I agree with Michael. Let's stop wasting money and lives on Israel.

Great interview, Maher had trouble with a guy who is more politically incorrect than him.

This guy had a promising start and when he talked about not giving a dime for israel (no mention to a possible UN resolution if it is attacked) or more shockingly when he said America shouldn't care much about civilian casualties... I was scared, really scared. I'll always remember that time when an F16 bombed a small village lost in the deep rural Pakistan because they thought Al-zawahiri was there. He happened not to be there and the bomb killed a dozen innocent people... I remembered it because I thought, if I was living in that village and I managed to survive I would join Alqaeda without hesitation. And now multiply that for 300.000 victims of the Irak invasion, how many terrorist is that going to make. The "was on terror" is like extinguishing a fire with gasoline.

I agree with Michael. Let's stop wasting money and lives on Israel.

I've mentioned this before, but California's two senators have the same top five contributors, and Israel is amongst them...

If the Arab states were to spend their money bribing American politicians, instead of on supporting suicide bombers, Israel might be in great trouble. Now, a considerable part of the population in those countries would like to see Israel gone -- but I don't think their leaders truly wants that. Because with Israel gone, there'd be nothing distracting the populace from their leaders' corruption and incompetence.

Not to Godwin this thread, but Hitler welcomed the idea of terrorism -- a despotic leadership needs it to create fear and unity in its citizenship, and to stifle dissent.

If it wasn't for 9/11, Bush would never have been reelected.

The historical willingness for Israel's neighbors to go to war with Isreal belies the idea that they don't want Israel gone (or at the very least, they did up until 1973). However, I do agree with Dzwonka about the rest of what he said - without the the Israeli bogeyman to blame their problems on, Arab leaders would have little to distract their people from focussing on what corrupt assholes they are - and in that respect, the comparison with Bush is quite apt.

Scheuer offered some hint of reasonableness when he said "unqualified support" of Israel has caused the US a lot of problems, but he seemed pretty unclear as to what the "qualifications" on our support should be. Scheuer sits on the opposite extreme from the neocons - they have messianic/imperialistic ideas of intervening everywhere in the world, and Scheuer wants us involved only when our interests are directly threatened. I'm afraid I'm somewhere between.

Tim - I am with you on your comments.

I think the issue of preemptive action and foreign interventionism will be the prevailing debate of this century. And by the way, I think this would have been an issue even without the likes of Bush and Blair - and even they have different angles on it:

Tony Blair's reasoning behind interventionism is from a moral standpoint, and his experience with Kosovo cemented this. He believes that it's his moral duty to save the world from despotic regimes. He's in Israel now trying to wrap his head around solving the Palestinian crisis. He thinks of himself as a moral cruader/superhero.

Bush, on the other hand, has other motivations - long-term strategical control and power over the Middle East and its resources, and the preservation of America's superpower status. It's expansionism.

Blair has said that he'd like to see the global institutions like the UN, WTO, World Bank) reformed. Clearly the US is never going to support this if it continues down the path its on now.

Perhaps further EU expansion could change the game - we're about to adopt a new treaty, which is effectively a constitution. The EU will have a President, and a much more coordinated foreign policy.

We may learn more if we are able to put those responsible for Iraq on trial.

Israel is not a part of the U.S. It is not a state. America has no obligation to do anything for Israel.

America has no historical ties to Israel. There is a miniscule number of Americans who came from Israel and there is a miniscule number of Americans who moved to Israel.

So when Dani R.(Israeli?) says, "The historical willingness for Israel's neighbors to go to war with Isreal belies the idea that they don't want Israel gone (or at the very least, they did up until 1973)."

That doesn't concern the U.S. at all. But in fact Dani R. is wrong. It was Israel who attacked its neighbors: in 1948, 1956, 1967.

In 1973, Egypt was just looking to recover territory occupied by Israel. Perfectly legitimate.

Dani R.(Israeli?) says, "The historical willingness for Israel's neighbors to go to war with Isreal belies the idea that they don't want Israel gone (or at the very least, they did up until 1973).

bernarda-

It wasn't Dani R - it was me. While the war in 1967 did begin with an Israeli strike, it wasn't without provocation - and not a hyped Iraq war provocation - Egypt, Jordan, and Syria massed troops close to Israeli borders, expelled UN peacekeepers and blocked Israel's access to the Red Sea.

Basically, I am of the opinion that if the US gets drawn into the historical vendetta and chooses any one side concerning Israel and its neighbors without qualification, we are pursuing a stupid policy. Furthermore, I think that Israel's democracy counts for something - it isn't everything, but it isn't nothing. Unqualified support of Israel is wrong, but statements like "America has no historical ties to Israel." are simply not credible either. I also think that black-vs-white, good-vs-evil characterizations of problems there (almost everywhere) are useless and counterproductive. Likewise, I simply do subscibe to all-or-nothing justifications of our policies like "Israel is not a part of the U.S. It is not a state. America has no obligation to do anything for Israel." are desirable or convincing.

You're are entitled to disagree, of course, and your attitude is certainly understandable as a reaction to the recent uncritical pro-Israeli policy of the Bush administration, but this is an issue on which I'd like to see Americans resist polarization. Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but I think Jimmy Carter demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) that the US can help, can act in constructive ways, and can serve as an honest broker in dialing down conflict between Israel and its neighbors.

The Bush administration has put a bad face on the U.S. getting into international affairs, but the U.S. SHOULD help out other nations in need. With all our resources and money, it would be horribly selfish for us not to do. But there are better ways of helping out nations than sending our army in and blowing up the place.

I don't think it's wrong for us to help out Israel, but we have a dickhead as a president, and, just like I would want a child to, I want Bush to keep his hands off of everything he can.

Ha! I loved the look on Maher's face when the guy said that Israel isn't worth an American life or an American dollar.

I'm inclined to agree. They can take care of themselves. I see no need for us to kowtow to them like we so often do.

simply do subscibe

Oops: ...simply don't subscibe...

Humanitarian aid? Sure. Diplomatic talks? Swell! But no more selling them weapons on the cheap, and no more "blank check" support of their policy whether it's just or not.

America's unqualified support for Israel is doing all parties more harm than good anyway, including Israel itself.

In fact, we should really be talking about Israel's dependency on American military aid. They have fallen into this mindset that they have almost infinite military resources at their disposal - it's like a national addiction.

It's able to start military offensives against its neighbours, and even if they fail, Israel doesn't suffer to any extent that it must change tactics and shift toward looking for peaceful settlements - its resources are all still there. New military hardware just appears, as if by magic.

It knows that it cannot lose. The rest of the world won't reprimand the unruly child for fear of being assailed by the drunken parent.

We've reached the point where the UN needs a mandate over Palestine. Can anybody see any other viable options?

Dani R - "he said America shouldn't care much about civilian casualties"

Thats not what he said. He said large amounts of civilian casualties are the only way to win. That dose not necessarily mean that he supports it. He's just making the observation, mabe that is one of the reasons he dose not support the war.

America has no obligation to do anything for Israel. America has no historical ties to Israel.

I don't quite follow...

The United States may not have any obligation to Israel, but the two nations certainly have historical ties. The U.S. was the first nation to recognize Israel and prior to 1948, several Presidents had publicly supported the Balfour Agreement. Maybe this is more of a semantics issue than anything else, but regardless of how we may feel about the current American-Israeli relationship, it still stands that there are "historical ties" between them. I'm not arguing that there should be continued support because of that, but by definition if two nations formed an alliance in the past then historical ties exist (example: Germany and Japan chose to be allies in WWII, ergo they currently have historical ties to one another).

Tim and Dani R. I apologize for any mistake I made.

As to Tim's, "It wasn't Dani R - it was me. While the war in 1967 did begin with an Israeli strike, it wasn't without provocation "

"Provocation", that has always been Israel's excuse, and it has always been a lie.

In 1967, 50,000 of Egypt's troops were engaged in Yemen, some of the most trained and experienced. Gee, that is such a good time to start a second war isn't it?

As to saturnalia, "several Presidents had publicly supported the Balfour Agreement". There never was a "Balfour Agreement". I was simply a letter with no legal importance.

There is no official "alliance" between the U.S. and Israel. Apparently there is not even a defense treaty between the countries.

In any event, there is no reason whatsoever that Bush should promise $30 billion of defense subsidies over 10 years to Israel. That money could be better used in the U.S.

The U.S. has no interest in supporting Israel in any way. There is no reason to give one red cent to Israel, and there never was. Israel is not part of the U.S. Israel has nothing to do with the U.S.

Michael:

Show-yer true colors:

Ties to Israel? etc.? (terrorists who blow themselves up IN Israel being "accidentally" conflated with al-Q, Bin L., in Bush's speeches, media coverage, blah blah): Jews* don't own the media anymore than Blacks own the Basketball Court (They don't actually own the wooden planks, concrete foundations, the dirt underneath, i.e., the physical facilities, etc.). But...

Their "facility"/faculty is intangible, untouchable, and politically incorrect to notice. Unless your a raving insane drunk actor or comick (Michael, Mel)

Still the "Holy" land is a Holy, not Cow...Volcano! The reasonble thing to do is evacuate, pronto, presto, gleich.

.

.

*distinguish anti- a)Semitism, includes Arabs, racially,

b)Judaism, logically necessary for atheists,

c)Zionism: Holy (Vol)c(an)o(w)!

Three cheers for a truthful discussion on isolation and Israel policy.

And a Ron Paul supporter to boot? What a wonderful guest.

Also: isn't it interesting that Bill Maher, a self-proclaimed atheist, is a Zionist also?

That doesn't concern the U.S. at all. But in fact Dani R. is wrong. It was Israel who attacked its neighbors: in 1948.

Uh, what? 1948 the new Israel was attacked by every one of its neighbors simultaneously.

What are you talking about?

Do you actually think the Middle East would be at peace if there were no Israel there? Will the oil companies also let the Saudi monarchy fall to fundamentalism?

And, do you think Arabs wouldn't be trying to get nuclear weapons? Do you think they like Christians better than Jews?

As long as there is oil in the Middle East, as long as we are dependent on it, we will continue to get involved and we will continue to be hated. When there is THAT MUCH MONEY in a region being controlled by a small group....what do you think?

And - sorry - being a supporter of a country that is in existence - and, for Americans, to protect a DEMOCRATIC country in existence is quite a common urge ---- that doesn't make you a Zionist as I understand it. That sounds like a religious call or some kind of terminology from someone outside the U.S. but - since I'm not religious --- I don't know. I haven't liked Israel's politics for quite a while - but I don't like the U.S.'s right now, either.

Michael Scheuer reminds me of Nevellie Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who tried to make a pact with Hitler. He is a pacifist and a coward, just like Chris Hedges. They act as stooges to the people we are up against.

The people we are up against like it when those that make us weak become popular. They are not self-critical. They see the idea of a democracy as inherently weak and they will continue to threaten and destroy our way of life whether we go after them or not, whether our leaders blunder in their foreign policy or not, in whatever way they can whenever and wherever they can.

Where there is no house of Islam, there must be a house of war, that is they way they see the world. They have decided that they and we cannot exist on the same planet, the only thing I think we should be in agreement with. And they consider all those who are ideologically (or politically) aligned with us as their natural enemies.

Giving away Israel to them would be like feeding the crocodile hoping it will eat you last. We must go after them, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan or anywhere else they may choose to hide.

They are ideologically strong and militarily weak. It is the Bush administration's incompetence that keeps us from winning the ideological war. But incompetence is a lesser crime than fanaticism. Am I critical of the way the war is being fought? You bet. Am I critical of the war itself? Not at all.

This is the war for your civilization my friends. They are like Davids trying to bring down the Goliath called the US. But this time it is Golaith that stand for justice and freedom and the Davids that is in the wrong.

You people are bitching about American lives lost. You people should be celebrating for the Iraqi and Afghan lives killed, shooting bullets into the air, the way they did during 9/11. They deserve that much respect that is what they keep for you.

I will end with a quote from Thomas Jefferson, " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

So be proud of your martyrs and celebrate their glorious and free lives, support them and help them in any way you can. This is a just struggle, even under an incompetent president.

There is too much bullshit in your post to address it all. My suggestion is pick up a gun and go make a martyr of yourself if you believe the shit you are spewing.

Abhilash,

Thomas Jefferson also said, "I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." He also said that the most successful war seldom pays for its losses.

This war or wars are not about justice and freedom. These fights are all about maintaining an economic system for the benefits of a few. Justice and Freedom is what they are using to justify the dying of so many. Like Dar said, if you believe in what you are saying then go and fight and do your part.

From a geopolitical perspective it makes sense that the US support Israel. Israel is our vassal, they in someways represent the direct extension of US military power, and we maintain that power by constantly resupplying the Israelis with military hardware and generally helping them out. We do the same thing to a lesser extent for Jordan and Saudi Arabia as well as Egypt for the same reasons, they also, but to a lesser extent, represent our interests in the middle east. And our interests there are primarily oil, as well as in having a strategically central location for our bases. After all, if we are the most powerful country on earth that wants to maintain superpower status, then it makes sense to have forward bases in places where challenges to our super power status may occur.

Good to see Maher stumped and exposed for the true moron he is.

Scheuer should have his own show.

nelgom, There are certainly economic variables in the equation. But at its root it is a struggle between ideologies. To be more specific the ideology of Islam in its purest form against the rest of the world, particularly, the free world.

Several issues act as a catalyst to violence and terror in the Middle East, including incompetent leadership within the free world, as well as selfishness of our politiciaqns, but the essential cause of this violence is not economic or social, it is the ideology of Islam itself. If all these issues disappear, there will still be violence because of Islam as long as there are non-Muslims in the world.

Is it as totalitarian as Stalinism or Nazism? Potentially. It has not reached that level because they do not have the hardware to make it so. Not yet anyway.

I already said we must help our soldiers in every way we can, to help fight and win this war. Should we become soldiers and fight this war ourselves? If it comes to that why not?

Their military capabilities are crude and primitive and look at the damage they have caused. Too bad they are not listening to Thomas Jefferson, all they care for is Mohammed. Imagine what they will do if they do get their hands on a nuclear weapon?

Bill Maher has shown that he is not a man of real knowledge as I once thought. He has knowingly or not shown his true colours.

i doubt that I'll be looking for Bill Maher to entertain me anymore.

The last thing the world needs is to allow a mid-east country to destabilize the region by acquiring nuclear weapons.

Wait a minute, hasn't Israel had The Bomb for years?

Abhilash, I disagree with you. This has nothing to do with ideologies. Nazism was born in a free country where people stopped thinking and went along with what their leadership was telling them. As for the ideology of Islam, you forget that Osama Bin Laden's main goal was originally to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia. I personally don't believe in the theory that they want to control the world but they do want to control their own countries. It is up to the moderates in the Muslim world to counter the extremism of Osama and his kind. I'm also tired of hearing this about the terrorist getting their hands on a nuclear weapon. First of all, a nuclear weapon requires skills that I doubt they have. Secondly, it is not something that they can easily transport or hide. Finally, we forget that this country was attacked not with nuclear weapons but with box cutters. Yes, at this point these terrorist are probably planting something bigger and louder but nuclear weapons? Whatever happened to the anthrax's scare?

Abhilash:

Your propaganda is frightening and unsettling. Reading between the lines, you are looking for a genocide of all muslims, which is bat shit insane. Are you so busy yelling this garbage that you cannot see it is an echo of the muslim-extremists that you so fear?

America's support of Israel is directly tied to the end of times, and owning Jebus's/Mohammad's landing strip. There is no other "history" than that.

sled_dog

Nazism was born in a country where a 'democratic' government was installed by force on a people who up until then did not have a tradition of democracy and consequently did not know how to use their rights responsibly. They learned the hard way, of course.

Bin Laden's main goal was not to remove the US from Saudi, that was his immediate goal, one that he felt was achievable by him. Their ideal goal is world domination.

It may seem silly given their inferior military state today, but never the less, that is what their ideology demands - to make holy war against the infidels till the whole world belongs to Allah. It is in the Hadis and supported by the Quran.

And they will if given a chance, inflict maximal casualties on their enemies - box-cutters, anthrax, nuclear weapons; whatever they can lay their hands on.

"hasn't Israel had The Bomb for years?" It's those damned Libertyish, I mean... oh, it's those damned French that gave it to 'em. Balance of powers see-saw, etc.

"America's support of Israel is directly tied to the end of times" The Endtimes already happened:

Just ask us "Endians".*

.

.

*yeah, I'm proud to be a Moqui from a stogie.

Willey

I fully understand the sense you get when you say that I seem to looking forward to the genocide of all muslims.

I am not. I think I can safely say that we all despise anti-semitism, but no one then was ever advocating the genocide of all nazis.

No it is not the people that need to be destroyed as much as their ideology. To make it an object of fear, ridicule and disgust in the mainstream of their societies.

This war cannot be won without spilling blood. Perhaps more American blood is spilled than needed; I will blame the Bush administration's incompetence for that.

But make no mistake, it is they that want the genocide. Their choice to us is genocide submission or servitude. And since we won't bow down blood will be spilled.

If that is the case I would rather that blood be spilled in their lands. That we take their battle to their ground than fight them home.

But whether our soldiers kill them or not, that is not the end in itself. That is not our intent. In fact if we can have our way their ideology will be discredited with the least blood spilled.

The question is, is there a leader left in this country capable of achieving that? I know we did once.

But make no mistake, it is they that want the genocide. Their choice to us is genocide, submission or servitude. And since we won't bow down blood will be spilled.

Can i get a source on this? Seems like a broad/innacurate claim to me. I've never heard this from them. It spanks of propaganda that you would hear from Bill'o.

I'm not denying that there are muslim extremists out there that would kill me if I denied Mohammad, just such things don't seem to be mainstream within Islam, and inherant to the religion.

However, I do have a nuance to that though. I also believe Sam Harris is right in saying that the "moderate" believers make it possible for the "extremists" to exist.

However, I don't think you can convert a religious believer by slaughtering his family. You only then further entrench him in his religious fervor, and his desire to become a martyr increases 100 fold.

The middle east used to be the center of learning and science, let's aim for that instead of aiming bombs.

Then sign up and go fight your holy war otherwise your words are meaningless. I'm sure the military would welcome someone like yourself.

"the genocide of all muslims"?

"the genocide of Endians".

Track record, dudes.

Then sign up and go fight your holy war otherwise your words are meaningless. I'm sure the military would welcome someone like yourself.

You know what maybe I will

Bill Mahar supports Israel? What an idiot. And then he claims that he is a leftist? Holy god. The left in the United States is so far from left its not even funny.

Most of the world votes against Israel in the United Nations every year. Most of the world knows that Israel has engaged in an illegal military occupation for the last 40 years, forcing millions of palestinians to live in horrible refugee camps with no rights, no infrastructure, no economy, and constant military agression from Israel.

Mahar supports that. What a joke.

Then sign up and go fight your holy war otherwise your words are meaningless. I'm sure the military would welcome someone like yourself.

You know what maybe I will

Posted by: Abhilash Nambiar | September 25, 2007 5:51 PM

Until you do, this is for you, bud.

Willey

You seem to give Middle East more credit than it deserves. Middle east was not not a center for learning and science. They did what they always did, plagarised and improved upon ideas from the far east and Europe.

And I never advocated slaughtering anybody's family. To really end this mess of a Jihad, what you should do is introduce he and his family to apostasy and its benefits and costs.

It is the end of Islam not the end of Muslims that can bring about enduring peace.

And the source for the other claim it is the Hadis. Haidis is the Islamic version of the biography of Prophet Mohammed.

Most non-muslims donot know this. But the Quran is not to be read on its own and understood on its own. Its teachings has to be understood in the context of the Hadis and practiced as such.

In other words. Hadis is an explanation of how the Quran was lived by the prophet. And that is the way muslims have to live if they want to achieve the spiritual enlightenment of their prophet.

To them whatever he did is perfect. He is the prophet and everything else follows from that, from their sense of right and wrong to their sex lives to even how they should defecate and urinate.

In other words the Hadis and Quran depend on one another.

Understand the Hadis that the Muslims read, understand how it depicts the prophet's life and you will understand what they are trying to achieve.

But you can leave that aside and look at the modern world. How many non-muslims are living as equal citizens in any Muslim majority country? Try to get hold of the census records of such countries if possible.

Look for the trend, how quickly did the percentage of non-muslims shrink in those countries, once Islam became the dominant religion?

Malaysia and Pakistan are good examples. But you can also look at what is happening in Sudan right now.

Minor editto the last comment.

The current conflict in Darfur is more ethnic than religious. So that was a mistake on my part.

However Sudan is still a good example of a Muslim majority state that treats its non-muslim population poorly (viz Christians and tribals).

Abhilash Nambiar wrote: "You seem to give Middle East more credit than it deserves. Middle east was not not a center for learning and science. They did what they always did, plagarised and improved upon ideas from the far east and Europe."

Umm, if you read books, you'd know that in the days of the Persian empire that a lot of mathematic and scientific principles/concepts (such as Algebra, Civil Engineering, Physics, Innovative Architecture) were founded then and there. Not to mention they did free the Jews from opression in Babylon. I'm sure '300' mentioned this. :S

In those days, Europe and the 'far east' were in their diapers still.

Bill Maher is a douche bag himself. If he wasn't so backed by many Hollywood mainstream figures, he might have his OWN opinion.

"The left in the United States is so far from left its not even funny."

Precisely. Israel WAS once kinda socialistish, in some ways.

U.S.A. was once kinda socialistish, in some ways. Homestead act(s) (talk about give aways, and takeaways (Endians)). G.I. Bill. New Deal. Trustbusts. Free University in California.

The question is, what the hell is going on? How did it come to this?

[If I'm "dada," it's only because I'm a bit shinier (not reflective, certainly, nothing bright to reflect anyway) than some: a Knight Quixote-esque in Mirror Armour.]

Persia did the Jews good. Ancient History, Babylonian captivity. But were the Jews Jews yet, at that time? City "Arabs" gets more to the actuality, I think. Iran was "Aryan," under the thumb of the more obnoxious sub-groups, Persians, Medes, whatever, but certainly not the Islamic monster it has mutated into since, with CIA help. At least Shias haven't closed the door to it-jihad. Ayatollahs can shed light yet, if they be bright enough.

Maher's great, as a piece of the puzzle (what the hell is going on?). Scheuer is another. How you fit them together...

I'll know next week, if I'm not voted off (Easter, Idol?) Island by then.

I had something to say but One Evil drained any sort of dialogue that was occuring.

i'm done.

It was probably pretty lame anyway.

Cheers to the Oakie from Muskogee! or whatever.

Now I'm on Syngas's side?

Willey, I hear you (you are roaring loud and... muddy).

Sorry if I offended you Willey. Until now. Let me play Dr. Laura. I think of myself as a collection of Robopaths (Jablonski, Yablonsky, whoever, Disney's Sky-High-School). But my EGO/CEO strives to occasionally rise to Alpine vistas .

(Mr. N. :{ )

(Who also ad hominems on occasion):

Are you

a) an accountant?

b) a bureaucrat who sometimes regrets that his "hands are tied". Nothing govern/mental, mind you.

c) someone who's settled in on the former frontier, but long after the Indians (Not Palestinians, mind you) and such had all been pacified (you city slicker, you).

If, c), that's funny, because I sense something (reptilianly?) territorial in your stance, like an Old Western Movie Town. There ain't room for the both of us...

Willey, the reasonable thing to do is to tuck my tail between my legs and scuttle off. You are doubtless a Nobel prize-winning Somebody and I'm ass-signing myself a foolish role (Dr. Laura). But hey, I'm a collection of Robopaths:

.

In my thoughts I have seen, rings of some oak (Eich... Holz-nicht-Mann) through the trees... Jonathan Becker would retch., I know.

.

Hell, Mr. N. would indeed fit right in on the frontier, the Badlands of thought. The Monument Valley of "The Idols". (Some Moqui gettin' some o' that "Law 'n Order.) :{

He would hate Easter Island how...ever (Valley Girl intonation). But I suppose he could have found some use for the million dollars.

What...

...ever (Valley Girl intonation).

awww, didn't mean to hurt your feelings oea.

Just some of your chain of thought of steel is hardly under/standable.

.

Core-ect. etc. etc.?

Willey, just because of you, and all the mean things you said, I'm changing my name, and my attitude. I hope you're happy. From now on, every move doesn't revolve around me alone. I've been so inconsiderate, and selfish. I'm going to make a sincere effort to be good. You won't have "one evil axis" to kick around anymore, 'cause from now on I'm will be known by a much nicer and more contemporaneous moniker:

one evo emo.

This has nothing to do with Morales, morals, or "Ach!, Medina, Jihad", much less Kim Jong Il, or Saddam Hossein. It's all 'cause of you, and how you made me feel, really feel, for the first time in my life, maybe. Thank you, Willey, I really needed it.

Really, Willey.

Really.

And my thought has always already been nylon, not steel, as you felt it to be.

Also gut?

Amigo.

.

.

Hasta La Vista, Baby. Hello, Grown-up.

Can I change my name to One evo devo? :D

Only if Norm approves it. :{

I mean :)