Kerry Caught in yet Another Lie

[Neutrino]

Care to post the quotes that show Clinton claiming what a threat Saddam was and how dangerous he was with his WMD.

This isn't about Clinton, it's about Bush. Bush is running for re-election, Clinton is not. I don't care what Clinton did or did not say on this subject as this is not about him. I only care about the actual intelligence was in the past, what it is in the present, and what Bush did with it. So yes, the intelligence information during the Clinton presidency is certainly relevant, but whatever he said or didn't say on the matter is not. Furthermore, Clinton's opinions don't mean anything in the face of later and present as information. Intelligence changes.

But yes, I'm more than happy to post the quotes concerning the intelligence about Iraq before Bush came to office. Here:

The intelligence community's view of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction changed from the late 1990s through late 2002. It expressed uncertainty about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in 2000, but did indicate in December 2001 that Iraq may have been doing more and did make definitive judgments in October 2002 that Iraq had some weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration's statements on Iraq from 2000 to early 2003 were somewhat consistent with the overall intelligence community's views, though the administration arguably did not recognize or share with the public the intelligence community's own doubts and arguably overstated the intelligence community's assessments at times.

Even before the United States began military action, United Nations weapons inspectors were finding indications that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and had not resumed its nuclear weapon program. U.S. inspectors began reporting in early 2004 that inspections after major combat operations had not found weapons of mass destruction and that prior intelligence had been wrong.

Background
(back to top)

Two facts did lend much support to many people's belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in the late 1990s and early 21st century.

First, Iraq did use some WMD during the 1980s and early 1990s against Iranians and against Iraqi Kurds. During this time, Iraq developed and deployed mustard gas and nerve agents against Iranian forces; Iraq also deployed chemical weapons against two Kurdish villages (Hallabja and Dojaila) within Iraq in March 1988. Moreover, Iraq developed long-range ballistic missiles that it began using in February 1988 against Iran and helped lead to the end of the war. Iraq also used these missiles during the Gulf War against Israel.

Second, from 1991 on, Iraq never fully cooperated with U.N. weapons inspections despite suffering economic sanctions for such non-cooperation, strongly suggesting that Iraq had something to hide.

With the end of the Gulf War, the UN Security Council established restrictions on Iraq's weapons capacities. Resolution 687 (1991) barred Iraq from having or retaining chemical weapons, biological weapons, ballistic missiles with a ranger greater than 150 kilometers (about 90 miles), and nuclear weapons. To ensure compliance, the Security Council created a Special Commission (UNSCOM) to monitor Iraq's chemical weapons, biological weapons, and missiles, and it delegated nuclear inspections to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which created a special Iraq Action Team.

Such inspections continued from 1991 to 1998 with difficulties.

Iraq responded to the UN's disarmament requirement first by trying simply to hide its weapons-related materials and to reveal only a small portion. It thus submitted a declaration to the United Nations on April 18, 1991 but UNSCOM quickly identified gaps in the declaration and the International Atomic Energy Agency caught Iraqi officials trying to transport undisclosed nuclear equipment in June 1991.

The UN passed a new resolution reiterating Iraq's obligation to disarm and to submit new "full, final and complete" declarations. Iraq decided to conceal some materials and conducted the unilateral destruction in June 1991 of some of its weapons programs, an effort that would make ever knowing the extent of the programs difficult and that was in itself a violation of the Security Council's resolution.

Iraq revealed its unilateral destruction several months later, in March 1992. Weapons inspector Scott Ritter wrote in his book "Endgame" that the declaration "changed the dynamic of the inspection regime dramatically. All intelligence was suddenly obsolete. Any evidence that the inspectors may have had about Iraqi false statements was, literally overnight, invalidated."

Inspectors spent the next few years trying to verify the unilateral destruction and even moved towards accepting Iraq's declarations. Then, in August 1995, Lt. General Hussein Kamal defected to Jordan along with his wife, who was one of Saddam Hussein's daughters, and told UNSCOM that Iraq had been misleading weapons inspectors through a massive concealment mechanism. Iraq then reported that it had discovered about 1.5 million pages of documents regarding past programs and blamed Kamal for his illegal, allegedly unauthorized conduct.

Accordingly, UNSCOM resumed large-scale intrusive inspections in 1996. Ritter acknowledged that these inspections were "controversial and confrontational by design" in order to "elicit a detectable Iraqi response from the organization that was hiding Iraq's secret arsenal." Still, such inspections arguably lost some of their force because Iraq began avoiding some of the effects of sanctions by participating in an oil-for-food program under which it could sell some oil to fund humanitarian efforts overseen by the UN. Iraq agreed to participate in 1995 and exported its first oil in December 1996.

Confrontations between Iraq and inspectors escalated and became more frequent, and Iraq managed to limit inspections with agreements that declared some sites off limits out of respect for Iraq's sovereignty. At the same time, political pressure arguably was put on UNSCOM to let up on Iraq, with some countries believing that UNSCOM had actually succeeded in accomplishing its disarmament objectives even if it had been less successful in achieving its goals about confirming such things. UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter quit in August 1998, saying that the US and the UK were pressuring UNSCOM to ease up on Iraq in order to avoid intra-state conflicts.

The situation came to a head in December 1998, when the United States and the UK launched missile strikes against some Iraqi sites after what turned out to be the final expulsion of weapon inspectors. Operation Desert Fox lacked UN backing and in some ways reflects the limited international support that Operation Iraqi Freedom against Iraq would have in 2003.

By that time, some people believed that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs were limited at best, especially given the difficulty Iraq was having with funds and with maintaining a conventional army. In 1999, Ritter wrote that his assessment was that Iraq's WMD program was "little more than the bare bones of the massive projects undertaken prior to Operation Desert Storm." He wrote that it was "highly unlikely that Saddam would authorize the use of such controversial weapons until he has completely rebuilt his conventional arsenal. Iraq simply lacks the stocks of chemical and biological agent needed to have any militarily significant effect. Tens of thousands of munitions would be required, and at best Iraq has but a few hundred. The political losses that would be accrued by using weapons that it has declared it no longer possesses would far outweigh any short-term battlefield benefits."

Even assuming such conclusions were correct at the time, it was unclear what was happening in Iraq after inspections ended. The U.S. intelligence community regularly reported that it did not have any direct evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction programs after 1998, but that Iraq had the capability of doing so at least with its chemical and biological warfare programs and that such activities "must be regarded as likely," as it stated in an unclassified report to Congress in 2000.

State of Knowledge as of early 2001
(back to top)

As the Bush administration took office in 2001, the intelligence community's analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was still uncertain. According to reports written by early 2001, Iraq had destroyed much of its WMD capabilities and its current capabilities were uncertain. No one in the United States intelligence community appears to have had any definitive idea as to what WMD capabilities Iraq had in early 2001.

For example, in one unclassified report covering all international WMD acquisition efforts in the second half of 2000, the CIA reported that it had "concerns" about whether Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program but did not conclude that Iraq had done so, and that Iraq had the capability of reinstating its chemical and biological weapons programs but there was no evidence that it had done either.

Given the lack of complete information about Iraq, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney talked in the 2000 campaign about the possibility that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush administration continued to discuss the issue in such terms in 2001.

Bush, for example, said in the 2000 debates that the United States did not know whether Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction and in February 2001 said that "we're going to watch very carefully as to whether or not he [Saddam Hussein] develops weapons of mass destruction, and if we catch him doing so we'll take the appropriate action."

Once in office, administration officials such as Powell and Rice generally were in line with such positions. For example, Powell said in a February 4, 2001 interview with Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts that "we have to assume that he [Hussein] has never lost his goal or gone away from his goal of developing such weapons" and that the "people of the region are threatened, the children of the region are threatened by Saddam Hussein and his potential possession of these kinds of weapons."

Given the lack of complete information about Iraq, it was hard as of 2000-01 to come up with any definitive conclusions about Iraq's weapon capabilities or even its intentions, which Powell and Rice did acknowledge at times. In any event, it was unlikely that Powell and Rice would have definitive information that Iraq had not developed its weapons, and such statements ran counter to the intelligence community.

Definitive as they were, Powell's and Rice's statements could be seen as designed to achieve a political goal. In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration was pushing for a change in the sanctions regime imposed against Iraq, from one which forbade all exports to Iraq unless those specifically approved by a Security Council committee to one which allowed all exports to Iraq unless those specifically disapproved. The proposal was debated within the Security Council in June 2001 but failed due to the Russian Federation's opposition.

If you want to read more, then just look at the links.

 

[blahblahblah]

Sorry about the delay, I've been a bit busy. Not gonna let this one slip by.

I agree that the system needs work, but this is not a coherent response to the fact that fraud and suppression is happening. Fraud and suppression will always be possible no matter how good the system is. Your response is to apparently declare that we shouldn't decry fraud because the only real solution is to magically fix the system (though you don't explain how or with what money)... which Republicans generally oppose anyway.

Ways to fix the system.

- Electoral Reform. By direct popular vote, district plan or porportional plan I don't care.
- Abolishing voter precincts
- Eliminating the first Thursday in November as Election day
- Make it the first Friday and Saturday in November as election days
- Make Friday a national holiday to encourage voter turnout
- Shift the burden from paying for voter systems from states to the national government
- Adopt fraud detection tactics during the election. Sampling is very good at detecting fraud. Among other fraud detection tactics.
- Make it easier to vote by removing precincts.
- Eliminate 3rd party groups for voter registration drives. Instead forces parties to donate to a local election commision which then does voting registration drivers thus preventing fraud.
- Make voter fraud a more serious penalty
- Do routine audits for fraud on election ballots. Also establish hotlines for whistleblowers. In addition, make it easy to check to make sure you are registered to vote online or through phone or mail.

That is how you magically fix the system.

Accounting just isn't like voting. What is the underlying problem that you think needs fixing?

And, indeed, what does that have to do with the despicable acts Republicans do to try and keep the system confusing and intimidating?

You say voter fraud and suppresion is one of the key issues that you are fighting. As an accoutant, I need to be able to detect fraud and prevent suppresion. See my solutions above as a quick pointer. Just because I'm not a politican doesn't mean I know nothing about the system. Accoutants do a lot more than just paying bills and keeping the books. A large part of accounting is devoting to issues like fraud and information systems management. Fraud and information systems management is directly related to the issues you have.

Uh, I think I know pretty well how it works, seeing as part of my job is to combat it.

Do you think it is wise for a general to enter battle fighing the enemy with his soldiers? I don't think so, he looses site over the big picture and thus looses the ability to make choices that seem contradictory to wait he sees in person, but makes perfect sense when you see the big picture.

Your opinions are important in creating a better system, but they are highly skewed based off of negative experiences. I bet your encounters with bad republicans far outweight your encounters with nice republicans.

I can't, because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. There is no way to "fix" the fact that Republicans are shredding Democratic voter registrations or committing fraud or phone jamming GOTV efforts. How do you propose we "fix" that? It's already illegal.

It's just that you want to avoid having to admit that the Republican party is playing extremely dirty.

The minority represents the majority? I would like to see some statistics on the amount of illegal activities that are constantly used by Republicans. Newspaper articles don't cut it, they only mention one or two people or places. I want to see a large scale picture of corruption. Anyways, my plan would prevent this from happening.

Then I suppose you support the Democrats in trying to make this possible? The Republicans oppose it (again, because allowing working people to vote more easily is very very BAD for them).

You managed to paint roughly half this nation under one color. How do you feel? I'm a republican in case you have missed it and am for election reform, therefore you conclusions are incorrect. I haven't seen any legislation trying to reform anything because both parties are against election reform. Stop believing that the Democratic party is the savior of US politics.

Semi-related, ell me what you think about Harold Ickes. Do you think he appropriately represents the democratic party? His actions may not be illegal, but they do not represent the spirit of the system. What about the fact he took such advantage of a system that a law was written about his actions?

They can vote early at the BOE. And they can vote absentee. But I AGREE that voting should be easier and less of a hardship (though I'm not sure that mixing polling locations is a feasible solution without millions of dollars in federal aid that Republicans will never let get spent). What does that have to do with anything?

You prevent fraud. See above.

 

[umop]

Ok, Apos wins, good game.

 

[blahblahblah]

Ok, Apos wins, good game.

What??

 

[Tr0n]

Ok, Apos wins, good game.

No one wins....

 

[sublidieminal]

http://www***morsontheinternets.com/
http://www.youforgotpoland.com/

Just for laughs since this thread has come to its end.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Ah, I see. So you're for dumping your own problems in the laps of other people then?

Nuetrino, this is a gross fact. Would you rather have the war fought in your living room, or an Iraqi's living room? Its easy to fantasize that if faught elsewhere, or for if, not at all, the situation would be easier to handle.

The reality is, it would've been a lot harder to grasp or handle.

Dont worry, ignore the plausible hobgoshing of (teh see, dats why teh Iraq war is justimified mmm, kthxbai), my point is, would anyone? I think its easily a convience to both sides of the arguement to have the war waged in place, nearly thousands of miles accross either of the sea's.

Now, lets look here:

1. The side supporting it being away, does'nt like the idea of the war being waged in whole. Aside from the political discussions or debates, war itself, not there on his front door, is better for his own mental state and his physical developement.
   
   The stress, and extreme violence that war is, happens not to be around him. So, its this, that he supports. Its a gross fact, but even some of you here support it.

1. Now, the side opposing it being away? (does it?) apparently does'nt realize their own mental states and education, would be thrown away in seconds at the matter a bullet could've possibly strayed and killed them. Accident or not, the visual matters of war would be scarring enough.

Were at war, so there is no more debating a "what if" scenario. What we should be debating, is a "what now" scenario.

I think its easy to concluse both sides are upset about the violence being commited in the countries involved; but its even easier to see that those who dont like the war itself, are glad its not being faught around them. Its selfish, but its true. Its a reason only secret to man.

We don't want to fight them in our backyards, but it's just fine and dandy if we fight them in Iraqi's backyards, right?

Its a gross fact.

Where we have the proper people do deal with them. Think of it as a three way race: Saddam, the US, then the terrorists. We followed Saddam in, and then the terrorists followed us. We would have been quite content dealing with the aftermath of Iraq if it werent for the terrorists (Al Zarqawi being #1). Saddam also funded terrorism (noitce not specifically Al Qaeda), so it isnt like it was a new thing over there.

This is true. Its also an illusionist dream to believe a war thats occuring now, could've been avoided. Our better targets unfortunately, would've pitched the same fight. Although, how would the US be now, if Al-Qaeda attacked the towers on September the 11th, while we were distracted with Sanctioning North Korea's weapons program?

Having said that, I wish to add a little to what Seinfeld said.
Al-Qaeda did follow us in, and in some of these instances, was waiting for us. Its too far an illusion to begin with, "what if's, or how so's". Right now, our biggest illusion is that it could've been avoided. Reality is, war was not avoided, and I agree with John Kerry:

"We have to be over there long enough to fix the problems, so they dont become again"

Put the message as you might, but its still true. We must now clean up the mess.

You have to admit, though, the insurgents are presenting quite a challenge for the largest, most advanced, highly trained, well funded, and feared militaries in the world.

Well, War has no rules.

I think the Palestinian prime minister identified that quiet well in a speech he gave during the 1990's.

So, lets for an instant, assume this/a war did'nt have rules.

You now have two options:

1. 1. Be content and acknowledge that civilian losses are the greatest loss one could ever receive during war. Develope a sense of respect, and try to hit targets as precisely as you can, with what you got.
   
   2. **** it. The rules are gone. Blow the cities to hell, and seperate the corpses from the good and bad.

Its your choice. The most advanced Army in the world can wipe these cities clean (acknowledging of course, a world wide retribution), but they however, are not because some are actually concerned about the loss of life in these cities.

Just count these people lucky. If people say the United States is as facist, "as it really is", these towns and cities could've been gone months ago. Consider yourself lucky, that this absence of rules, is'int apparent or thoughroughly acknowledged.

Because, I dont care what the United States is or is'int. Sweden, Germany, Russia, hell Iraq if it had the manpower, could've done these same things to Kuwait, Chechnya, the Belorussas, and...whatever Sweden would attack.

If you have 1,000 artillery guns with 34 rounds per gun, it would be more then enough to reach the 10,000 Iraqi citizens killed, if you just planned on bombing modern day Paris.

Indeed, consider yourself lucky, because if for every war they're existed no rules, we might not all be here.

Ah, yes, the other thing that gives the insurgents an edge. They don't have to conform to the Rules of Engagement and international treaties and such.

Well, he's right here. So, would you rather US drop those rules and international treaties, just to prove you wrong? Oh jebus! I can see the threads now all stringing accross the Off-Topic forum.

But its so odd, back in 1997, it was "so cool" amungst youth to discern and ignore "hippies". Now, it is quiet clear everyone was a hippy at heart. :naughty:

As I said, against a conventional military, the US Military would easily prevail. Against insurgents and terrorists, they're forced to fight with the gloves on.

Uh, only because people would whine about those killed in Fallujah that were'nt involved in the uprisings. But your right. Nuetrino, read his point, because its true. Coventional Armies understand Conventional rules, and the United States whole doctrine, was borne to face down a Soviet charge into Europe.

Proof? The Leopard IIA6, the Challenger MkII, the Merkarva, the Leopard I, the Abrams, the M60--where all planned to European defense tanks. It was acknowledged that the Western allies needed "bottlenecking tanks" to keep the Soviet armor at bay, enough for an airborne response to conjecture.

However, now these tanks face down non-existant enemies, and they are partially useless. But, if the United States was'nt Coventional, I have to agree with Seinfeld...these stories of resistance would'nt be nearly as true.

These towns could be gone, and for an example, look at Warsaw during 1943-44. The Soviet Army just sat right accross from the North end of the town (accross the river), and the south end of the town (the Polish Sector), as the entire city was reduced to pure rubbel.

That city was smashed down, a city, nearly half as big as Berlin (around 700,000 or 1,000,000 million people in, or around the province) in under two weeks.

Fallujah only supports around what? 100,000, to 500,000?

I dont know the figures, but it is much smaller than Warsaw was in the 1940s. With a conventional army, but with no rules, Fallujah could be sieged and reduced in that same amount of weeks, or less.

Again, consider the situation lucky.

the US has repeatedly broken the geneva accords as well as international law before, during and after the war

The US was'nt the only one. What the US did, the British traded around as Baseball cards. Photographs of Iraqi dead, maimed, or shot--even tortured, circled even back to Britain.

Part of the Abu Ghairb scandal came from this incident. But the coalition is united in its guilt--for they helped to cover up or commit these attrocities.

14,000 dead iraqi civilans isnt pulling punches

Well, would you rather have Fallujah reduced to a middle-eastern Dresden?

Fine by me. But 14,000 comparitively as a statistic, is'int that much at all. But hey, consider those people lucky, and dont underestimate the plausible circumstance...that at any one point, Fallujah could've been reduced.

Its that simple, and Holland, could have done that. (Albeit, it would've been longer.)

Oh please, if we were as blatant and as disrespectful as you claim then our casualty figures would be down 90%. The US military is trained to follow these 'accords' as much as possible.

Its true. Like I said, we have the powers to reduce these cities, and you typing away would'nt have stopped that. Oh, but dont worry, I would've been typing right along side you.

But they're are good soldiers in Iraq, and they're are "good insurgents/resistance". Its just, for the people who support either of the sides, fail to acknowledge good in the opposition, because if they did, it might negate the volitale and often overexagerrated fears or wills to fight.

And again, you assume that the US killed all these civilians.

We only assume that its true, because the United States is 80% of the total force in Iraq. You must've missed the difference between "shelling" and "missle attacks".

The United States has'nt been using shells--they're too primitive in, not only their force, but direction. Cruise missles are much more precise, and if we were shelling these towns, I can easily tell you that from researching previous wars with such artillerie based ballistics, that figure of 10,000 would've been 40,000 much easier.

As the foremost remaining superpower on the planet, your business is our business.

Good, can I vote in your country now?

Why you might ask? Because there exists a probability you might premtively declare war or wage violence on us, in fear or exacting paranoia that same retribution came onto you.

Heres a thought: Either we hold daggers to both our throats, or we both drop them at the sametime and start talking of the better.

you know nothing. It's the not the individual soldiers I'm talking about it's the US government: illegal detention of individuals with no charges, illegal use of weapons ..here read this

Alright. Well, thats a start. Infact, I thank you for not prejudging some of the soldiers over there. Good work. You deserve a cookie. <hands him whatever he wants in the form of whichever dream cookie he lieks>

Now, I want prejudge some of the resistance over there. Here, I'll put a sticker on my cheek.

<sticker>

yes, directly or indirectly they are responsible for all 14,000+

...<snatches cookie away>

Now, wait a moment! Do you want the cookie, or not?

Make up your mind. First, you prompted those deaths at the hand of the US Government not judging correctly or having faulty intelligence.

Now, your blaiming those "individuals you wished not to blaim".

Which is it?

... <takes sticker off cheek> im waiting.

no ones a super power anymore, we all have nukes, we all have a say.

Blam. True dat, and all dat sugar and spice.

dont post things we have to register for, you should know that you need to sign up for the washington post.

Well, you've got two choices. Either, Al-Jazeera, or the Washington Post.

If that were true, the US would be in a LOT of trouble.

Why? Would you support blowing us all off the ends of the Earth? But see, you forget that killing what, all good 100 million of us would cause you atmospheric problems. You'd die slow, and horrible deaths. Retardations or disabilities would become and become a more often trait amungst your world. ...and, who can forget? Without German, US, or British medicine, at the rate of the radiation in our atmosphere, their would be no sufficent power that might promote your deaths either quick, or until you GET old.

You'd melt with the over-heated and radiated toxic airs--your sea would be poisoned without a sufficient enough natural process to clear these particles from toxicating the seas.

With the rain, the radiation would soak into the landwater and ground water resources. Your wells would be poisoned, and entire cities rained down upon with pollutants of radioactive nuclear aftermaths.

Bunkers and Shelters underground, would not persevre, due to chaos and panic shared at the rate of virtual decay. Water...fresh water? You would'nt have any.

By the time you got on your feet, it would've been hundreds of thousands of years before civilization even started to rebuild. Our over-exposure, might populate the world with hidious and unchangeable aspects to our genetic structure.

Whole codes would be overwritten or repeated multiple times, and eventually, the human code containing the source of our birth and evolution would eventually, be wiped out.

Good job world!

Only the very patriotic and the foolish are in the "the war was right" camp, thankfully your numbers are dwindling

War is never right. I dont care how you number it down to be.

hahahahaha there we go again. Bush had awful pre- war intel. I've said that all along. But then I ask? Was he supposed to question Russia's intel agency, the CIA, and MI5? (all with the same information). Clinton believed it as well, so did Kerry.

Exactly. Clinton was preparing to go after Osama Bin Laden. Either way you look at it, Gore, or Bush, would've probably followed right into Iraq.

Its just retrospect were discussing Bush.

This isn't about Clinton,

No, this is about Bush Senior, and Clinton. Its their intelligence were dealing with now, so I do thing its credible enough we research their roots and from where they're grounded.

Just for laughs since this thread has come to its end.

Commiting suicide already?

 

[Tr0n]

One says we are the foremost superpower and another says that there is no more super powers...Well come on euro's make up your minds.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Edits from the post of doom

Its true. Like I said, we have the powers to reduce these cities, and you typing away would'nt have stopped that. Oh, but dont worry, I would've been typing right along side you.

That comment was more directed to CptStern. Whoops!

CptStern, you must've missed the difference between "shelling" and "missle attacks".

Changed and edited.

Now, I wont prejudge some of the resistance over there. Here, I'll put a sticker on my cheek.

Edited for correction.

so I do thing its credible enough we research their roots and from where they're grounded.

So, I do believe this is credible enough. I think its time we search their roots and from where they're grounded, is the correction for:

so I do thing its

 

[Tr0n]

That was indeed the "POST OF DOOM".

 

[Lil' Timmy]

i win you ****ing morons! i always win! what's wrong with you people?

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Yes, Lil'Timmy always wins.

 

[Tr0n]

i win you ****ing morons! i always win! what's wrong with you people?

Only because you have that cute puppy as your avatar... :hmph:

 

[Lil' Timmy]

puppy > voltron

 

[falconwind]

One says we are the foremost superpower and another says that there is no more super powers...Well come on euro's make up your minds.

I said that your country is a superpower. It is. I'm not from Europe.

tho the puppy pwns the world.

 

[Tr0n]

puppy > voltron

Ugh...I have to agree. ;(