Sunday, August 29, 2004

Should we declare war?

It sounds like a simple question but since the US has not declared war on fundamentalist Islam or international terror organizations, the question remains should we declare war now?

It has many advantages-- first, as Harry Summers noted- it clarifies the mind. Declaring war focuses you and the nation on the task at hand.

Second it would be easier to mobilize the nation, the economy and the populace to the task of defeating our enemy. If we have made a more serious mistake than not declaring war on the enemy during this time of great crisis, I don't know what it is. It was possible to do in the days after 9/11. We didn't do it.

Third, every enlistment contract in the US military reads (though few actually read it) that during time of war or national emergency the enlistment is extended to the duration PLUS six months. That would stop the silly discussion about stop-loss as a backdoor draft. That would not make a draft more likely for the forces required still need to be trained to the same level they are at currently.

Fourth, we could take legal measures permissable during wartime to silence actions aiding the enemy or hindering a nation at war. Sean Penn doing a real movie from jail might not be such a bad thing. Treason is a harsh word and it should remain so. War has visited us all and the nation should be able to punish those who think their rights of free expression infringe upon the sanctity of the nation.

The question remains should we declare war now? After all that has happened in both OEF and OIF and in the world...can the US effectively mobilize the will power to declare war against the enemy? This is my major criticism of the Bush Administration-- that when we declared the war on terror we did not actually declare war.

Now I can't see Kerry doing any better, but I think we should correct the mistake and start doing it right from here on out.

My perspective and my perspective only though I welcome debate on it. I realize that in this polarized nation we live in this will probably not happen in the near future-- short of another large scale domestice terror attack (which is sure to come, sooner or later).

Any thoughts?


37 Comments:

Blogger 91ghost said...

I think that war ought to be declared, basically for the reasons you enumerated. I don't however, think, that the American populace has the stomach for it. Utlimately, I question whether the public has the stomcah for this kind of war. For instance, I find it flabbergasting that an American citizen who willfully chose to take arms against his own nation's soldiers--the "American Taliban" John Walker--was not put up against a wall. Why was he only given a light sentence (20 years in prison, which, if I'm not mistaken, I believe he will be eligible for parole in something like 12 or 13 years)? Declaring war would be a good start--but prosecuting the war to its fullest is another challenge that I'm not quite sure this public is up to. And then we would have to carry out the war properly--which is a whole other topic of debate and discussion...(for instance, should we have deployed more troops to Afghanistan before taking on Iraq? Should we have focused more on Syria and Iran than Iraq? I don't know the answers, but the questions are there for me.)

8:20 AM  
Blogger redleg said...

91Ghost

your questions are valid. I too wonder if we have the heart for this war. Or is our public has the heart for it.

Johhny Taliban should have been stood before a wall after a military tribunal and shot. 19 cents a round for .223 by my last count. Would have been much cheaper. But things are different these days. We as a nation let Jane Fonda get away with treason and applauded Calley as a scapegoat in 1970. I wonder if we have the heart to do away with a culture that threatens ours so intensely.

"Mass kicks ass" a battalion commander I knew in Afghanistan said that. But by it he meant what force was needed need to be there immediately to be effective. Whether 20 troops or 20,000. What force is there at the decisive point makes all the difference. And the right composition force is especially important. Tanks and troops didn't matter so much in OEF. SF, helicopters and rifleman made all the difference there. The right mix makes all the difference. But I think as a nation we're learning what it takes to beat them and the enemy, our multi-varied enemy is learning that his threat has changed. I hope we can keep it up.

But I don't know if this country has lost the knack of going to war, and doing so successfully.

8:35 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Last time I checked technically you can only formally declare war on a state or country.

You'll have to find another way to silence free speech and conscript soldiers.

8:51 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Trust a lawyer to talk about that. Plenty of precedent for battling extra-national parties. Barbary Pirates sound familiar?

9:06 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Ever hear of the Barbary States: Algiers, Morocco, Tripoli, and Tunis?

Wow, you know how to lay'em low don't you. Lawyer

9:15 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Something sounded funny about that, so I checked.
The United States of America never declared war on the Barbary states.
Congress refused president Madisons request for a declaration of war and only authorised limited naval action.

The United States has only declared war 5 times;
England, 1812
Mexico, 1846
Spain, 1898
World War I
World War II

Each time at the request of the president, as required by the Constitution.

Every other action in between was by an authorisation of Congress either before or after the fact including the American Civil War where Lincoln asked for permission to use action against the states in rebellion when congress returned from recess.

I don't believe Congress has the Constitutional power to declare a formal war against a non state.
An essential component for a formal war requires that there be someone to deliver the declaration to, and to accept terms at the conclusion.
Islamic Fundamentalists, or nebulous international terror organizations wouldn't qualify.
The states that harbor them would, but I fear the list would be too long to make any attempt impractical and would in the end include our own.

10:25 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Wow Paul, you actually can do research.

I thought I was beneath your responsibility for articulate debate, but OK.

Just because you don't ask Congress to declare war does not make it any less of a war.

The war against the Barbary Pirates, at the time an extra-national entity, was carried out without a declaration of war, but one could have certainly been declared. Your definition of state is narrow and stuck in the past.

Section 8 of the US Constitution:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

.....
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Declaring war is what Congress determines war to be. The Civil War was also not a declared war, probably so as not to give the nacent Confederacy any kind of legitimacy. But we are at war today, so why not call it so? It would at least place countries harboring international terrorists on notice.

Or have you forgotton the declaration of war upon the US by UBL? Or is he beneath your notice? He is hiding in a cave, but still he has rights too.

I don't wish to silence free speech and I definately don't want conscripts. Free speech is ONE of the rights I fight to defend. Conscripts are near useless without the time to effectively train them. Why do you think the mortality was so high for infantrymen in Vietnam. Inexperience and lack of training is on the top of the list. I want professionals not draftees. Draftees were effective in WWII because there was adequate time to train them.

I say if we are at war, declare war. The consitituiton says we can. This is a time for new precedents. Get your nose out of the law books and start living in the 21st century.

I am also surprised you are blogging about, thought you would be in NYC rolling marbles under police horses or protesting naked somewhere. Have a good day.

5:29 AM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

I couldn't pass this one up

"Islamic Fundamentalists, or nebulous international terror organizations wouldn't qualify.
The states that harbor them would, but I fear the list would be too long to make any attempt impractical and would in the end include our own."

This isn't applying for a home loan Paul. This is war. But you are probaly worrying what the US did that was so evil that they hate us SO much? So its essentially our fault 19 fanatics crashes planes into the WTC and the Pentagon?

They are an international terror group. The declaration of war could spell out the differences in the nature of the war. They want us dead and our culture washed from the face of the world. We didn't have to do anything, all we had to do was exist.

5:51 AM  
Blogger ALa said...

The fact that we have yet to 'declare a war' is my major problem with the Bush Administration. I agree with Ghost though -the American people (*cough* the left*) will need another 9/11 before this can happen...and that's what makes me sick. I am not sure if any Administration has the balls to say we are declaring a war against Islamic Fundamentalists (F the 'War on Terror' -a priest that molests kids is a terrorist). The left fringe in this country would loose their minds--unless of course somewhere that they were all congregated was hit (the Oscars, etc.). It is a shame that this too has to be a partisan issue, but it is. The visions of how to handle this ‘new’ threat are so different. The left hates Bush for retaliating and 'targeting civilians ' (as Dennis Kusinich has said) and the right is mad that Bush hasn't turned the Middle East into glass...
Kerry has said that "Every attack will be met with a swift response"...EVERY attack? I don't there to be another attack. I don't want to ever go through that again --I wish more people felt the same...

9:42 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Redleg,

I would have thought that a person in your position could understand the difference between a defacto state of war and a formal declared war.

So I heard of the Barbary Pirates and responded to your statement.
The fact that war could have been delcared is not the same as if it was.
You were wrong.

My definition of state is not narrow and stuck in the past, it is accurate and stuck in reality.

Skip past the invectives and get back to the point.

You have asked us to declare a formal state of war.
I ask you more directly against who?
Right now the only country I see us having grounds to do so with is Pakistan for harboring OBL, the same justification we had for our Afganistan action, which should have been a declared war and would have had the backing of the American people and congress if the president had only asked for it.
Why haven't we gone into Pakistan?

One thing I think that many people have forgotten about Iraq was that the terms at the end of Gulf I, gave any member of the coalition the right independantly to resume action against Iraq.
No argument from me.
I simply have a problem with the way it was done.
Colin Powell warned the administration about the 'pottery barn' rule, not the left.
Congress could declare against Iran if the president would ask.
The actions against our embassy although 25 years old is still justification.

Please remember though the can of worms you will open if and when you actually declare war.
All muslim nations will unite, not just the ones that are obviously fundamentalist.
Oil production will stop and the war will be open and on all fronts all at once.
Not really a viable strategic or tactical position, and not one that we are likely to 'win' from.

Could I suggest to you that a non-war, war like we have now is the only way to win without significant allies.
It allows us to show power when and where we choose, it allows us to set up a board where the fundamentalists show thier hand and attack non-fundamentalists creating allies rather than enemies.
The same as the Barbary issue. Had congress declared war, even though it had the right, the entire Ottoman empire would have come after American shipping, not just a few out of control states.

This is where 'people like me' have a problem with the way we went to war in Iraq.
A responsible administration would not have gone out of it's way to alientate NATO, a military force of considerable value.
It also would have taken the time to bind up our relationship with Russia, a country that has been fighting fundamentalist Islam far longer than we have.

Rather than fight Iraq when we did, we should have made amends with Russia. Helped solve the Chechin crisis and Russia and the United States together could have made it a Global Imperative for all nations to deal with terrorism.
To be more blunt, nations of the world reign in your mad dogs or face the threat of immediate annihilation.

It is still possible to take this road, but not for much longer, and Iraq had made it far more difficult for us to negotiate from a position of power.

11:23 AM  
Blogger 91ghost said...

Paul: Are not all muslim nations in essence united anyways? Why, why, why, are we so frozen in fear at the thought of offending Islam?? I think a declaration of war, instead of dragging this thing out for decades as the course currently looks, would exedite things--get it on and get it over with in essence. Very very ugly and horrible, but very very necessary. We could go on and on debating the genesis of this situation but one thing is for certain: this situation is not just going to go away, and ultimatley it will have to be faced head-on.

1:25 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

91Ghost,
Not disrespecting you, but I want to deal with Redleg on his request for a formal declaration of war.
I think my point is made why all out war is a bad idea in my previous post.

'Are not all muslim nations in essence united anyways?'This is what the media have portrayed the Moslem religion and in some respects it is true, if one is attacked by an 'infidel' they are supposed to all stand together dispite any on the differences among them.

There are however deep differences between Muslim states as to how literal the interpretation of the Qur'an should be in the modern world.
There are also deeply felt denominational differences in the various sects themselves.
There are also Moslem states that are not officially Moslem. Iraq was one, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and some others are non-sectarian meaning that although the majority of the population may be Moslems of one or more sects, the government itself has no official religion.
Faith411 is a good place to start looking.
Dispite all the government and media lies after September 11th 2001, the Muslim religion is not a peaceful religion, and never has been.
It has as it's root a doctrine of world domination and intolerance.
But then again, if twisted the wrong way the same can be said about Christianity.

The problems while appearing to be simple at first view do not always allow for simple solutions.
Is it better to wage (W)ar against everyone or to wage (w)ar against the actual source of the problem?

As a guide take a look at this list of muslim populations around the world.

Another issue that has not been addressed at all is the role China plays even today in giving aid to terrorist states.

2:45 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

now that is a cogent point of view. About time I would add. You have a tendency to throw your liberal agenda around so I tend to respond in kind. But your post is thoughful and deserve a good response.

I've got to agree with 91Ghost on this one though. A declaration of war against any and all states harboring terrorists or the organization itself would expedite the issue. The "arab street" such as it is, is far from unified. Even if they were I seem to recall 5 Arab nations failing to run Israel into the sea during a whole host of mideast wars. A declaration of war would not have to list the states who are harboring terror organizations, only set the conditions for war to exist for those that are in violation. It would set up a list for what nations need to do to be counted in the "for" column vice the "against". But I'm a simple bastard, always have been.

Pakistan, you may note, has been as cooperative as possible in the war thus far, turning over invaluable intelligence and retaining control over its population. UBL is hiding, presumably, in Waziristan and that area is quite beyond Pakistan's control. When they venture into that area with non-waziris they do so in force. I count their actions thus far as in the "for" column. The conditions set forth are be with us or against us. That's pretty clarifying so far for the muslim mind. A declaration of war would make it more so.

Your argument agrees with the Bush Administration and is acceptable to a degree. But I disagree with you vis a vis Iraq. None of NATO nations (save the UK) was going to do a damn thing about Iraq, resolutions or no. Germany, France and Russia were making far too much off the Oil for Palaces program and other munitions programs (was that French surface to air missiles we found?) and were not interested in any solution to the problem. They just wanted their pork. It was up to us, and it was a wide ranging sore in mideast and international relations. Add up the cost of 13 years of Northern and Southern Watch, inspections, Desert Fox in 98 and enforcement of UN resolutions as well as US forces under Iraqi AA fire on daily basis and I would say it had to be done, and we waited long enough as it was. Our action saved the UN as an international institution, though it is teetering into obscurity now. Check out the troubles the UN is having mediating in Sudan right now without the threat of US force in the background. Our old European allies don't exist anymore and Russia is a rusty giant. Only the US can lead. And the UN without US backing is a nearly worthless institution. I didn't make the rules, but that's how they are playing out.

I think a declaration of war would help us add to our coalition which is already well supported by those nations who know what it is like to live in terror, and under Dictators. Their contributions are small but they are real. Romania, Poland, and Lithuania are a few of these. 68 nations supported the invasion of Iraq by Gen Franks count, though far fewer did so with troops. Not unilateral by a long shot, I would say. The larger nations of NATO have not kept up militarily either with technology or money. It shows. We simply did not need a broken down carrier from France or Russian ground troops we would have been forced to transport for them. Political support would have been far different but we were never going to get that. The nations of the world were with us on 9/11, but they were never going to stay with us if we actually wanted to do something about it. Allies or so called allies started dropping off as soon as military action started in OEF. True friends stayed with us throughout.

I agree with you that we probably will not declare war at this time. It should have been done after 9/11 but it was not for whatever reasons. It will not happen now in an election year and probably not after the election. Precedent states that we should declare war against a nation, but these are new times. The enemy is different and so too should be a declaration of war. The fact is that Congress has abdicated its role to declare war to the executive for good or for ill. And we have to live with that. If Congress wants the respect due its role as written in the Constitution, it should demand to have that power back by properly debating on and voting for or against war. It would clarify the issue for the nation and we would all be healthier for it.

2:46 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Redleg,
Thank you for the compliment.

The last part of your previous post leaves me with some doubts.
The fact is that Congress has abdicated its role to declare war to the executive for good or for ill.The issue of Congressional vs. Executive ability to declare war has never been fully settled.
As I understand it the eventual compromise worked out somewhere around 1815 compromise was that the president had to go to Congress to specifically request a declaration of war.
The Constitution does not allow the Congress to initiate the declaration, no matter what the wording.
Congress can as a refusal provide for authorization of force without a declaration.
I know it tends to sound like word games (what the meaning of is, is), but as you know meetings have to have rules (example:Roberts Rules of Order)to keep from breaking down into non productive gatherings, and so must a Nation.

Our militia is charged with fulfilling policy, not setting it.
This has served us well even if imperfectly for over 200 years with occasional need for occasional adjustment and compromise.
This new threat is not as new as we the current generation would like to believe.
There has been someone, somewhere, that wished us ill and wanted to destroy us since the dawn of the Republic.
I am convinced that each new threat, no matter what it might be or who it might be from, cannot qualify as justification for throwing out the rules.
A few short years ago we were all being told that we were in a 'new economy' that was no longer defined by the old rules of profit or income, but only by market share and shareholder value. Reality imposed itself and the bubble burst.
The same is true for the current threat of physical violence against our homeland and population.
We are not in a 'new world', but in a variation of the old one.
The current threat will one day change and everything old will be new again.
Better to make short term (a relative term) adjustments to the system than to completely replace a flexible system that is the envy of the world.

3:22 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

I did not mean that Congress could or should declare war, but the body itself has been content to grant the executive exclusive powers to choose and wage war without asking for a declaration. If Congress does debate and vote the declaration they have abdicated the power.... The war powers act was a failed attempt by Congress to reclaim some of that power.

In Vietnam the subject was very divisive and the Johnson Administration deliberately did not bring the issue before the Congress for whatever reasons. Now is different. If we are to wage war, for unity's sake a declaration could have that result. I agree that the threat is not new, but it is different from ones we have faced in the path. We should approach it with our systems (again imperfect at best but better than any other system on earth) using a new approach.

War is a dangerous thing. The only thing more dangerous and more divisive is a war waged undeclared.

Again, my felling. I think it would be a good litmus test for the terror organizations and the states and parties that succor terrorists. It is not a time of nuance and a declaration of war removes nuance.

4:15 AM  
Blogger redleg said...

correction I meant if Congress does not debate.... keep forgetting my words

4:16 AM  
Blogger 91ghost said...

Paul: Fair enough. Yes, a blanket declaration of war against all moslim nations is not my intent or desire...but something more akin to what Redleg has articulated. Without this, I just don't see an end to sight..and I would sure like an end, but I don't see how to achieve said desired end without some rather ugly things having to happen. The nations states that harbor terrorists and actively promote a culture of outright hatred can either be dealt with now or later, but ultimately there will be no getting around it. I don't salivate at the mouth over such a daunting and dismal prospect but I just can't see the road leading anyhwere else at this point.

4:11 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

91Ghost,

So far as I can tell Redleg hasn't articulated anything but a desire for Congress to declare war against an idea.
The idea that the United States of America should be destroyed.
Our existance and our continued existance is that declaration.

While You Were Watching the Distractions

6:18 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

yet again, after a brief period of hope, you have once again missed the entire point. And for bringing Vietnam into the issue again. Appreciate that especially. What President got us into VN again? And kept us there?

thanks for trying though. I continue to believe that we can get across to half of our nation that we are at war. You are stuck in your law books. You can declare war against international terror organizations and the nations that succor them. We just haven't done it before. It doesn't mean we cannot do it. As my drill sergeant used to tell me "think outside the box, meathead!"

Thanks for coming out though.

6:36 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

You just can't operate without insults can you?
I'm not going to bother anymore.
Don't take it to mean you're right.
Take it to mean that you're not worth it.

6:40 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

you almost sounded intelligent there and then went back into your liberal rhetoric.

For a few moments I was actually following your opinion, not agreeing but following. Then you reemerged and you ruined it.

I can't see where you articulated anything except you can't declare war against an idea, which I don't advocate. And that you don't think it's legal to declare war against anything other than a state, proof of which lies only in the fact we haven't done it yet. 91 Ghost got my side of the argument and provided some opinion for debate, but you can't seem to grasp that concept.

Sorry that 2 way debate is too convoluted for you. Have fun protesting naked in NYC?

4:19 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Why this facination of yours in wanting to imagine me rolling marbles naked?

What you have been asking for was HJR 63, which was shelved at the request of President Bush and through deliberation or neglect the president has made no effort to get it back out of committee after requesting it be set aside.

The time for a resolution of this type has passed, if it was ever advisible in the first place.

Honestly if you want to debate, then debate.
You have three times used insult and invective.
You accused me of bringing up VietNam, when it was you .

The use of invective and insult are valid tools if what you are wanting is a fight, but they have no place in a reasoned debate.

If you want a fight, name your time, place weapon and your second.
I'll meet you there.
If you want a debate get your military trained temper under control.

12:37 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

you start your entry into all the debate here with liberal invective, sortieing every now and again into a cogent thought. I can't help it if you made no point.

If you will note, your link referenced Ike and Vietnam. You brought it up.

And if you can read, I made a case for declaring war, not that I thought it would be done or accomplished, but to air the idea. You never made a case to look at the idea except to say it was illegal. Patently untrue on its face. It just hasn't been done before to declare a war on international terrorists and the nations that succor them. You argument fails in that regard, but if you will recall I agreed with you that it was unlikely to happen now or later this year or next.

This is the second time you have attempted to call me out for a duel. Massively insecure tactic for the debate impaired. Plus it sounds tough when you know you will never have to follow through. A little ineffective on the blog though. I'll leave that one alone, but since you have missed the point of sarcasm earlier, maybe the concept of humor would not be out of place. Take yourself seriously, much?

3:30 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:36 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

"In Vietnam the subject was very divisive and the Johnson Administration deliberately did not bring the issue before the Congress for whatever reasons. Now is different."

Your words not mine and posted before my link.

The rest of your trash is just that.

9:50 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

"This is the second time you have attempted to call me out for a duel."
Ok, I've got to ask you to cite the first.

My point was that the words you use are fighting words when people are together in person. They are fighting words when conveyed in a conversation online.

I'll conceed you one point in the conversation about a Declaration of War against terrorism.
Congress can do it, Congress can declare that the sky is pink and filled with orange mushrooms.
The next day the sky will still be "blue".
If Congress declares a poorly defined war the consequences are far more serious.

You keep thumping on me about my attention to law.
The Constitutuion of the United States of America is the law, and the basis for all law based on it.
There is no discussion of Congress or the Constitution without discussion of law.
A Delcaration of War on persons of another country by it's very nature is an international declaration and whether you respect international law and convention or not there will be consequence in international law and action that out weigh a satisfying sense of clarity.

We are if nothing else a nation of laws and not men.

You have brought up a charge of me inserting a 'liberal agenda'.
If it is true or not it has no bearing on the converstation.
It is a tool to try and derail the conversation and dismiss my points without argument.

I have not accused you of asserting a 'conservative' agenda, that agenda is obvious by your statements and does not need highlighting by me to make my point.

Where does my sense of humor enter into this?
An insult is not a joke.

12:51 PM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

look up the definitions for irony, sense of humor and sarcasm, print them out in big type and put them on your monitor. That way you'll remember what they are when you read them and have at least a halfway decent chance of figuring out the concept.

You challenged me to a duel on Ala71s site a while ago while you were in ful "arrogant liberal" mode. Do you have Alzheimers and simply not remember what you are doing. I have some friends in a full assisted living community that could help you. This is the second time you have forgotten key facts (wait, that's all of your posts) and called me a liar or (better yet) a Slanderer.

You have misunderstood the primary post from the beginning and refused to debate like a rational man. Instead you decended into precedent and said we couldn't declare war. Get your nose out of the law books and read the constitution. This is a new time and we are at war (but you might like to refer back to 9/11, it seems that you have forgotten that). I put my opinion out there and once again have decended to your vision of intellect. I will not do so again.

This is an insult. So you won't get confused. Ass. Hat. Wear it proudly.

6:50 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

And you are a fool, but that doesn't really need pointing out.
Again you ignore and deride law.

11:40 AM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Again, yes maybe I do not remember as you comepletely fucking forgot that you were the one who brought VietNam into the conversation, in this very topic, not another topic on another blog.

Again as I said to you on another topic on another blog, cite the example, or shut up.
God gave you fingers, do a google on html and href and physically link to what you claim I said.

But if I said it or not, you seem to like fighting words, appropriate given your carrer, but I'm a fellow American butthead, not the enemy and this isn't an al qaeda battlefield it's America. And if you keep throwing words the way you do one day it may not be me, but someone else that takes a swing at you and not in the virtual world, but the real one.

11:47 AM  
Blogger redleg said...

Paul

you linked to your blog with the really nice picture of Ike and some nice VIETNAMESE gentlemen, talking your usual crap about your liberal agenda.

Find your own posts. You wrote it, remember. Also remember, but your Alzheimers might be acting up, that you felt overwhelmed by my posts and decided to challenge me to a duel first.

I'll link to what I damn well please. When writing your novel for how you would like life to be remember your plotline. It helps.

I have plenty of respect for the law, just not your entitled, revisionist version of what the constitution states.

Good bye and good day. I shall not dignify you with a response again.

3:41 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

Good day?
You would rather spit on me, you have made that quite clear.
Rather cowardly of you, no matter how you try and couch your words.

8:00 PM  
Blogger Paul G. said...

I finally found the only reference in Ala's blog where if twisted it could be construed as a challenge for a duel.
In response to your challenge of "Blow Me", I responded "With the proper ordnance".

Talk bout lacking a sense of humor.
That would be you.

11:08 AM  
Blogger Online Incomes said...

Hey I just love your blog. I also have a dating tip
blog/site. I mostly deals with dating tip
Please come and check it out if you get the time!

3:39 PM  
Blogger accordion-6A045E said...

I love your blog! I also have a site about custom wakeboarding
. You can check it out at custom wakeboarding
.

Also, as a special bonus for your visitors, i want to tell you about a site that is giving away a FREE Sony DVD Handycam! Just click the link below and enter your Zipcode to see if you qualify.

FREE Sony DVD Handycam

12:28 PM  
Blogger Clickbank Mall said...

Come Visit Santa at his blog and tell him what you want for Christmas,

4:32 PM  
Blogger all about news and such said...

I just came across your blog about aa route finder uk and wanted to drop you a note telling you how impressed I was with the information you have posted here. I also have a web site about aa route finder uk so I know what I'm talking about when I say your site is top-notch! Keep up the great work, you are providing a great resource on the Internet here! If you get a chance, please stop by aa route finder uk

7:43 PM  
Blogger Michelle said...


free dating <<< Meet Thousands Of Singles In Your Area >>>

Hundreds Of Happy People Across The Globe Have Been Successful In Finding Suitable Partners With Online dating. Thousand Of People Are Looking For A Date Today. They Are Looking For Someone. Are You One Of Them?

Lonely? Single? Married?
Are you looking for someone to FLIRT?
Looking for someone to DATE?
Find your special someone.
Date man or women you desire!

Multilingual : English - Chinese Simplified - Chinese Traditional - Dutch - French - German - Greek - Italian - Japanese - Korean - Portuguese - Russian - Spanish

Free Trial! Chat Real Time with Audio & Video Capabilities. free dating

11:13 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home