Kent

I dont want you on my side... Not if you would support the statment I qouted... And frankly, you deserve flaming for say that america and britian are the equals of Nazi germany and fascist Italy. You should be smart enough to condem such statments without changing your oppossing views... (compared to my own.) Dont bother with the threats and questions of who is ignorant in this. Think about that... America=Nazi germany... Nah, thats not intellectual, that is just silly. I dont want to call you Orien specifically ignorant, nor any one else who is here besides one person... and until that specific person retracts their statment, I will continue to consider their opinion invalid. Any honest person should be able to oppose this war with out such radical and unintelligent statments. 6,000,000 Jewish innocents. Anyone supporting the qouted statment should be ashamed and, orien, by you trying to get on my case for directly challenging that statment and intelligence of that person, you should consider yourself as one who is supporting that rediculus statment. Not at a single place in your post did you condem that statment. Instead you confront me for my opposition to it... That is rediculus and so are any of you willing to take the side of anyone saying such immature things. This isn't about dissagrement... this is about a specific statment.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i] [B]I compare USA and England to germany and Itay in WW2. I mean, after iraq, whos next? Iran, North korea, Syria, France, Germany, Canada, china? his hole war buisness really sucks. [/B][/QUOTE] That is just rediculus and it saddens me to see that the other independant thinkers here were not completly insulted by your comments. You are truly showing not just your opinion, but an obvious ignorance to the truth of the situation. I should also mention that those words are just about as polite as I can respond to such a rediculus statment. (I would really rather just use nasty terms and names to demean this persons intelligence:flaming:... I mean, fascist killing millions of innocents being compared to a liberating army that hasnt even had the chance to prove its honestly good intentions, which is the only reason people can even suggest the worst possible things to POSSIBLY occur...) Have you all seen the footage of the Iraqi man beating a painting of saddam with his shoe? Those are not what conquered people do. That is what liberated people do. I also want to mention that it is hipocritical for people to protest this war of liberation directed only to allow the people of Iraq to rule themselves... Yet not a single one of you hipocrites says a word when 2,500 turks invade kurdistan to sieze control of kurkuck. (kurkuck is a major oil field area) Talk about a war for Oil?! why dont you go yell that crap at the turks taking the land from the victims of saddam with hostility instead of whining about what you think might happen because of american efforts for liberation. This is the sort of stuff that just reinforces my beliefs that only about 10% of the people so vocally oppossed to this war can make an intellectual debate that is worthy of my, or anyone elses time. (that 10% here is mostly limited to one individual, and he is always working on my last trans nerve.)

Lalith, thanks for writing down what these anti-war people either dont know, or are ignoring, or are un-willing to acknowledge. Those are all facts that you have mentioned and are the exact reasons I support the removal of Saddam. (along with many other reasons.) I just wanted to mention that you wrote about the international community saving people... I wanted to remind you that pol pot killed 2 MILLION cambodians. That is not saving anyone, that is FAILING to save people. I also want to remind you of the slaughter of 30,000 people, specifically by machette in rowanda. That was overlooked/ingnored by the U.N. (so keep these things in mind when we think of the international community acting to save, liberate or justify military actions.) But since those subjects are not the subject of this thread... I also want to ask if you know what killed those kurds in jalabjah? Did you know it was not simply nerve gas? It was a combination created by scientist of saddam that consisted of mustard gas, seron (sp?) and VX. (I believe...) Also just for a side note, that village was murdered on march 16th, 15 years ago. I hope these things are all taken into consideration by those of you opposing this war. I also want to add that queen asuka was not advacating anarchy. Anarchy is what allows bad governments into power. Look at afghanistan and you should know that the taliban took over because the warring factions were creating "anarchy." So with a single power larger than others, they created what they considered a national power/government. This goes to show that even in anarchy there is a form of government in a sense... that form of government is called the strongest gang. This is why we cannot allow anarchy... when the strongest are justifying anything they do by means of their own strength, the weak will always be oppressed.

Frankly, I have no clue what the -100 utiles means but its ok with me what ever it means. However, I want to point out that I do not ignore any of the problems in the world that are presented to me. I dont really know what to say about the problems of world. If you want my opinions about any specific problems, go ahead and ask me in a pm. Otherwise, this back and forth stuff with no real point is sorta useless.

So exactly what fact did you mention besides the fact that you saw an expert on 60 minutes. I didn't see anything the expert said that was a fact, but I did see a post that was very confident. However, speak of weapons all you want. Justification on the legal level is not what I care about. I care to see Saddam out of power because of the things I know that he is responsible for. And frankly, if you know what those deeds are, you would be supporting the removal of this dictator also. Although it is possible you know about these things and just flat out dont care.

Ahh sith what ever! The oil crap is totally unfounded and just a perfect example of a lack of knowledge on the real issues. But I dont even care about that, just keep on with your oil thing. Doesn't bother me, and infact I would rather have people like you talking about oil than actually making a formidable argument based on logic and fact. But like I said... what ever, just keep on with your current argument. However, the real reason I came to this at this point is due to a recent development of suspicions... There are growing suspicions that Saddam himself was in the very building that was hit with the presicion attack that was used at the very begining of all of this. I also want to point out what is known for sure. 1) this presicion attack was specifically a "target of oppurtunity" 2) the attack itself was launched without any warning or authorization from the british or the austraillians. To me that says two things besides the obvious... This was a target we couldnt allow to get away, and it was a target so important that all of the authorities were not notified due to the possibility of the target getting away before the higher authorities could give "permission" to attack. I dont know for sure, but I hope that Saddam was in that place and is now in a much worse place...(hell) Side note: I really like this fella tony blair. (Im watching him on c-span2 right now) Did you know that 60% of Iraqi people are dependant on food aid? That is just another reason to show that Saddam is a curse on Iraq. Plus, did you all know that the Iraqi gdp was higher than the gdp of purtugaul before saddam took over. Now it is next to nothing... But hey, oil being sold by Iraqi's who are the rightful owners wouldnt do anything about that would it. I mean, its not like the oil fields of Iraq will be given back to the people of Iraq after this is over.

Sounds like some fun. Glad to have a member back. Also glad you made it back with out being robbed or anything horrible.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Heaven's Cloud [/i] [B][color=indigo]Yes, the fate of Democracy rests on the hands of one man. Can Tiger Woods overcome adversity, protesters, and Scud Missles leading the US to a final victory over Saddam Hussien? We'll find out in "Golf War II"... Sorry, I found it too funny to resist taking a cheap shot. [/B][/QUOTE] Awesome... I guess I couldnt resist either.

Well tn, I really actually wasn't being sarcastic or anything. I appreciate the fact that you aren't anti-soldier, but anti-war... that is an admirable thing. And atleast you are not trying to completly deny my observations of hate amongst the anti-war crowd. Cloricus... I actually don't have any means or desire to qoute the cease fire specifically ruling against scuds for Iraq. I can't say with certainty that its even there with that in mind. However, I know they outlawed far too much of the Iraqi weaponry for Saddam to have scuds in his arsenal. However, you say the range is what MAY keep them considered legal under the concepts of all the different resolutions and declarations. Yet you fail to recognize that "scud" missiles were the exact type of missle used to hit isreal during the first gulf war. So they obviously have a range that exceeds the limit you mention. Furthermore, what led me to make the statments that these "scuds" put Iraq in material breech was an interview with Blix. It wasn't a formal thing... It was a blix being approached by reporters today. (I believe it was today) Blix was confronted with the fact that scud missiles were fired from Iraq into Kuwait and Blix instantly replied, "well that would definatly be considered a material breech." I will take those words from Blix himself as enough to know that scuds are a breech of the terms laid on Iraq. So I guess that should address all of the direct stuff between members... The thing I want to mention now is the ryson that was found. Now the french intelligence agency is coming out saying they have seized all of the ryson that was going to be used in an attack on any american interest, and with that natural charisma of the French nation... "See what we have done for you" Words like these from those people make it seem more like they are trying to force their way into the situation than, trying to actually help anything American. So it does indeed look as if the french will be joining in on the deal of the year... a full half price sale on anything Iraqi. Of course, the joining in part is still just a kent hoggatt political prediction. So like I have said before, We will see what happens.

I also thought I would come out and mention that with in the last day the french government has come out and said they have found a very specific poison in a train station in paris... Thats right, the very same poison that was alleged to be the center of training and creation at the poinson training camp in northren Iraq. Ryson. Will my prediction that the french will hope on board just at the last minute be correct? Well I can tell you one thing... no one can resist a good deal on newly democratic state owned oil. And I betting the same for the russians being that the oil fields in the south were where the russians were getting their own development of refinery facilities going... And where are oil fields allegedly being lite up right now... Thats right, the south where all of the ruskies investments lie. We will see what happens. and No, specifically "scud" missiles are illeagal under the terms of the original cease fire. Not just any missiles, but "scuds" specifically as well as others and other weapons.

Well actually duomax and trans, I am being resonable about my generalizations of anti-war protestors. If there is a silent majority of protestors who support the troops, they need to speak up. The only time I dont see hate from the protestors towards those who are going to war and those who support it are when the are confronted my an independant party with the very same points I made. Unfortunatly, the majority of actions I have seen on the news and other forms of media has been hostile and inflamitory towards the soldiers themselves If you guys are speaking the truth, and the majority of protestors do support the troops, you need to start a big hoo-ra with cnn and other news channels that go out of their way to show the more disrespectful protestors than people like you two who whole heartedly believe the soldiers are good people. I dont know if you guys have noticed this either, but alot of the orginizers of these anti-war protest are often the very same people who were doing it in vietnam. (that 60's mentality you say is gone.) The fact is, you can not discount my observations of these people simply because you have a different view. I am not insulting anyone with this, I am merely pointing out what many others have seen, and what I am tired of seeing. "Anyone who is a soldier is immoral." I have heard statments like that enough and those statments are not made by one or two people... they are made by many. Just because you two and the anti-war crowd you may hang around doesnt put out insulting statments, doesnt mean it doesnt happen... it does happen. Thats all there is to it. I do appreciate the fact that you two are very pro-soldier and anti-war though. If your gonna be anti-war, that is the way to do it. So I say thankyou to you two alone on behalf of all the soldiers who I know must appreciate your support.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mitch [/i] [B][color=red] Gokents, you have no right to say such things. How in the hell do you even know what the people who are against war think? Me myself--I know a life. I know and I care. This right here is why I hate war. It is so damn pointless. We are fighting over seemingly nothing that will be stopped. Saddam isn't going to get caught. Obviously I can already see that. It's just pointless. We lose lives so that maybe, just maybe there will never be terroism. There will never be hate. color] [/B][/QUOTE] I want to point out specifically that I did not say what I knew of war. I specifically asked you...what gives you the right to say we dont know war, or "what makes you think you know war better than anyone else here." I did specifically say the "general demeanor" of anti-war protestors. I also specifically pointed out that it was possible you did not fit that profile. How do I come to the conclusion that anti-war protestors generally dislike soldiers or do not consider them good people? I come to that conclusion based on the views of the leadership of anti-war protesting expressed on the world wide media level. People that openly say things like "being a soldier is immoral." That is not the sort of comment that makes for a person who supports the troops and hates the war... Oh no, these people are the sorts who do not distinguish between the war and the warrior. You may be a person who has their head on straight in their protesting, but that does not give you the right to A) flame me for the open statment of the truth, that anti-war protestors generally mistreat and show open hate for the soldeirs in the war and B) assume that you know what war is better than anyone here. I have not been in war, I have only seen war in the same ways as anyone else who has not been in it for themselves. I have only lost a parent to war. So watch your toungue because I will not sit back and let you flame me over the truth of the matter. Soldiers of consistantly mis treated by the majority of protestors and no matter what you as an individual may say, that statment will always remain true for as long as protestors continue to act as they have or allow the leadership amongst their ranks to represent thier orginizations as they have.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Orien_Xel [/i] [B][color=blue] Remind me why we're going after Saddam again? Oh, wait, he has WMD. Or is it his connections to Al Queda? Or His flouting of International Law? WHich reason do we have today? That's another rerason I don't like this. Bush keeps switching the reason we're going in for. color] [/B][/QUOTE] That is actually perfect. Its not that the reason switches... its that those are all reasons for this sort of action. I also want to address enigma in the post reffering to the people urging war and "not knowing what it is." I want to ask you what makes you think you know war better than anyone else. You might want to take into consideration the words of a famus man and general who said that "no one loathes war more than the soldier." This is true of the soldiers families also. That said, I want to remind you that the majority of us who support military action are the same people who were raised in military families. (such as myself) Those who are protesting the war are usually the same ones who treat the soldiers themselves as bad people... regardless of your own opinion, this is the general demeanor of the anti-war protestors. With all the statments you made, I failed to see anything that supported the idea that Saddam should be left in power. Only the ideas that the "world" knows better. I really dont know if I should get into it... But the fierce opposition of this effort is headed by france. Other nations as well, such as russia and germany. With countries like that, we should be looking at the whole concept behind the drive for a non-war solution. (which was attempted for the last 12 years) Fact: France is the Number one dealer of conventional weapons to Iraq. (guns, jets...etc. thats why you see a "mirage fighter" doing mach chemical drops in intel videos) Fact: since 2001 France has done over 3.5 billion dollars worth of trade and dealing with Iraq. Fact: the only trip ever taken by Saddam out of Iraq itself was to meet with French officials just before purchasing the only Nuclear reactor to be established in Iraq. That reactor was made by and sold by... you guessed it, the french. Fact: chirac has known saddam since that very trip to france. Chirac was serving in a lower position and only begining his climb to power, yet there is still video footage that is commercially availible, of Saddam meeting with the leader of france, and his right hand man, Chirac. These are all just related to France, the world leader of the anti-war efforts. However, I want to make 2 major points and one speculatory prediction... 1.France has already come forth with a statment that "if Iraq uses chemical weapons... we are in with the coalition." Prediction: France will get in on the coalition efforts either way. 2. the coalition itself... 35 different countries and 15 others who wish not to be named. All those countries make for one heck of an international opinion. *pure speculation* Do you think its possible france is involved with those 15 countries wishing to be unnamed? I couldnt say, but 15 wishing to remain unnamed is an awefully odd scenerio for a world that doesnt approve... Or wait, actually its not wierd. It is a sign that the leaders of the world community recognize the need for this action, and the people of the world are just not willing to accept the actions lead by the U.S. non the less, the arch nemisis of all liberals any where... G. W. Bush BIG POINT... With in the last 20 minutes the highly respected:laugh: hans Blix has come out with a very specific statment... "well... if Iraq has fired scuds, then they are definatly in material breech." Keep those sorts of comments in mind if you think UNMOVIC was getting the job done. Note: Iraq fired scuds last night at kuwait

Actually, even in the dictionary (any will do) it is clearly stated that a Nazi was a member of the fascist party from germany during the era we all know. Something like 1933-1945. Go check it out before you bother arguing.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B]I am curious to know your opinion. If we drop 3,000 bombs on Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi civilians (the same ones Saddam is killing), is that not the same? Because that's what will happen if we drop our projected amount of bombs. Or do they become that large number of the "Casualties of War" that we love to ignore. PS: comparing Saddam to Hitler is hardly a comparison. Or Stalin for that matter. [/B][/QUOTE] Well actually I believe the comparison is very realistic being that saddam openly admires stalin and has an entire library dedicated to literature based around the man. Saddam's practices are based around the idea of stalins govermental structure... (the white socks... I know you know what that is right?) Also, hitler believes in anti-semitism. Both were jailed as young men. Both were frustrated authors. Saddam is a fascist. Hitler was a fascist. Fascism- a totalitarian government system led by a dictator and emphasizing aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism. But about innocents... What if's are always a bad point to bring up. If America was to kill innocents, I would not ignore it, and just as with the deaths of civilians in afghanistan, I would be greatly depressed over it for several reasons. However, are you using the question of civilian death to justify an anti-war opinion, or are you asking because you believe I would honestly not care about those people? I believe that the biggest point you failed to make with your post was the idea of continuing civilian casualties... Would civilian casualties be acceptable in any circumstance... no, they wouldnt. However, would you choose Saddams continued control and torture of the Iraqi people over the POSSIBLE short term sacrifice for the greater good. With a completly hypothetical scenerio as a base for my question... With a one year time span, Saddam would inflict 2,000 civilian casualties. Over that same period of time, the United states would inflict the same number of civilian casualties in a war of liberation. (specifically removing saddam and replacing that regime with a democratic government) Which would you preffer? Saddams continued control of Iraq with a continual loss of innocent life, with no positive out come. Or the removal of saddam at the same cost of the first one year period. I would preffer to have saddam removed at a horrible cost, than have that same horrible cost multiplied several times over because of our unwillingness to remove the regime of Saddam. Innocent lives have already been lost to Saddam in numbers no one can keep track of. Innocent lives may be lost in the future. The question is up to us to decide if we will allow that loss to continually grow into even more astronomical numbers, or stop this loss at the place it has already risen to. I have been here long enough to know one thing. You will not change your view of this situation based on my comments. Personally I believe you are not protesting this action based on your love of humanity. (which I actually do believe you have) But I do believe you are protesting this out of hatred for the bush administration. With that in mind, I know I will change nothing here, but atleast I am not letting you imply that I would ignore civilian deaths and write them off as acceptable losses, or colateral damage. Does that answer your question?

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Lalaith Ril [/i] [B]Gokents I've respected you for a long time, but settle down. With a topic like this you've got to be able to seperate emotions before you post. Posting with your emotions on something so strong as this can offend very many people. As in this case I know it offended atleast one. [/B][/QUOTE] That is just the thing. I can not seperate emotions and opinions when we are talking about a man who has killed hundreds of thousands of people. Literally. I have always had a problem with these topics because of my own personal connections to the sacrifices of people who are under-appreciated and mistreated for their efforts to liberate and defend the innocents of the world... all to end up with a destiny that is just as bad as the oppressed and slaughtered innocent people they are sent to defend. When we take actions to rid the world of people like saddam, I can not stand back and allow comments of anti-liberation take presidence over the morally justified removal of leaders such as pol pot, saddam, stalin, hitler, slovadon milosavich or any other person who has taken the lives of innocent people without a greater justified cause. Genocide and slaughter are not the goals of Coalalition efforts in places like iraq. However, the goals of people like saddam are nothing short of absolute power of the innocent, and the slaughter of all who oppose him. Once again, I apoligize for my loss of personal control, and no exscues will justify those remarks made... Yet I can not stress enough the amount of pain it inflicts on me to see people oppose the efforts of the free world to rid this planet of oppression and murder.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i] [B][color=ff00cc] [size=1]I wasn't on your case. The whole post wasn't even directed at you. My lack of knowledge? Stupidity? I'm in advanced honors in World History. My history teacher's husband, who's American, fought in the Vietnam war. My grandfather also fought in the Vietnam war. Also, my school is a public school with private school abilites. It's courses are different than all the other middle schools in the district, not to mention our school has the highest scores/test scores in the city. Thank you for not 'honoring' my stupidity. I highly appreciate it. Nothing was appointed to you in the first place. So [i]you[/i] shut up. ----- Yes, I didn't mean to put that in a rude way, Justin. I know alot of the things Iraq has done, and I didn't mean it like Iraq's completely innocent.[/color] [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Alright, I admit, I was out of line. I am sorry. Truely sorry. I was just bent out of shape over the fact that you had implied many things that were contraversial to say the least. Vietnam should have never been brought up. I did go out of line. I apoligize, and understand that slowly my outspoken political nature has alienate you over the past few months. However, I do want you to address the questioning of my post and not the out of line insults. Can you honestly tell me about what happend march 16th all those years ago. These are the sorts of things you must know off hand with certainty before you can debate whether this war is justified or not. Or what the real purpose of this war is. I do not support this war because of threats to america, I support it because of the on going threats to Iraq. The past is more than enough to justify action and this action should have been taken long ago. I am sorry for my insults, but not for my support of this morally justified removal of Saddam's regime. (note that I was not the one to bring up the vietnam war, Medra)

Warmongers is exactly what the anti-war protestors said in the 60's. Those protestors are responsible for the lives and deaths of the very cambodians you are talking about. All 2 million that pol pot killed. Had the support been there in this country, we would and could have prevented that slaughter, but the anti-war mongers were louder than the rest of us.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i] [B][color=ff00cc] [size=1]Umm... Gokents, are you for or against the war? o.o; I didn't quite understand what you ment. ^_^;; Well, for one, war [i]is[/i] terrorism. The action is considered just the same as terrorism if the UN doesn't approve. If the UN doesn't give one country permission to drop an attack on another country, then the other countries are then allowed to attack that country. Just out of curiousity, what complete-full evidence do we have that the 9/11 attacks were linked to Iraq, anyway? Also, the US never actually won the Persian Gulf or Vietnam War. So, keeping that in mind, I don't support the whole idea that the US is going to win no matter what. Rome and Babylonia didn't expect to lose either. I'm not saying the US is going to win or lose. Just that you shouldn't just assume anything in particular.[/color] [/size] [/B][/QUOTE] I never even brought up winning or lossing. I never brought up terrorism. However you did bring up actions not supported by the u.n. So unless you can tell me what happend to 30,000 people in rowanda while the U.N. stood by and did nothing, just shut up. Im not even gonna honor your stupidity as to what happend in the first gulf war. Nor will I acknowledge your lack of consistancy when you didnt protest the un-approved actions against kosavo and bosnia that Mr. clinton took with out the U.N.'s approval. As for vietnam, I doubt you know a thing about it besides the lacking ideas and concept taught by inept teachers at public schools. (do you even know the years of U.S. involvment? Hint: they arent 64 to 73.) Sorry to be rough, but when you get on my case, youve got it coming to you. Oh, and I doubt I will be back to this thread. I do not believe the political opinions of some people here are worthy of the spent energy it takes to debate issues as complex as these.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Justin [/i] [B]I'd prefer another alternative, but Saddam has been in power far too long. And, unlike most, apparantly, I don't think Bush is an idiot. I support the war whole-heartedly. -Justin [/B][/QUOTE] I am with you... As said before, We ARE the Silent Majority. Under-estamation of a man's intelligence is the first step to allowing yourself to be the fool.

NO War on Iraq! Blood for Oil! Give diplomacy a chance again. 17 resolutions is not enough of a chance! Saddam is not a mad man. Bush is the leader of a rouge nation known for killing its own people. (ruby ridge, waco texas, oh wait, that was another administration) Saddam has done nothing wrong. (unless you count things like what happend on March 16th, 15 years ago. but if you cant tell me what happend, how many died, where they died, and how they died, you should just quit with your efforts to debate this issue.) It is obvious that we as the american people need to rise up, remove this stalinistic dictator, and replace him with a benevolent leader like Saddam or the men he has modeled himself after... Only then will the world be a safe place. With completly crazy men holding the reigns of the worlds most powerful weapons and armies, we will never be safe and that is why we must give the very power of america to Saddam. The anti-semitism of the world and the violations of human rights are not an issue worthy of attention... only the protest of certain administrations and their attempts to remove the humanitarians of the middle east are worthy of our efforts. Off to war we go... Off to war they go... not you... but them, and people like my father who fought with the army rangers to come home and have pig blood thrown on him by loving people like the hippies of the United states. Indeed, off to war I hope you all go.

Im still diggin this show more and more as I see... more of it. It really reminds me of tenchi in a lot of ways, but its got a different overall tone. Kenshin is a badass and tenchi was sorta a struggling weakling at times. But enough of a comparison between those two, because the humor of the facial expressions is about as far as the similarities go... well the "romance" too. The bottom line is that I am really liking this show and the way they depict this cool, calm, samurai with a really good heart. Although, in this calm, super bad samurai, they stray from the same old good heart depiction by showing him as harmless most of the time and only getting serious and quiet at the right times... Compared to the usual, with a quiet, cool, bad dude, who only lets his good, caring side come out during the utmost of important dramatic scenes. I love the light hearted kenshin by far more than the silent tough guy.

I would buy every damn thing I ever wanted. Still wouldnt change my happiness, although I would have a ferrari and an ellsworth with a full xtr/chris king setup... lol. who can tell me what that is? yea, oh well, just let me have my dreams man!

I loved this show. Very comedic and exciting. Lots of humor, lots of action. I love the facial expressions and the overall quality. I also love the voice of kenshin, its not that crap like yu gi oh with a ten year old speaking like barry white... That is good dubbing, no matter what you say.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] The word sex applies to any sexual act regardless of actual intercourse. Thats why it's called oral SEX. Notice I didn't ever say intercourse. And I wasn't getting a blow job at age 13 either. Masturbating is a form of sex. [/B][/QUOTE] Wow! I wish all democrates had been this honest when there was a certain someone being put under pressure for perjury. Oh well, I guess consistancy isnt a big deal. I also want to remind you of another type of person you have specifically stressed your hate for... Those people are the "less intelligent" members of our society. Or just stupid people if I could say it so bluntly.(opinions expressed in thread shortly after I arrived here) But what ever the case, I guess its ok for you to say what ever you want about this kid. I mean, since "no one will understand" your points anyway. I guess thats because all of us are just lossers who have been wasted away by bad parents and bad life styles.