Problems in Pakistan [Archive] - RonFez.net Messageboard

View Full Version : Problems in Pakistan

CofyCrakCocaine

12-11-2006, 05:04 AM

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/world/asia/11pakistan.html?hp&ex=1165899600&en=d40c9f7513e01a 59&ei=5094&partner=homepage">Taliban and Pakistan</a>My big question is...what can we, as America, do about this growing problem? What should we do? Is this something we can ignore, is this something we deal with diplomatically, or is this something we deal with violently? Pakistan is a very unstable region, and the government is supposedly on our side- this is mostly northern Pakistan we're talking about right now. Keep in mind that Pakistan is the country that leaked nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran, creating the potentially cataclysmic problems we have with those two countries today - and the guy who leaked it is celebrated as a national hero in Pakistan. Thoughts? 

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 12-11-06 @ 3:20 PM

CofyCrakCocaine

12-11-2006, 12:02 PM

...Nothing? <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/unsure.gif" border="0" />

Furtherman

12-11-2006, 12:13 PM

Something. Pakistan is who we should have muscled after 9-11 into going into their border with Afghanastan to take care of Al Queda.  Instead we've wasted our resources in Iraq.  I don't think we can target anyone until we get that mess straightened out somewhat.  

This message was edited by Furtherman on 12-11-06 @ 4:13 PM

torker

12-11-2006, 12:39 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: ...Nothing? <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/unsure.gif" border="0" width="20" height="20" /> <img src="http://seinfeld.tvcenter.nl/img/informatie/bijrollen/babu.jpg" border="0" width="125" height="94" />Google

Yerdaddy

12-13-2006, 02:11 AM

It's actually a really big deal - Pakistan and how it handles terrorism and it's internal and foreign issues. But I'm on the road again and can't get into it. <a href="http://www.ahmedrashid.com/" target="_blank">So here's my favorite source</a> - respected by most institutions and experts on the issue. Ignore it at your lesiure.

CofyCrakCocaine

12-15-2006, 04:23 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: It's actually a really big deal - Pakistan and how it handles terrorism and it's internal and foreign issues. But I'm on the road again and can't get into it. <a href="http://www.ahmedrashid.com/" target="_blank">So here's my favorite source</a> - respected by most institutions and experts on the issue. Ignore it at your lesiure.  Thanks for the link- I never heard of this guy, but any further edification into the situation I am thankful for. Um, I like this one book called 'The End oF Reason' by Sam Harris. It's related to the issue of Pakistan in a secondary (maybe even tertiary?) way, but it has a very good chapter about the rationale and problems inherent with religion and Islam in particular. So that's my reference for you to ignore at your own leisure. :D Back on topic, I think it's a very difficult situation for us, as foreigners, to handle appropriately. There are some regions that must be pacified nonviolently, and others where it seems that tyrant-level excesses of violence are the only way to ensure the people there don't engage in any large-scale threats against civilians. The missile strike that killed 8 people (alleged Al Qaeda and militants) in Pakistan this year was met with a good deal of international rage- 'Why Is Pakistan being bombed?' many angry people have demanded- and no matter how obvious the answer may seem to some people, it's a legitimate question and regardless of any rational answer, no one likes to have foreigners interfere and start killing their countrymen. Especially in Islamic society, where brotherhood amongst countrymen (in spite of the incessant violence they inflict upon one another) is an important cultural factor, one that alienates any foreign efforts to wipe out Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in those areas.In the end, the best solution in the best of all possible worlds would be that your average Pakistanis would rise up and overwhelm the fanatic terrorists who have been running things in Northern Pakistan. I do not mean that hopefully in every Pakistani there is an American trying to get out, but rather, people who have grown sick of the militant elements of their population and the violence they inflict on a near daily basis, and have decided as a united people to do something about it. You cannot have a foreign army move into Mexico City under the pretext of eliminating the drug trade, the kidnapping trade, and cleaning up the pollution in the city and expect such an endeavor to work, for sheer simple fact that no one likes to be told what to do, how to do it, and people would resent any and all efforts implemented, even if it was ultimately for their own good.When the problems in Pakistan become the World's problems, however, that is when I think things may have to change. When the threat of nuclear war becomes far more viable as a result of Pakistan's actions, when terrorist cells are cultivated on the level they are, that is, I fear, a threat that must be acknowledged and faced. I doubt anyone will do anything to alleviate the troubles there for years to come unfortunately. Jesus, that's a big post. Sorry.

Snacks

12-15-2006, 07:55 PM

Yerdaddy

12-16-2006, 03:08 AM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: It's actually a really big deal - Pakistan and how it handles terrorism and it's internal and foreign issues. But I'm on the road again and can't get into it. <a href="http://www.ahmedrashid.com/" target="_blank">So here's my favorite source</a> - respected by most institutions and experts on the issue. Ignore it at your lesiure.  Thanks for the link- I never heard of this guy, but any further edification into the situation I am thankful for. Um, I like this one book called 'The End oF Reason' by Sam Harris. It's related to the issue of Pakistan in a secondary (maybe even tertiary?) way, but it has a very good chapter about the rationale and problems inherent with religion and Islam in particular. So that's my reference for you to ignore at your own leisure. :D I think you mean "The End of Faith". I read it in Yemen. A student from the American University in Cairo brought it with her. I felt it had a few really interesting and potentially valuable points on atheism and faith, but on the whole was dogmatic, idealistic and impractical as a guide for political progress. His thesis was, to me, all religions are bad, Islam is especially bad, and the world will suck until they are all, more-or-less gone. His examples early on, however, actaully make the point that the religions, as they exist on paper, aren't all that much different in terms of evocations of believers to not get along with each other. Maybe most of the Bible's more extreme stuff is in the Old Testament, and the Quran draws more heavily from that than the New Testament. But there aren't many extremist themes in the Quran that aren't merely reaffirmations of themes in the Bible. So to say that the Quran is worse is disingenuous. You can say that, because of the later, more cohesive and rule-oriented writing of the Quran, Islam is less flexible and more apt to be taken literally rather than open to the kinds of interpretation that allows for liberalization and an ability to share power with secular politics and learning. That's an important distinction that "moderate" Muslim reformers are saying. But he's not saying that. The other thing that makes the book less than usefull is the fact that religion is not going to go away. Ever. So, to come up with a solution to global problems that has this as a prerequisite is fantasy. It is more likely to create mistrust for secularism in general - amongst Christian and Muslim activists (see al-Qaeda/neo-Salafism/Saudi Wahibism and Billy Ghraham/Bill O'Reily/Ann Coulter). Attacking people's religion does not encourage reform or moderation. (This is may be an offensive metaphor to some, but it's cute and clever and makes my point so I'm going to use it.) If a teenage girl brings home a piece of shit boyfriend and the parents hate him and insult him and tell her to break up with him she's going to stay with him even longer. If you attack someone's belief system, they dig in. Any healing of the wounds in this clash of civilizations has to come from the two sides - Christian/secular and Islam - finding common ground based on understanding each other a shitload more than they do now. The idea that atheist or secular activists hold the solution if only they would speak truth to faith is ridiculous. The critical common ground - that I see - between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is in the fact that the holy books of the former two are also holy books to the latter. Furthermore, in a politically charged atmosphere that we live in now, it's been overlooked that the majority of believers of all of these religions still internalize the live and let live aspects of their written religions. My two years here proves that for Islam, and the fact that the majority of American Christians are not a part o

CofyCrakCocaine

12-19-2006, 12:39 PM

Good points. But the book raises serious questions that should be addressed. It also shines the spotlight on many fundamentally outdated things in both religions that ultimately promote further instability, prejudice, and irrational decisions for violent acts, all things that most public officials would never acknowledge. For instance, the fact that progress in Islam was halted several centuries ago in terms of interpretation and that violence is far more justifiable in their eyes when someone says something they dislike and is unlikely to change due to Islamic inflexibility for reinterpreation of the Quran- which is a flawed aspect of that culture that needs to be addressed and reformed by Muslims themselves. That is perhaps the critical difference between Christianity and Islam; Christians have reinterpreted the Bible many times over, have been able to say things like the Spanish Inquisition were wrong (it did take them 500 or so years though), and able to interpret the Bible in a less literal fashion while certainly you are permitted to do so if that's how your faith works; not so with Islam, which is a dangerous thing. That this is not acknowledged by any of the world's leaders certainly is due to a need for diplomacy, as the radicals would have any country (and every Muslim) that calls for Islamic reform firebombed if they could- and really, that's the kind of fellow we went to war with in 2001 and have almost completely forgotten all about when America went into Iraq. The enemy? Zealotry and ideological bigotry, those who would go to any length to force their way of life upon those who cannot have any say because guns are being waved at their families. But lately, it's just been about some faceless insurgents which makes Americans erroneously think that your average Muslim belongs to this category, which they most certainly do not. I do not agree with the idea that faith needs to be removed; the fundamental problem of religion is that it's worshipped by human beings, who are flawed and given to vice in the name of Whoever. It's also vastly unrealistic that Harris's vision will ever be realized- and who's to say that would be a great thing anyway? I view this appeal to end religion in the same way I do those psychologists who try to stimulate a man's brain with electricity to prove that faith in God is just a chemical reaction that can be removed through like chemical reactions (and who have all failed in these attempts I might add): alienating foolishness. So, for the most part, I agree with you. But these are all arguments that I feel are valid- though they do risk vast alienation and dramatic reaction from the world, as do all radical arguments. Back to the reason this topic was started: Pakistan. Yerdaddy seems very knowledgable about Muslims and the Middle East- obviously each country is different, but your unique perspective would be valuable in this discussion- if for nothing more than simply my own edification on the matter. I am too ignorant of what ought to be done in the Middle East- particularly Northern Pakistan, which I view as more dangerous than Iran and North Korea right now- and if the notion of carpet-bombing the so-called trouble areas of Pakistan is an ignorant, bad move or if it's something that ought to be done. I feel that if Pakistan is ignored, hundreds if not thousands more American troops will be killed, and potentially an American city or two will get nuked, as well as the whole of Israel as a result of Pakistan's mixed role in this conflict. 

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 12-19-06 @ 4:49 PM

sailor

12-19-2006, 12:52 PM

Yerdaddy

12-22-2006, 05:47 AM

sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: It's actually a really big deal - Pakistan and how it handles terrorism and it's internal and foreign issues. But I'm on the road again and can't get into it. <a href="http://www.ahmedrashid.com/" target="_blank">So here's my favorite source</a> - respected by most institutions and experts on the issue. Ignore it at your lesiure.  i still remember when <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Rashad" target="_blank" title="ahmad rashad">he</a> proposed to phylicia ayers-allen "I never trusted those Vikings."

sr71blackbird

12-22-2006, 05:55 AM

Get Yerdaddy out of there and just keep nuking until the whole hemesphere is a glass factory<img src="http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/nuke.jpg" border="0" width="357" height="378" />It is honestly the only real solution.  They will NEVER change over there.  Ever.

Team_Ramrod

12-22-2006, 06:32 AM

Blackbird is probably right, Why send young men and women over to fight a losing battle?Sure American will 'win' but there is never really a 'winner'... It's a battle that cost innocent lives with little progress ever made.The terrorism won't be stopped until the terrorists are stomped out and their way of life is demolished. I think the only way to get it done is to Nuke the bastards. Sure their will be repercussions with other 'world powers' but really who is going to do anything about it? America is the power of powers, therefore they should bomb the shit out of those pricks, look at China and give a shrug of the shoulders and say "what!".... Get it done now because the Chinese ARE comming.  It's kind of an arrogant answer comming from the country who 'keeps peace' but If you bomb them we can send our 'peace keepers' there to sort out the wreckage...... Deal?

Yerdaddy

12-22-2006, 07:39 AM

[quote]CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Good points. But the book raises serious questions that should be addressed. Agreed. I just think the context of the book as a whole makes it less likely that it will spark reasonable debate. I've seen his books referenced several times - usually by moderate Christian leaders who defend their version of faith - the good kind - but the deeper points, the ones you bring up below, get set aside. It's easier to defend hostile attacks than address your actual shortcomings, which it's really important to leave the hostile stuff out of serious work. It also shines the spotlight on many fundamentally outdated things in both religions that ultimately promote further instability, prejudice, and irrational decisions for violent acts, all things that most public officials would never acknowledge. For instance, the fact that progress in Islam was halted several centuries ago in terms of interpretation and that violence is far more justifiable in their eyes when someone says something they dislike and is unlikely to change due to Islamic inflexibility for reinterpreation of the Quran- which is a flawed aspect of that culture that needs to be addressed and reformed by Muslims themselves.Actually look back about 30 years ago and you'll see "Islam" making pretty good progress in most places. In most big cities of the Middle East - even places like Afghanistan - chicks were wearing miniskirts, people were making their own choices in marriage and jobs, economies were developing and leading the way for secular politics, etc. Even terrorism of the 70s was politically motivated and usully targetted specific political institutions and actors. Fundamentalist Islam is resurgent FROM THE MID-20TH CENTURY.  This is an important point because if it were "centuries" worth of cathcing up they have to do then the situation seems pretty much hopeless. But that's not the case. It's a lesser-known point than saying "It's not all Muslims. The fundamentalists are a small minority." Fact is, I hear Muslims here complaining about fundamentalists much more than in the US. The radicalization of so many over time has more to do with politics - that of the ME nations as well as ours, Israel's, Russia's, and the rest of the west's - than it does the religion itself.  That is perhaps the critical difference between Christianity and Islam; Christians have reinterpreted the Bible many times over, have been able to say things like the Spanish Inquisition were wrong (it did take them 500 or so years though), and able to interpret the Bible in a less literal fashion while certainly you are permitted to do so if that's how your faith works; not so with Islam, which is a dangerous thing. Islam is constantly being reinterpreted as well - in ways that effect us, (see above), as well as themselves. As an example, the issue of femle genital mutilation and whether it was condoned or condemned by Muhammad. Supporters of the practice - mostly local Imams from where the practice is widespread - quote a sura, (an alledged saying of the prophet, not in the Quran), which appears to condone it. But Muslim human rights aftivists have got the head of Al-Azhar in Cairo (one of the most repected Muslim institutions) to say that same sura condemns it. Now I've read the sura and I think it condones it. It was, in fact, an important custom which predated Islam and it seems that Muhammad was accepting it as a wedge issue and in fact thought it wasn't a half-bad idea as long as it was one of the least extreme procedures. But, like with Christianity, scholars want this rather ambiguous sura t

Yerdaddy

12-22-2006, 07:47 AM

Team_Ramrod wrote: Blackbird is probably right, Why send young men and women over to fight a losing battle?Sure American will 'win' but there is never really a 'winner'... It's a battle that cost innocent lives with little progress ever made.The terrorism won't be stopped until the terrorists are stomped out and their way of life is demolished. I think the only way to get it done is to Nuke the bastards. Sure their will be repercussions with other 'world powers' but really who is going to do anything about it? America is the power of powers, therefore they should bomb the shit out of those pricks, look at China and give a shrug of the shoulders and say "what!".... Get it done now because the Chinese ARE comming.  It's kind of an arrogant answer comming from the country who 'keeps peace' but If you bomb them we can send our 'peace keepers' there to sort out the wreckage...... Deal?Thank both of you for proving my point. Americans generally believe we should get a Mulligan for Iraq. Mulsims don't. And you blame them for it. Here - there - people are all the same. It's just depressing for me because I used to think America WAS different. We have so much in common it's pathetic.

Team_Ramrod

12-22-2006, 07:49 AM

You're welcome

CofyCrakCocaine

12-22-2006, 09:09 AM

I'll give more detailed response later, but I just want to point out that consciously or subconsciously ignoring WHO your average Muslim is (and which, I still assert, varies from country to country [individual to individual to be honest, but there's too many of them]) and seeing things from their perspective is a poor move.Americans just see what they want to see: Villainy, tyranny, suppression, and oppression. That is all fine and good by American standards, but the world doesn't live on America's standards. Whether that is unfortunate or not is a seperate argument. My very intelligent friend Gary thinks that we should run around blasting all of Islam Team-America style, which is just very ignorant and not something either side would want. A) Forcing a new way of life onto these people is unrealistic, and anything you do to 'benefit the moderate muslim' will be viewed with resentment and will incite radical feelings in those who otherwise would have no dramatic arguments with us. Bah. I'm not going to list anymore. It should be obvious.American ignorance of Vietnamese culture was one of the many things that led to the disaster that was that conflict. American ignorance of your average Iraqi and border-hopping Muslim (hired or not hired by Iran and Syria who knows) has led to the diastrous situation in Iraq, with your average innocent Iraqi and American soldier caught in a really bad place. Maybe we should start learning about who we're fighting so we can understand them better, and if we must fight them, have a better idea how to effectively deal with them in warfare. How many people in American intelligence can even speak Arabic at this point? Not that I would ever know, being an outsider posting on a radiofan messageboard. But I'm certain it's a smaller percentage than those in Israel's intelligence division (though this would be understandable). As the Oracle of Delphi ordained: Know Thyself. Switch that up a little, and make it 'Know Thy Enemy'. Easier than knowing yourself anyway. Knowledge is power, is it not?

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 12-22-06 @ 1:10 PM

DJEvelEd

12-22-2006, 11:05 AM

Would the Nazi's be considered terrorists by today's standards?The worst sea disaster of all time goes basically unknown because there were Nazi terrorists on board, even though thousands (THOUSANDS!) of refugee women & children died in that sea disaster. The Nazi's were defeated but was it necessary to kill all those women & children?Is the USA going to stoop to the level of killing innocents by carpet bombing?  [Edit]: Russia torpedoed that ship, not us. Maybe that's why Patton wanted to go after them because they were as bad as the Nazi's at the time.

This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 12-22-06 @ 3:07 PM

Glück

12-22-2006, 12:53 PM

Fuck pakistan, I was there last year and it sucks donkey balls. Ak-47s going off every which direction.

TheMojoPin

12-22-2006, 12:55 PM

Poor Babu.<img src="http://www1.chapman.edu/~hoshi103/image/seinfeld/024_babu_angry.png" border="0" width="302" height="208" />

CofyCrakCocaine

12-23-2006, 08:53 AM

DJEvelEd wrote: Would the Nazi's be considered terrorists by today's standards?The worst sea disaster of all time goes basically unknown because there were Nazi terrorists on board, even though thousands (THOUSANDS!) of refugee women & children died in that sea disaster. The Nazi's were defeated but was it necessary to kill all those women & children?Is the USA going to stoop to the level of killing innocents by carpet bombing?  [Edit]: Russia torpedoed that ship, not us. Maybe that's why Patton wanted to go after them because they were as bad as the Nazi's at the time. This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 12-22-06 @ 3:07 PM I don't know what incident you are referring to but I have no doubt it happened. The Russians were brutal with Japanese and German POW's as well as their civillians- just as the Germans had been brutal with Russian POWs. Anyway.The USA has already stooped to the level of killing innocents by carpet bombing, on many occasions. To keep in time with your example, we singularly were responsible for the destruction of something like 40 or 60 percent of Tokyo via firebombing. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese, if not millions, died horrific deaths as fires spread from building to building, indiscriminate of the elderly, children, war wounded, doctors and women. The Emperor's inner circle went about their activities as usual, and their documents on those days as they surely were watching their city burn around them, make no acknowledgement of what was happening outside the palace. Keep in mind, this was just Tokyo I am referring to. We carpet-bombed pretty much all of Japan save Kyoto because Stimson felt it was 'historically significant' and beautiful (though I would dare say most of the cities in Japan were significant- especially Nagasaki). Then there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the A-bomb. It was a horrible thing. Similar things took place in Germany, though not on the level of Japan. There's a book about the death toll of civilians in Germany, but I did not buy it. You might find it at Barnes and Noble. What ultimately happened to Japan? They surrendered, and a ground invasion via the joint efforts of Russia and America (which would have split the country into North and South Japan, we see how great this is for places like Korea) was prevented. The Russians backed off, and while Japan was horribly damaged in the bombings, it was rebuilt at an incredible pace and enjoyed economic prosperity and intellectual open-mindedness that it had not experienced in decades. Does this mean we were 'right' and 'good' for bombing them? Absolutely not. The fellow who ordered the carpet-bombing ruminated that if the US had lost, he would have been tried for war crimes. For the atrocities of war committed by both sides, you can reference Saburo Ienaga's The Pacific War (banned in Japan for years). That's my official source on that matter. Another more modern example would be Operation Linebacker and Linebacker II. That was the carpet-bombing of Hanoi. It brought the North Vietnamese to the table and allowed the United States to leave that country. I know not how necessary it was, but it seems to have quickened the process of leaving the country. I am lacking in knowledge about Vietnam however, so do not take my word for fact on that example.Even in Kosovo hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians were killed in NATO airstrikes. The same goes for Afghanistan and Iraq, though the numbers are certainly higher than they were in Kosovo.The point is: we've already committed numerous atrocities against civilians of so-called enemy countries in times of conflict. That is the horrible nature of war, and why it should be resisted when it is not necessary (Iraq). Sometimes, one can argue, it's for the better of the US and sometimes

Yerdaddy

12-25-2006, 05:18 AM

My very intelligent friend Gary thinks that we should run around blasting all of Islam Team-America style, which is just very ignorant and not something either side would want. A) Forcing a new way of life onto these people is unrealistic, and anything you do to 'benefit the moderate muslim' will be viewed with resentment and will incite radical feelings in those who otherwise would have no dramatic arguments with us.You're right about aiding the moderates to the displeasure of the extremists. But who cares? We're trying to defeat them, so we aid their enemies. We should be smart enough to do that, shouldn't we? Well, in fact we are doing that in many ways. It's just that this doesn't mean shit blowing up on our TVs so we don't even follow that side of the Wurr on Turr. We leave it up to the administration while we bitch at each other about not sharing our own wrong opinions about the exciting stuff - ours and their violence.In terms of how we should be fighting the Wurr on Turr, and in dealing with the moderates and the extremists, the best and simply conceptual model I've seen is in some <a href="http://www.csis.org/index.php?option=com_csis_congress&task=view&id=17 3" target="_blank">congressional testimony on Saudi Arabia given by Anthony Cordesman</a>. As written testimony on a related subject it's redundant and you don't have to read the whole thing. But within the statement Cordesman gets to just this point. It's easy to find. [PDF]American ignorance of Vietnamese culture was one of the many things that led to the disaster that was that conflict. American ignorance of your average Iraqi and border-hopping Muslim (hired or not hired by Iran and Syria who knows) has led to the diastrous situation in Iraq, with your average innocent Iraqi and American soldier caught in a really bad place.I'm not willing any longer to give the administration the benefit of this doubt. The disastrous situation in Iraq was caused by monstrous failures and, essentially, political corruption on the part of the Bush administration. [Find PBS's list of Frontline episodes for at least three excellent pieces detailing the major failures that will have you repeatedly asking the question "Why would the fuck would they do that?"] First of all, there were never any plans for "democracy". Even the delusional mistakes that the adminsitration made can't make me believe that they would ignore the advice of so many uniformed generals and the work of the Army War COllege [google "winning the peace" and look at the report the College did before the war] and still believe that they could create anything resembling a democracy with 150,000 offensive troops and no pre-war preparations for such a task. It was never in the cards.Now, among the reasons the war had enough support from the American people in the first place, ignorance was one of the major factors. Everything that's happened in Iraq was predicted as very real possibilities by some of the best sources you would want if you were sincerely asking yourself if this was a good idea or not. Army War College report above, for example. Same for the "intelligence" that led most to believe Saddam had WMD and links to al-Qaeda. I was shooting down most of the public claims using only official or reputable sources like the Department of Energy, and intelligence personnel themselves. Did I ever get a sincere arguement in reply? Nope. Most Americans picked a side early on - for or against the war - and championed their case, slowly moving towards the "for the war" side, and weren't interested in those nasty little facts. Americans generally don't even know how to assess sources of information. There's a shitload of it. I'd love to give a long post about how I assess them, but I don't think it make any difference anymore. Fox "News" should be considered one of the major supporters of the w

Zorro

12-25-2006, 05:24 AM

We should only take them seriously when they got universal indoor plumbing

TheMojoPin

12-25-2006, 05:29 AM

Wow.  That couldn't have been a more perfect dichotomy if you guys had tried.

Yerdaddy

12-25-2006, 05:47 AM

TheMojoPin wrote: Wow.  That couldn't have been a more perfect dichotomy if you guys had tried. Not that CCC and I disagree or anything, but have you noticed the civility level of the politics forum going way up since back in the day? Even on controversial issues like Israel, the war, and religion. Sometimes I'm tempted to go to FBA just to get insulted.