very simple concept.
And so it goes...
It’s time to forget that old collection of Bush pictures you have saved in your memory bank and start a new collect of Obama’s screw-up pictures, because you’re going to need the room. Theses gonna be lots more of them.
The idiocy of those collecting the Bush pictures from the misfits, dolts and cheerleaders of the “OLD Bush administration is YESTERDAY’S NEWS.. The last 10 months pretty much says it all about President Obama’s fault.
The idiot squad’s reasoning, that it was all George Bush’s fault, is just not going to fly anymore. As for Obama, he deserves every bit he now starting to get because of his moronic actions and his moronic cabinet choices and the stupid decisions he has made.
Yes, THAMALCONTENT...
Life is so easy if one just forgets the past...
Its so easy to always be right if today is the start of a new day and there is no tomorrow, no history...
WAIT! If we did that then you can't say, "OH YOU LIBERALS YOU ARE ALWAYS...."
Because "ALWAYS" infers history....
You say there is no history....
Shaw says history shows that our Presidents have always bowed and shown respect...
Pick one and be consistent...
There is nothing wrong with showing good manners (engaging in traditional custom of greetings) at the high level of diplomacy.
A legitimate complaint could be made against Nixon bowing to Hirohito, but by that time Japan was a good friend to America.
"NO AMERICAN IS SUPPOSED TO bow TO ANYONE! NO ONE."
There is no official protocol that states that, in fact just the opposite. Official protocol calls for showing respect to any head of State at State to State gatherings.
If we are to judge any criticism of President Obama bowing to the Chinese head of State, then it is appropriate to compare past Presidents in a same, or similar situation.
As usual, the right wants to judge President Obama negatively, for the same behavior a Republican President was judged in a positive manner.
Example:
Bushes TARP bailout was OK for the right, but President Obama's second bailout bill was not. If President Bush were still President would he have approved of the second bailout? According to the reasons president Bush gave us for his TARP bill, he certainly would have approved the second bailout. Yet, the right now says President Obama's bailout bill was the wrong thing to do. Ex President Bush wants to lend credibility to the right by saying NOW, that his TARP bill was a mistake. GEEEEEZ!
TAO, You are an Idiot, you can't even comprehend anything that I have said. You are so dense that it doesn't even pay for me to bother explaining what I did mean so I'll just end by saying, I OFFICIALLY OWN YOU !
Do you think the citizens of other countries get upset when their leaders shake the hand of our POTUS?
My guess is no...probably because there is not as much of an inferiority complex like there is here in the US...
In my limited travels to the UK not once have I seen a car/suv draped in pro-UK/Britain/etc. flags or stickers.
There is nothing wrong with being pro-American or patriotic but why the incessant need to display it all the time?
Tom said: "There is nothing wrong with showing good manners (engaging in traditional custom of greetings) at the high level of diplomacy."
Yeah. I don't see the big deal about this at all.
Despite what some previous commenters imply, there is nothing illegal, un-American, or un-Constitutional about this.
The Malcontent shouted:
"NO AMERICAN IS SUPPOSED TO bow TO ANYONE! NO ONE"
Well, Malcontent clearly has not been to Japan, and if he/she goes there, he must plan to be as rude as possible and come across as a very ugly American.
From this page:
"In Japan, people greet each other by bowing. A bow ranges from a small nod of the head to a long, 90 degree bend at the waist. If the greeting takes place on tatami floor, people get on their knees in order to bow.
When bowing to someone of higher social status, a deeper, longer bow indicates respect. Conversely, a small head nod is casual and informal. However, most Japanese do not expect foreigners to know proper bowing rules and so a nod of the head is usually sufficient.
It is also common to bow to express thanks, to apologize, to make a request or to ask someone a favor.
Shaking hands is uncommon among the Japanese, but again, exceptions are made for foreigners."
I can just see Malcontent get off a plane in Tokyo and shout to the city: "ALRIGHT LISTEN HERE, YOU. I'M AN AMERICAN DAMMIT AND I WON'T BOW TO ANYONE. SO FORGET YOUR CUSTOMS, YOU GOTTA DO IT MY WAY!!!!"
And Malcontent would of course shout in English. As loud as possible, as that is sure to make everyone understand. I bet he/she insists on driving on the right side of the road in London, too.
Oh, and Malcontent would be one to visit Mexico City, and grump about how there are so many illegal Mexicans there, and someone oughta send 'em home!
THa Malcontent, or gangster of pajamas...
By exactly what leap of logic did you determine that you officially own me?
Did you like cut a check and if so how much was it for and to whom did you send it to?
If you somehow believe, in your own mind, that your argument was just so overwhelming...well, lets not forget to leave your mind before we start chest bumping ourself!
Oh, wait a minute, history starts NOW...so you don't exist!
Geez folks, the President never goes over seas without being thoroughly instructed as to the proper protocols. He has a department dedicated to that very subject. However, he can ignore the protocol and embarrass us all.
As to the Pope, I believe it depends upon whether the Pope is receiving the President in a capacity as head of state of the Vatican or as his capacity as head of the Roman Catholic faithful.
What is interesting is that other heads of states did not bow to the Japanese Emperor. Makes one wonder if Mr. Obama was given faulty advice from his advisers.
From my quick research online tha malcontent is correct in not bowing to any monarch in that Americans are not a subject of any monarchy. Only subjects of the monarch are required to bow and curtsy.
Tom said: "Bushes TARP bailout was OK for the right, but President Obama's second bailout bill was not."
Think back, and think closely. The way it went was actually more the opposite of what you describe.
This article shows the strong opposition to the bailout among those whom Shaw and others call the real leaders of the Republican party:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48T5Y020080930
"Many of the influential hosts strongly oppose the rescue plan proposed last week by President George W. Bush, once a talk-radio favorite, as inappropriate government intervention in the free market likely to make the situation worse, not better."
But even in Congress, the Republicans tended to line up against it: "The vote was 263-171: Most Democrats were in favor (172 yeas to 63 nays), while a slighter majority of Republicans voted against (91 yeas to 108 nays), The New York Times’s David Herszenhorn reported.", making the bill clearly OK for the left (an enthusiastic yes, if you look at the House), but not for the right.
Tao: Malcontent is the guy who visits Tuscany, and spends the whole time driving around whaling on the horn and rolling down the window demanding to know where the McDonald's is.
And the only reason he is in Tuscany is because he mistakenly thought it was in Arizona.
Oh the SCHMUCK parade of Liberal asslappers are in full bloom today. And there isn't even a full moon.
OMG! Confusing dmarks as a "liberal asslaper"
dmarks...imagine ordering pizza in Rome and then exclaiming that "pizza hut" is better!
Speaking of schmucks, Mr. malcontent,
YOU are the one who came here and made a silly ___________* of yourself by overreacting to a nonissue.
We get it, Mr. malcontent. You don't like Mr. Obama. No matter what he does, your head will explode.
By the end of his term, you'll look like Mike the Headless Chicken who lived for two years after having his head cut off.
LOL!
*insert noun of choice.
Soon the republican party is going to be so small that it will fit in a tea cup.
And that's one really big teacup
I admit Malcontent. I am the leader of the remind everyone how lousy a president Bush was. But he is a sissy also so I don't think he will come looking for me.
Did you see the picture of Bush holding hands and kissing that other guy?
Wow the insults are really getting vile. That is a really fact-based, intellectual arguement.
Really shows you for what you are. Keep it up.
Truth 101, Why bother to give you facts? You just claim they are lies, as do most left wing extremists....you have never seen a fact that you believe, except, of course, your own made up crap..
Year right Bush was a sissy, and what is Obama? A Arab ass kissing asshole. . Our military and Veterans would be ashamed of you. Is this what we fight for? Fot shitheads like Obama to make fools out of us. We may as well get the white flags ready.
Malcontent, just a couple of quick questions for you.
1. Is it wrong for a president of the US to go to another country and bow to a leader of that country?
2. Is it wrong for a president of the US to go to another country and greet the leader of that country in a culturally acceptable method?
3. Have US presidents historically done this over the years?
4. If you answered yes, does that list of presidents who have done this include Barack Obama, Richard Nixon, George Bush, and others?
5. If it does, why are so pissed off specifically at President Obama over this incident?
Another President bowed? He was an idiot too! Does that clear things up?
"Wow the insults are really getting vile...........and what is Obama? A Arab ass kissing asshole."
Thanks for the example. And that is actually about as vile as the insults can get around here.
Not sure if you are calling him an Arab, a kisser of Arab ass, or both.
And did you see that Truth? "Our military and Veterans would be ashamed of you".... directed at you, personally.
Next time you see a soldier in uniform on leave, and he sneers at you, you will know why!
David, I think I said all I need to say in response in the original post about Obama's incompetence.
The President of the United States neither bows nor expects others to bow, even an incompetent political hack such as O-bow-ma should know that.
Didn’t anyone tell President O-bow-ma that Americans don’t bow down to anyone? Didn’t anyone tell President O-bow-ma that the President of the United States especially doesn’t bow down to anyone?
Didn’t anyone tell President O-bow-ma that Americans fought a long and bloody war so we wouldn’t have to bow down to a king anymore?
Protocol that says a US President bows to the leader of another country. Where is the Protocol Czar when you need him?
O-bow-ma three times in one paragraph is just wrong malcontent.
Please come up with some new material.
It goes without saying your views are endlessly fascinating but you're sort of running this phrase into the ground.
"A Arab ass kissing asshole."--malcontent
Actually, George Bush kissed "A Arab's" lips.
AFAIK, Mr. Obama hasn't kissed "A Arab" on his lips or ass.
Captain America said...
"A Arab ass kissing asshole."--malcontent
Actually, George Bush kissed "A Arab's" lips.
AFAIK, Mr. Obama hasn't kissed "A Arab" on his lips or ass.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NEWS FLASH A-HOLE... GEORGE BUSH AIN'T THE PRESIDENT.
IT'S BLAME OBAMA TIME NOW!
Newsflash to tthose who believe pointing out the fact that previous presidents bowed, kissed, and held hands with other heads of state:
That's not blaming, it's stating a fact.
Something we understand you all have absolutely no familiarity with.
You're all a bit defensive here aren't you?
We understand. Perfectly.
This is so fun! You read the thread and you realize that the righties just barely know how to read. And comprehension? Forget it.
malc said: "Didn’t anyone tell President O-bow-ma that Americans don’t bow down to anyone?"
Well, I didn't. Do you want to be the one to tell the President that he bows to no one, and he is the King of the World, and stands betwixt us lowly groveling antlike mortals and the Almighty Himself?
If you want, I can pitch in for the crown fund. It might go better if you tell him this during a coronation ceremony.
(and the most recent Anon made a bit of a reading mistake himself/herself)
These comments are examples of certain members of the right who have difficulty in understanding the difference between stating a fact and assessing blame.
Our educational system has failed "tha malcontent" and "The Rockefeller Republican," and they apparently do not have the intellectual acuity to understand that stating a fact is not blaming.
There is precedence here. Several GOP presidents have shown respect by engaging in the cultural norms of greetings when visiting and hosting foreign heads of state.
Here is a fact:
George W. Bush was the most unpopular post-war president in US history.
I wonder who "tha malcontent" and "The Rockefeller Republican" think is to blame for that fact?
SK, would you define "unpopular"? How is it measured? This Gallup poll seems to contradict what you stated.
Or maybe you meant this poll by Gallup SK. It proves your point.
Shae said: "Here is a fact:
George W. Bush was the most unpopular post-war president in US history."
Well that record won't last too long..
I see it's still blame bush time over her in shaws's cage.
RM,
I don't know in which country you attended school; but here in America, stating a fact (see Jim's comment @ 8:23 PM) is not blaming anyone.
What is it about you guys that you don't get that simple concept?
I don't agree that bush isn't to blame. Us liberals hated on George so much (with good reason) that now the rightees think they have to hate on him doublely so (but they need to make up lies like this "US Presidents bow to no one" BS to do so).
But I make no apologies and have no regrets as far as my GWB hating goes. I'll continue to hate on bush until the day he's in prison where he belongs.
Shaw Kenawe said... Our educational system has failed "tha malcontent"...
I think that's fairly obvious.
"I'll continue to hate on bush until the day he's in prison where he belongs."
And in response, some "righties" will hate on Obama demanding that he, like GWB, go to prison for the crime of being a President from the other party.
dmarks said... go to prison for the crime of being a President from the other party.
Yes, that probably is the rational they would use. I, however, was referring to war crimes. As if you couldn't have guessed that was the reason...
Actually, I've heard a large list of entirely imaginary reasons, and that was just one of them. So no, I was not going to guess which imaginary reason it was.
The Obama-haters are building themselves a list of imaginary reasons now. Sort of a tit for tat thing, it seems.
The crimes of George W. Bush are not imaginary.
Now will they be prosecuted.
The US has a lengthy history of waging war on various countries (the Philippines, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cuba, China (the Boxer Rebellion) the Dominican Republic, Grenada etc.) and destabilizing legitimate governments (Hawaii, Iran, Chile, Guatemala, Argentina, etc.) which unfortunately seems, to the typical American, entirely our right.
Imperialist America is what we are and what we will remain during my lifetime.
The waging of illegal, immoral wars is part and parcel of our history and we aren't about to stop.
The US hasn't actually been imperialist in ages. And the examples you named only apply in the pre-WW2 era, if at all.
One of those you specifically got flat out wrong was Vietnam. A situation where the US tried to help a nation defend itself from invasion. The US failed, and as everyone who knew anything knew would happen, North Vietnam came not as a liberator, but as a conquerer, executing hundreds of thousands of people in a reign of terror similar to what the Nazis perpetrated on Poland. North Vietnam, as controlled by the USSR, was the true imperialist aggressor.
"The waging of illegal, immoral wars is part and parcel of our history and we aren't about to stop."
Assuming you were born after WW2, this history is long over.
"The crimes of George W. Bush are not imaginary."
That assertion has as much basis in reality as the assertion that Obama's US birth certificate is imaginary. That is.... none at all. Complete boobery.
Of course the invasion of Iraq was an imperialistic war. Actually, economic imperialism was the motivation. Administration connected corporations have made a killing in Iraq (figuratively and literally).
War profiteering used to be considered unethical. Clearly the bush administration considered it a virtue.
Over a million Iraqis and 4000-plus US soldiers have been killed since bush illegally invaded. Their deaths were not imaginary. George bush is a murder and a war criminal. He belongs behind bars. Or we could hang him like they did Saddam.
"A situation where the US tried to help a nation defend itself from invasion."--dmarks
Are you joking?
Vietnam essentially asked us to help them get rid of the colonial French in their country. Ho Chi Minh actually admired the US and its ideals of freedom and self-determination. He wanted to emulate the US and throw off the French colonialists, like the Americans got rid of the British.
In one of the more memorable sound-bites from the Eighth Party Congress, Deputy Foreign Minister Vu Khoan deflected a Western reporter's question on the Hanoi government's human rights record by remarking: "You like a human rights whisky, I prefer alcohol made from rice. Let's drink together."
The Hanoi communist leaders routinely use culture differences to explain away Vietnam's lack of human rights. Perhaps the time is right for Mr. Khoan and his ruling circle to revisit some Ho Chi Minh thought.
On September 2, 1945, following the Communist takeover, Ho Chi Minh spoke to the nation from Hanoi. He began the address known as the "Declaration of Independence" by asserting:
"'All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness'.
"This Immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
"The Declaration of the French Revolution made in 1791 on the Rights of Man and the Citizen also states: 'All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.' Those are undeniable truths."
Ho Chi Minh clearly established that Liberty is a universal right. What's more, he appealed to the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and the Citizen to argue that all peoples on this earth--whether they prefer whiskey or rice wine--have fundamental rights as human beings.
Source
And this:
Ho Chi Minh tried once more to persuade the American government to make Vietnam an independent nation. Once again Ho Chi Minh’s request was refused. Leading up to a Chinese backed war against France in 1946, he threatened, "You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." Ho Chi Minh perfected guerilla warfare and trained his men in this deadly art against foreign occupation and even assassinating scores of Vietnamese opposed to his party.
In May, 1954, Communist General Ho Chi Minh defeated the French forces at Dien Bien Phu. Two months later, the Geneva Agreements divided Vietnam at the 17th parallel, and Ngo Dinh Diem appointed South Vietnam's premier by Emperor Bao Dai. By 1955, USA is supporting the southern resistence agaisnt the communist north. Within ten years, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution leds to USA bombing against North Vietnam.
Ho Chi Minh was met by the French that occupied South Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh attacked until the French were forced to withdraw leaving Ho Chi Minh in control of Vietnam.
We sided with France.
Ho Chi Minh then went to the Communists to help him throw the French out of his country.
The rest is history.
w-dervish: The retaliation against Saddam was quite legal and justified, despite the lies the pro-terrorist side puts out, and the actual death toll in Iraq is around 100,000 (the vast majority of whom have been killed by the terrorists).
"George bush is a murder and a war criminal."
And Obama is a secret Muslim, and is not a US citizen (to give an example of a fake assertion like yours). And yes, just like Bush is a "murder" and war criminal, Obama wants to kill us all by putting us in jihadi death camps.
Hey, once the loony-tunes claims about GBW are out, there's plenty of claims about Obama just as nutty.
Shaw: "Ho Chi Minh then went to the Communists to help him throw the French out of his country."
He turned from a rapidly vanishing global empire, to an up-and-coming one. He chose to go from bad to much worse. And by the late 1950s, he was already slaughtering peasants by the tens of thousands in "land reforms" in North Vietnam. No one forced him to do this.
Then Ho decided to visit his holocaust in South Vietnam. It is quite true that it was "A situation where the US tried to help a nation defend itself from invasion.".
Check the famous photo with the helicopter at the end of the war. It was not "Yankee Go Home". It was "Yankee, take us with you, now our country is lost". The conquest went exactly as predicted, as mentioned in the earlier post.
Also, there was pretty much nothing left of the French empire by the 1960s. A trend that had been underway for some time. At the same time, the Soviet empire had been advancing for decades, and had not lost any territory.
If Ho had truly been trying to end imperial influence in Vietnam, he would have merely waited 10 or so years for the French empire to vanish, instead of attaching North Vietnam to the Soviet empire... an empire whose rule kept going and going until 1989.
Far too many Americans cannot accept the fact that we are an imperialist power which has over the years created enemies all over the globe. And rightly so. People all over the world have borne the brunt of the US defending it's 'interests' thousands of miles from our shores, propping up dictators willing to do our bidding and destabilizing legitimate governments not to our liking.
And then those folks have the nerve to label opponents to the criminal invasion of Iraq 'pro-terrorists'.
Nope. The criminals who lied and misled the US into our middle Eastern misadventure are the equal to Saddam Hussein as 'terrorists'.
And they will never be held accountable.
Is this a great country or what?
We have two sets of allegations: those on the Right against President Obama and those on the Left against George W. bush. You're saying that if I believe the allegations put forward by the Left I am equally as nutty as someone who believes those put forward by the Right.
Nice straw man dmarks, but I'm not falling for it. You can't "disprove" one set of allegations by pointing to another and saying "they're just as looney tunes".
For that reason I will ignore that portion of your argument.
And I see you throw in an Ad hominem as well, referring to my postion as "pro terrorist". Other than to call you out on it, I'll ignore this "argument" as well.
As for the rest of your claims: the "retaliation", as you put it, was certainly not legal. bush went to the UN, the proper authority to go to in seeking a judgment of wrongdoing against Iraq.
If you recall the UN did not sanction bush's invasion. Iraq was not planning an imminent attack against the US, and therefore the invasion was not PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE according to article 51 of the UN charter.
Since the invasion did not qualify as "self defense" it was in violation of Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. (The UN, International Law, and the War in Iraq)
bush's invasion was a War of Aggression because it was "waged absent the justification of self-defense". Also, "waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law".
Case Closed.
These are indisputable facts, not the easily disproven invented nonsense which constitute the allegations against President Obama. I, for one, am offended by the comparrison.
The estimate that over 1 million Iraqis have been killed since bush's illegal invasion is based on scientifically proven methodologies. The group who provided this estimate used the accurate as of 7/2006 figure of 600,000 deaths (arrived at by the prestigious medical journal "The Lancet") and added to it updates from Iraq Body Count (whose conservative count is bound to be low due to limitations in reporting).
I don't know where your "actual death toll" comes from, but I'm certainly not taking your word for it. I'll trust a respected medical journal over dmarks (who has presented no bona fides in this area of expertise) any day of the week.
In regards to your assertation that "the vast majority of [the dead have] been killed by the terrorists", I call bull puckey on that claim as well. I'd argue the US is responsible for ALL OF THE DEATHS, simply because our military is there. If we hadn't invaded terrorists wouldn't be killing anyone. They were not there (or they weren't "terrorists") prior to our invasion.
Straw men, ad hominems and unverifable "facts" do not add up to a solid argument dmarks.
For these reasons I ask the question "is dmarks full of *expletive deleted*"? The answer to this question clearly is "yes". Case Closed.
We have two sets of allegations: those on the Right against President Obama and those on the Left against George W. bush. You're saying that if I believe the allegations put forward by the Left I am equally as nutty as someone who believes those put forward by the Right.
"Nice straw man dmarks, but I'm not falling for it."
Actually, a straw-man involves me attacking you for views you do not hold. I have not done that at all. Check into these terms before you use them.
"You can't "disprove" one set of allegations by pointing to another and saying "they're just as looney tunes".
I didn't disprove them based on that. I was just pointing out that these "full of *expletive deleted*" false allegations against Bush are as bad as those against Obama.
On to specifics: UN resolution 1441 authorized force against Saddam Hussein if he refused to comply with the cease-fire regulations. He did not. His noncompliance injcluded ongoing aggression against peacekeepers in the no-fly zones, and ongoing aggression to other neighbouring nations. Retaliation against aggression does not count as a violation of Article 51. So it is not surprising that the charges of war crimes against Bush are imaginary ahd have not actually taken place.
Then there is the matter of consistency. Perhaps a form of Bush Derangement Syndrome is going on here. Not mentioned is the fact that "Bush's war" is actually the war of Congress, which stood alongside Bush. This includes the current Vice President and Secretary of State. It also includes President Obama, who has been running the war for 10 months now. According to the imaginary numbers from the flawed Lancet study, that would make Obama another war criminal, responsible for 100,000 or so deaths in Iraq.
(But we don't have to that, as the Lancet/etc studies are merely wild guesses, based on surveys of tiny numbers of people, often in the most violent parts of Iraq)
And you can add to this the fact that under Clinton, US forces invaded by air and bombed Iraqi targets many times.
So here you have it, your supposed violation of Article 51, committed by George W. Bush (at the same time supported by the Democrats including the current Vice President and Secretary of State.... not to mention a large list of allied nations), the President before him, and the President after him. And you want to being bogus charges against just one of these people.
"If we hadn't invaded terrorists wouldn't be killing anyone. They were not there (or they weren't "terrorists") prior to our invasion."
This is so flat-out false. Prior to the 2003 invasion. Documents from the Clinton years detail the many terrorist organizations hosted and funded in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was himself a major terrorist kingpin, and his "peace" that the protesters wanted to protect in Iraq was actually a situation in which Saddam's forces were killing tens of thousands of people in Iraq a year, even while he was sending money to fund a global terrorism (itself an act of aggression which also violated the cease-fire).
Low estimates put Saddam's body count at 300,000 (avoiding imaginary inflations like Lancet's "count and few and make up stuff"). So yes, the terrorists were there, and they were indeed killing.
"And I see you throw in an Ad hominem as well, referring to my postion as "pro terrorist". Other than to call you out on it, I'll ignore this "argument" as well."
Actually, I was not referring to you. I was referring to the well-funded Saddam/terrorist activists (Ramsey Clark, Scott Ritter, ANSWER, etc). I do not know enough to call you "pro-terrorist". For all I know, you oppose terrorism, and supported other efforts (sanctions, etc) to contain Saddam's terrorist regime.
Concluded:
It's nice that you can clearly "ignore" arguments once proven wrong on them.
(By the way, if you want to look for actual violation of Article 51, look no further than Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Serbia did not attack US forces prior to Clinton's action, nor did Serbia violate any cease-fire restrictions. But, like with Bush, there are mitigating factors. Which is why there aren't actual criminal charges. No charges: just imagination and blind partisan hate). And no Bush "war crimes").
An interesting example of the fact most Americans cling to the notion it is that the US is 'better' than any of the other empires which preceded it.
Sadly, that isn't necessarily the case.
The history of our nation contains far too many episodes of bloody expansion, unjustified war and meddling in the politics of neighbors near and far.
One needn't suffer from the imaginary conservative malady 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' to arrive at the unsurprising conclusion that US policy has not nearly often enough represented the values we claim to uphold.
GWB's unexcellent middle East adventure is only the most recent example (but certainly one of the most damaging) of Yankee Imperialism run amok. And pointing that out doesn't make a person 'pro-terrorist' or 'Anti-American' or whatever insult du-jour the right has concocted.
Administrations Democratic and Republican alike are responsible for the ongoing misuse of American power over the history of the nation. It is always a struggle between those who seek to impose our 'values' on others and those who prefer a more benign approach to foreign policy.
"It is always a struggle between those who seek to impose our 'values' on others and those who prefer a more benign approach to foreign policy."
A struggle well exemplified in the mid 20th century, for example, by FDR (in the former group) and Charles A. Lindbergh (in the latter group).
Here's another example of the phenomenon. I have a hold on this at the library and will pass along some of the juicy bits.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/books/19book.html?_r=1&ref=books
Interesting. It's not often one reads things bad about ol' TR.
[Response to dmarks, Part 1 of 3]
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I did say in my last response "case closed". I thought the argument was over.
dmarks said... Actually, a straw man involves me attacking you for views you do not hold. Blah blah blah. Check into these terms blah blah blah.
I think YOU need to check into what a straw man is. According to Wikipedia a "straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to 'win' an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic".
This is exactly what you did dmarks. You keep bringing up the delusional accusations the Right has made against Barack Obama. Your claim that "he's a Kenyan Muslim with no birth certificate" is just as dumb as "bush went to the UN to get them to go along with his war against Iraq and was rebuffed" is the straw man.
Delusional wing-nut conspiracy theories are irrelevant to the factual accusations of war crimes against GWB. You're diverting attention away from the war crimes argument by bringing them up.
dmarks said... I didn't disprove them based on that. I was just pointing out that these false allegations against Bush are as bad as those against Obama.
No they are not. The allegations against President Obama are manufactured fictions and the allegations against GWB are fact based.
dmarks said... UN resolution 1441 authorized force against Saddam Hussein if ... Retaliation against aggression does not count as a violation of Article 51. Blah blah blah war crimes blah blah blah imaginary.
Actually it does not. Wikipedia states: "Debate about the legality of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under international law centers around ambiguous language in parts of UN Resolution 1441 (2002). The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression".
Legal analysis provided by The Guardian: "the near-unanimous view of international lawyers ... [is that] Resolution 1441 simply reminds Saddam Hussein of the "serious consequences" of a failure to disarm referred to in earlier UN resolutions. The phrase falls far short of an instruction to UN member states to use "all necessary means" - the traditional UN euphemism for armed force".
Resolution 1441 did not authorize force. The UN Security Council did not sanction an invasion. The war was illegal.
dmarks said... Not mentioned is the fact that "Bush's war" is actually the war of Congress... This includes the current VP & Secretary of State. It also includes Pres Obama, who has been running the war... Blah blah blah flawed Lancet study ... Obama another war criminal...
If, when you say Democrats "stood alongside Bush" you mean "believed bush's lies", then you are correct. But I don't think that is what you meant. bush lied and told them that the "war resolution" was just so we could present a united front to the UN/Iraq and pressure them into allowing inspectors back in.
Hillary Clinton, in explaining her vote said, "It was not a vote for war. What I was told directly by the White House in response to my question, 'If you are given this authority, will you put the inspectors in and permit them to finish their job', I was told that's exactly what we intended to do".
[Response to dmarks, Part 2 of 3]
Members of Congress were told the resolution was NOT a vote for war. By the White House and by Chuck Hagel (Republican deputy whip at the time), who helped to draft the resolution. Chuck also said the resolution was not a vote for war.
Remember this was following 9/11 and the resulting high approval for President bush. His approval rating going up didn't actually have anything at all to do with his job performance. The American people came together and stood behind their president. So did the Congress. bush took advantage of that goodwill and lied and lied and lied to get what he wanted... war with Iraq.
dmarks said... But we don't have to that, as the Lancet/etc studies are merely wild guesses...
The Lancet is a respected medical journal. It's survey was peer-reviewed. It used scientifically proven methodologies to arrive at an estimate (not a guess. not a wild guess) regarding how many Iraqis were killed due to bush's invasion.
dmarks said... And you can add to this the fact that under Clinton, US forces invaded by air and bombed Iraqi targets many times.
They bombed al Qaeda training camps in the north, an area of Iraq that was not under Saddam's control. Saddam did not invite them in. Clinton wasn't making war with Iraq by bombing these targets.
dmarks said... ...the President before him, and the President after him. And you want to being bogus charges against just one of these people.
President Clinton did not illegally invade Iraq, nor did President Obama. Therefore they can't possibly be accused of starting a "war of aggression". Now that we are there (which is entirely bush's doing) we should withdraw, but do so in a responsible manner.
I fail to see how Barack Obama being elected after bush makes him liable for bush's crimes. What's bogus is your suggestion that if bush is charged with crimes that means Bill Clinton or Barack Obama should be.
dmarks said... This is flat-out false. Prior to the 2003 invasion. Documents from the Clinton years detail the many terrorist organizations hosted and funded in Iraq. Saddam Hussein was himself a major terrorist kingpin, and his "peace"... was actually a situation in which Saddam's forces were killing tens of thousands of people in Iraq a year, even while he was sending money to fund a global terrorism...
I'm sorry, what you are responding to should have been worded a little more precisely. I was referring to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as the "freedom fighters" (how they view themselves) who were regular Iraqi citizens prior to the US attack and became terrorists/insurgents in order to expel a foreign invading army.
From Wikipedia: ...the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ... concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. The Panel found evidence of only two other instances in which there was any communication between Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda members. ...the Committee concluded Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qaeda operative [and that there wasn't] any other evidence of meetings between al-Qaeda and Iraq"
Also from Wikipedia, "Saddam Hussein was a Ba'athist... [which is] very much at odds with political Islamism. bin Laden [criticized] Saddam's Ba'ath regime, emphasizing that Saddam could not be trusted".
Conclusion? Saddam did not host and fund al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. All your other points have nothing to do with al Qaeda not being in Iraq (in significant numbers) prior to the US invasion. Those who were there weren't there with Saddam's permission.
This is not "flat-out false", it is verifiable and factual.
[Response to dmarks, Part 3 of 3]
dmarks said... Low estimates put Saddam's body count at 300,000 (avoiding imaginary inflations like Lancet's "count a few and make up stuff"). So yes, the terrorists were there, and they were indeed killing.
I'm not exactly sure what the hell you're talking about here. I'll guess you mean that Saddam was terrorizing (and killing) his own people. I never said he wasn't. I also fail to see what that has to do with bush's crimes.
Also, suggesting that the Lancet was presenting what they knew to be bogus numbers is (another) ad hominem (you can't help yourself, can you?). You can disagree with their methodology (you'd be wrong, but you are permitted to do that), but claiming it was their policy to "make up stuff" is clearly and undeniably an ad hominem. I guess when the facts aren't on your side the only option you have left is to attack the messenger. Or you could admit you're wrong.
dmarks said... Actually, I was not referring to you [with the "pro-terrorist" quip]. I was referring to the well-funded Saddam/terrorist activists (Ramsey Clark, Scott Ritter, ANSWER, etc). I do not know enough to call you "pro-terrorist". For all I know, you oppose terrorism, and supported other efforts (sanctions, etc) to contain Saddam's terrorist regime.
I did support sanctions. I also agree with and support Scott Ritter, so if he is "pro-terrorist" in your mind then so am I. If either one of us is suffering from a psychological malady I think it is YOU, dmarks. Diagnosis? "Delusional reality syndrome".
dmarks said... It's nice that you can clearly "ignore" arguments once proven wrong on them.
It isn't clear to me. You tell me what you've said that I've "ignored" or been "proven wrong" on and I'll respond by either admitting I was wrong or explaining why I'm not wrong. Frankly I don't believe this has happened. If I ignored anything you said it was probably because I considered it irrelevant or unimportant.
dmarks said... if you want to look for actual violation of Article 51, look no further than Clinton's actions in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Serbia did not attack US forces prior to Clinton's action, nor did Serbia violate any cease-fire restrictions.
I guess this is why President Clinton was recently honored by Kosovo with a statue. It must also be why he is "celebrated as a hero by Kosovo's ethnic Albanian majority for launching NATO's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 that stopped the brutal Serb forces' crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians".
So, Clinton is hailed as a hero and a statue is erected in his honor, but bush gets a shoe thrown at him, which is a great insult. And the shoe thrower is hailed as a hero, not bush.
BTW NATO's position is that it "was justified in acting to maintain regional stability under Articles 2 and 4 of the NATO charter". And "The use of force by NATO would not be inconsistent with UN resolutions 1160 and 1199 on the matter".
So, Clinton's actions were backed by NATO, but bush's actions were back by no international bodies. He even had to lie to his own Congress to pass the so-called "war resolution".
I admit that I have not read as much about Clinton and Yugoslavia as I have about bush and Afghanistan/Iraq, so it is possible I could be convinced that Clinton isn't a hero. It is unlikely in the extreme, however, that anything could convince me that GWB is not a war criminal. My conclusions have nothing to do with "blind partisan hate", but rather my examination of the facts.
Thanks dervish.
Excellent post.
I'm not certain about Clinton's action in Bosnia. But it's slightly more palatable than the latest war for oil we're waging in the Middle East.
And speaking of adhering to our democratic principles:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/us/17visa.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=equatorial%20guinea,%20malibu&st=cse
W-dervish,
Thank you for your thoughtful and incisive comments.
Refreshing. And welcomed.
Thanks Arthurstone and Shaw Kenawe for the kudos, but you do realize that my counter auguments are all imaginary, right? Anyway, if you like things that are imaginary, perhaps you'd like a post I composed for my blog titled "Best Friends George and Osama", in which I imagine what bush may have been thinking in the months prior to 9/11.
So much to respond to.
First, about Yugoslavia. You go on at length about how Clinton was a hero, and had NATO backing
Toward the end, you say that "so it is possible I could be convinced that Clinton isn't a hero."
Well, I am not about to do that. I supported his actions, actually. Even though Serbia did not attack Americans (not true for Saddam's Iraq) and Serbia was not violating a treaty (not true for Saddam's Iraq)
But look at what you said earlier in regards to Article 51.
""therefore the invasion was not PRE-EMPTIVE SELF-DEFENSE according to article 51 of the UN charter."
This was about Iraq. But surely it applies to Clinton vs Serbia, also. Whether or not he was a hero. Your defense and discussion of that war did not mention Article 51 at all. So, do you have anything to add on Yugoslavia specific to Article 51? Yes, it is relevant, as that has been the main basis of your claim that Bush is a war criminal. Is there consistency in your argument? Or does it boil down to "because his name is Bush"?
Regardless of Clinton bombing a nation that never attacked or threatened us? Regardless of Clinton ordering invasion of Iraq (albeit on a smaller scale than Bush; the bombings)? Regardless of President Obama languidly staying the course in Iraq.... continuing Bush's supposed war crimes (the violation of Article 51. When Obama could have easily had every single US soldier out of there by the end of January 2009?
Also, there is really no need to fabricate quotes from me (the "blah blah blah" crap), as you have done a couiple of times.
------------
And one more point for now. I do not admire Scott Ritter at all. For many reasons, including his antisemitic ravings about Jews and the Iraq war. And his attempted rape of children.
Here is an article on Bill Clinton as a war criminal in regards to Yugoslavia. Yes, there are people who claim that too. Just like the Bush "war criminal" allegations, they aren't serious charges, and aren't taken seriously.
Let's make a deal - Conservatives have let the Rev Wright Crap Pass, The Photo Op, Date Night, The Apologies, The Spending, Expanding of Gov, Unions - so where is the outrage of Liberals? about? Obama putting Americans into poverty to pay for his "campaign promises" - You first - and I hope you vote your conscious next election -
Weird, I just noticed that one of my previous comments was cut off for an unknown reason. Whatever the reason, what I was going to say was:
My conclusions have nothing to do with "blind partisan hate", but rather my examination of the facts.
On to refuting dmarks new comments...
dmarks said... First, about Yugoslavia. You go on at length about how Clinton was a hero, and had NATO backing ... But look at what you said earlier in regards to Article 51. Blah blah blah.
Clinton didn't go to the UN and attempt to seek their backing for the Serbia bombings. George bush DID go to the UN and seek their approval for his Iraq invasion. Clinton's actions were approved by NATO, George bush's were approved by NOBODY. You seem to be conveniently ignoring this point.
dmarks said... Blah blah blah surely it applies to Clinton vs Serbia, also. Whether or not he was a hero. Your defense and discussion of that war did not mention Article 51 at all. Blah blah blah does it boil down to "because his name is Bush"?
No, it does not "boil down to because his name is Bush"? What it boils down to is 1 million plus Iraqis dead, 4000 plus US soldiers dead, 2 trillion dollars we don't have to be spent, and a MULTITUDE of other war crimes (like torture). The comparisons between Clinton/Serbia and Bush/Afghanistan/Iraq are MINISCULE.
Your suggestion that this is completely partisan is RIDICULOUS. You don't see me accusing the elder bush of war crimes for the first Gulf War, do you?
dmarks said... Blah blah blah President Obama languidly staying the course in Iraq.... continuing Bush's supposed war crimes... blah blah blah
President Obama is neither "languidly staying the course" or continuing bush's "supposed" war crimes. We are currently withdrawing from Iraq, and will be completely out by December 31, 2011. I'm OK with this timeframe, so long as it is adhered to and we get out completely.
BTW you still haven't explained how Obama getting bush's job makes him culpable for bush's crimes. He's responsibly withdrawing. I don't know what the hell else he could do except inform Eric Holder and Congress to begin investigations into the bush administration.
dmarks said... Blah blah blah no need to fabricate quotes from me (the "blah blah blah" crap), blah blah blah
I did not "fabricate" a damn thing. That IS something you are imagining. Like when you said earlier that I was ignoring "arguments once proven wrong on them". I asked you to please let me know what arguments this applied to and YOU IGNORED ME. I'll take that to mean I was proven wrong on nothing.
BTW "blah blah blah" means I left out a portion of what you said. Not to change the meaning of what you wrote, but because of the character limit (same reason I broke my post into three parts). Your earlier posts are still here and can be viewed by anybody wishing to read (in full) what you wrote. That isn't "fabricating" by any stretch of the imagination.
dmarks said... Blah blah blah [lies about Scott Ritter].
Now who's imagining things???
Anonymous said... Let's make a deal - Conservatives have let the Rev Wright Crap Pass, The Photo Op, Date Night, The Apologies, The Spending, Expanding of Gov, Unions - so where is the outrage of Liberals? about? Obama putting Americans into poverty to pay for his "campaign promises" - You first - and I hope you vote your conscious next election.
Damn right I'm outraged. Outraged at Conservatives who are NOW concerned about the national debt. After Saint Reagan ran it up for tax cuts for the wealthy and star wars (not to mention his raiding of the social security trust fund), and after bush the dumber (the photo-op president) ran it up for tax cuts for the wealthy and two illegal wars. NOW Conservatives are protesting the need for President Obama to spend money to avoid another Republican depression????
There was no Reverand Wright crap except what was manufactured by the Right. Date night? Give me a break. What about the 77 air force one trips to Crawford TX bush forced taxpayers to foot the bill for? The expense of one "date night" doesn't compare to the 17 million spent for bush's extended Crawford brush clearing vacations.
As for apologies, I don't know what you're talking about. Are you referring to President Obama's being respectful to foreign countries and their leaders? I also don't know what you're talking about in regards to Unions. Card Check hasn't been addressed by Congress yet. I do think it is something they need to get done though.
I don't know what kind of a "deal" you're proposing, but if it involves me being "outraged" for the phony-baloney reasons you cited... forget it.
Dear Author progressiveerupts.blogspot.com !
Improbably. It seems impossible.
My fiance bought the Iphone & totally regrets it. He can't get any reception at all & has to forward his cell to our home phone now. He's tried downloading stuff that was recommended & nothing is working. Plus, it's complicated & time consuming. Anyone else have this problem?
________________
[url=http://unlockiphone22.com]unlock iphone 3g[/url]
Basicly I have herd that when you download the latest iPhone software it keeps all the old ones (therefore wasting space) so i am trying to locate them on my mac to delete the last few, do you know where/how i can find them?
[url=http://unlockiphone22.com]unlock iphone[/url] [url=http://www.kapcuk.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=969]unlock iphone[/url]
nice post. I would love to follow you on twitter. By the way, did anyone hear that some chinese hacker had hacked twitter yesterday again.
Acquire Neopoints to archive your highest aspiration on Neopets.
Neopets is a very hard artifice to collect Neopoints yourself in, it may take months of hardwork just to cause 1,000,000 Neopoints!
[url=http://buyneopoints.org]Buy Neopoints[/url] and receive the ultimate Neopets cheats!
Neopets has tons of games you can take part in, and when you corrupt neopoints, it resolution require your occurrence much bettert!
Essay us absent from today and you won't non-acceptance it, Neopoints packages start from well-grounded $2.25!
Buy Neopoints
I spent one day building a simple [url=http://www.zimbio.com/grundig-radio/articles/jz-ckrLLsNa/Grundig+Shortwave+Stereo]blogs[/url]. Could you give me some suggestion?
I spent one day building a simple [url=http://seymour8morse.blogs.experienceproject.com/]blogs[/url]. Could you give me some suggestion?
Hi there,
I have a question for the webmaster/admin here at www.blogger.com.
May I use some of the information from your blog post above if I provide a backlink back to this site?
Thanks,
Harry
Internet Providers Directory : Outstanding specially behind this directory is to refrain from our website surfers who are looking repayment for excellent conduct oneself treat on Internet Provider. Our premium tabulate of Internet Access Provider force certainly be your pre-eminent choice. We have in the offing listed some lid notched ISP Provider under our reward index on the principle of higher user damages ration. We be suffering with created individual reviewing page someone is concerned freebie [url=http://www.madnet.ro]oferte internet[/url]
Basically we oblige differentiated our website in two out-and-out sections: Broadband Internet and High Dialup Internet. Below our broadband internet portion you can stumble on budget-priced broadband providers like Telegraph Internet, DSL Provider, Wireless Internet Providers and ISDN Provider along with their premium, scenario, reviews and ratings.
We make every effort to draw all information and also to provide nice and unimpaired data for Internet Providers. Nearby browsing result of our opposite sample you can discover inferior Internet Help Providers. Also you can match two ISP Providers to fall heir to best sell on Internet Provider.
Also we possess created a lone ISP Discussion forum where owner can post their question interrelated to Internet Provider. Thousands of users despatch their unmanageable routine and they got solution of their question.
Salut à tous,
Voulez-vous gagner des objets facilement ?
Le site Bidou.ca est un un site web interessant qui vous donne la possibilite de gagner de fantastique cadeaux sans investir enormement!
Venez participer sur: [url=http://bidoubidou.ca/]bidou.ca[/url]
Hola a todos, hace tiempo visito el foro pero nunca habia participado.
Basicamente solo queria presentarme!
Nos vemos
Burberry Safety-valve cut-price online.The Most modified Burberry outlet www.burberryoutlet--store.comCollect to come by cost-effective Burberry escape hatch products online. Rebate [url=http://www.burberryoutlet--store.com/]Burberry outlet[/url] loophole liberate slack upto 70%, and self-ruling shipping!
Post a Comment