PDA

View Full Version : uh-oh 800k ANTI-Syrian demonstrators in Beruit...


Donger
03-14-2005, 02:16 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_syria_6

Fair and balanced, as always.

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators chanted "Freedom, sovereignty, independence," and waved a sea of Lebanese flags in Beirut on Monday, the biggest anti-Syrian protest yet in the opposition's duel of street rallies with supporters of the Damascus-backed government.

Crowds of Druse, Christians and Sunni Muslims flooded Martyrs' Square and spilled over into nearby streets — responding to an opposition call to turn out for the removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

"We are coming to liberate our country. We are coming to demand the truth," said Fatma Trad, a veiled Sunni Muslim woman who traveled from the remote region of Dinniyeh in northern Lebanon to take part.

The assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri exactly one month ago sparked the series of protests against Syria, the dominant power in Lebanon.

The throngs fell silent at 12:55 p.m. — the exact time Hariri was killed four weeks ago by a huge bomb in Beirut. The silence was broken only by church bells tolling and the flutter of flags.

Later, thousands of red and white balloons were released above the teeming crowd, many of whom wore scarves in the same colors that have come to symbolize the country's anti-Syrian movement in what the U.S. State Department has dubbed the "Cedar Revolution." Brass bands playing patriotic and national folk songs and Lebanon's national anthem were regularly drowned out by deafening chants from the crowd.

Monday's protest easily surpassed a pro-government rally of hundreds of thousands of people last week by the Shiite Muslim militant group Hezbollah. That show of strength forced the opposition to try to regain its momentum.

While there were no official estimates of the size of the crowd, Lebanon's leading LBC TV station and some police officers estimated it at about 1 million people. The officers refused to speak publicly because it was an opposition rally. An Associated Press estimate by reporters on the scene put the number at much higher than the approximately 500,000 who attended the March 8 pro-Syrian rally.

Syria's military withdrawal continued Monday, with intelligence agents closing two offices in the northern towns of Amyoun and Deir Ammar, on the coastal road between the port of Tripoli and the Syrian border. Intelligence agents also dismantled two checkpoints in the Akkar area. About 50 intelligence agents in all departed for unknown destinations, although it was believed to be northern Syria.

Most intelligence offices, the widely resented arm through which Syria has controlled many aspects of Lebanese life, remained in northern and central Lebanon after Syrian troops moved east, closer to the Syrian border. Last week, intelligence officers left the central towns of Aley and Bhamdoun and headed to Syrian-controlled areas of eastern Lebanon. The redeployment is the first stage of what Damascus says will be a full withdrawal, although it has not given a timetable.

The opposition is demanding a full Syrian withdrawal, the resignations of Lebanese security chiefs and an international investigation into Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination.

"We will accept nothing short of an international inquiry as our way to the truth," said Hariri's sister, Bahiya, a lawmaker, repeating demands for the resignation of Lebanese security chiefs and refusing any possible postponement of parliamentary elections.

Many in the crowd were also particularly offended by pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud's reinstatement last week of Prime Minister Omar Karami, who was forced to resign on Feb. 28 by a giant opposition protest.

"They are challenging us, and we are here to show them that we will not accept," said banker Farid Samaha as he joined the demonstration. "We are determined to liberate our country and we will not stop."

A line of people in the square carried a 100-yard-long white-and-red Lebanese flag with the distinct green cedar tree in the middle, shaking it up and down and shouting, "Syria out."

Protesters chanted "Truth, freedom, national unity!" or "We want only the Lebanese army in Lebanon!"

"Syria out, no half measures," read a banner, borrowing from President Bush (news - web sites)'s description of Damascus' gradual withdrawal from this country of 3.5 million.



In addition to packing Martyrs' Square, thousands of other protesters spilled into the nearby Riad Solh Square and outlying streets.

It came in the wake of U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen's string of meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad and top Lebanese government and opposition officials to ensure the implementation of a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding Syria's withdrawal.

Roed-Larsen indicated he had extracted further details of a pullout timetable from Assad during their meeting Saturday and would take those details back to U.N. headquarters this week.

Syrian Cabinet minister Bouthaina Shaaban told CNN a "very fast timetable for withdrawal" was expected, with completion probable ahead of Lebanese parliamentary elections — as Bush has demanded. Election dates have not yet been set, but the current parliament's mandate expires May 31.

A senior Lebanese army officer said Sunday that 4,000 Syrian soldiers — more than a quarter of those serving in Lebanon just a week ago — have been brought back to Syria, but he said a date for a complete withdrawal won't be set until an April 7 meeting of Syrian and Lebanese officers.

It also requires a Lebanese government to be in place to negotiate with Syria on a full troop withdrawal, since Karami is leading a caretaker government and cannot negotiate foreign agreements. A final agreement on a Syrian withdrawal will have to wait for a Cabinet to be formed and approved by Parliament.

The political process is deadlocked, with the opposition refusing to join any government before their demands are met, and Karami insisting on a "national unity" government. Some opposition members accuse Karami of stalling to kill the chances of holding an election they believe the pro-Syrian camp, which has a majority in the legislature, will lose.

Karami is expected to begin consultations Tuesday on forming a Cabinet.

In Paris, meanwhile, former Lebanese Prime Minister Gen. Michel Aoun said Monday he will return from exile in coming weeks, with plans to help foster national reconciliation as Lebanon awaits parliamentary elections.

"My return ... will take place in the next weeks," said the former commander of the Lebanese army who fled the country in 1990.

He said he would be going back to Lebanon with Maj. Gen. Edgar Maalouf and Brig. Gen. Issam Abu Jamra, who were part of a government headed by Aoun that took over in 1988 at the end of President Amin Gemayel's term.

About 100,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators turned out Sunday in another Hezbollah-organized protest in the southern town of Nabatiyeh.

Syria has been Lebanon's main power broker for nearly three decades since sending troops to its smaller neighbor in 1976 to help quell what was then a year-old civil war. The troops, at times numbering more than 35,000, stayed after the war ended in 1990.

mlyonsd
03-14-2005, 02:31 PM
I like it when you and meme go around and around with "My demonstration is bigger then yours" threads.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 02:42 PM
Oops, bad news for terrorist- I mean, Syrian sympathizers.

alanm
03-14-2005, 02:46 PM
I read a yahoo story yesterday where the Pro Syrian demonstration last week the crowd was bussed in Syrians and people rounded up. Almost no Lebanese. ROFL

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 02:47 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_syria_6

About 100,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators turned out Sunday in another Hezbollah-organized protest in the southern town of Nabatiyeh.

Syria has been Lebanon's main power broker for nearly three decades since sending troops to its smaller neighbor in 1976 to help quell what was then a year-old civil war. The troops, at times numbering more than 35,000, stayed after the war ended in 1990.


Now they're reporting that it is closer to 1.5 million. And they didn't even need to bus any Syrians in to get their numbers up.

Still curious as to why D-Nise pimps the terrorist-sponsored rally that was without female support and not a peep about this one today:

<img src="http://www.nationalreview.com/images/crowd3.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://www.nationalreview.com/images/crowd4.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://www.nationalreview.com/images/crowd5.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />

Donger
03-14-2005, 02:48 PM
I like it when you and meme go around and around with "My demonstration is bigger then yours" threads.

Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I believe this is the first of its kind. At least for me.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 02:48 PM
Let's just start the carpet-bombing of Damascus now. :D

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 02:50 PM
Just as an aside, I was talking to an Israeli friend and asked him why Syria is so reticent about leaving Lebanon. He explained that, beyond the geographical significance of the country, almost all of the wealth that is repatrioted back into Syria comes from Lebanon. He explained that the Syrian economy is still pretty much based on barter and trade and is completely backwards. He seemed to think that if Syria actually was forced from Lebanon the Assad government would fail. He was hopeful and he's a guy who's been telling me for months that events like the one pictured above would never happen.

Donger
03-14-2005, 02:52 PM
Let's just start the carpet-bombing of Damascus now. :D

You know, I'm a pretty staunch Bush supporter, but one of the issues I've had with him has been Iraq. But, if one objectively looks at what has happened since Iraq (Libya, Saudi Arabia sort of, Lebanon, et al), I think one would have to be rather hard-pressed to call Iraq a negative.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 03:01 PM
You know, I'm a pretty staunch Bush supporter, but one of the issues I've had with him has been Iraq. But, if one objectively looks at what has happened since Iraq (Libya, Saudi Arabia sort of, Lebanon, et al), I think one would have to be rather hard-pressed to call Iraq a negative.

You would hate me as president... Syria would already have been invaded by now. I wouldn't have dicked around in Iraq. We bypassed far too much of the country, and dismantled the military - sending armed, trained, <i>unemplyed</i> men home to squallor. I would have brought hammer strikes down in the "Sunni Triangle", then employed Saddam's own heavy-handed forces to ensure security. American contractors such as Blackwarter would not have liked it - as I would have basically given their contracts to internal agencies, but so be it - Iraq would be policing itself from day-one (post surrender).

Syria is going to get bombed... I have no doubts. They will f*ck this whole situation up; they'll either continue to thumb their nose at the UN (which, surprisingly, will do nothing), start a "civil war" in Lebanon (how civil can it be when they're the only ones w/ guns?), or they'll allow Hezbollah to strike Israeli targets (possibly all three). The US <i>must</i> react swiftly to any/all of those actions. If Lebanon is allowed to fall back into anarchy, democratization of the ME will surely crumble.

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:05 PM
Just as an aside, I was talking to an Israeli friend and asked him why Syria is so reticent about leaving Lebanon. He explained that, beyond the geographical significance of the country, almost all of the wealth that is repatrioted back into Syria comes from Lebanon. He explained that the Syrian economy is still pretty much based on barter and trade and is completely backwards. He seemed to think that if Syria actually was forced from Lebanon the Assad government would fail. He was hopeful and he's a guy who's been telling me for months that events like the one pictured above would never happen.

Syria is definitely very backwards. It needs to take a page out of Jordan's book and get things going in the right direction, but it never seems to be able to get past bitterness and bile over the Golan Heights, etc.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 03:06 PM
You would hate me as president... Syria would already have been invaded by now.

I would be making sure all these nutjob islamic heads of state like Assad, along with his counterpart Il, would he having unfortunate, life-ending accidents.

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:08 PM
You know, I'm a pretty staunch Bush supporter, but one of the issues I've had with him has been Iraq. But, if one objectively looks at what has happened since Iraq (Libya, Saudi Arabia sort of, Lebanon, et al), I think one would have to be rather hard-pressed to call Iraq a negative.

if the democracy movement continues, then Iraq could turn out to be a positive. I continue to puke every time I see what we're budgeting for it, however. You'd think the oil revenues would help just a wee bit on that front.

Remove Libya from your list, however. It was moving solidly towards the West back in the late 90s. I don't think Iraq significantly altered anything that wasn't happening anyway. Might have moved things along a bit faster, at most.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 03:13 PM
You'd think the oil revenues would help just a wee bit on that front.

Production is still down. Infrastructure costs to repair and maintain, and then SECURE the fields, pumps, lines, and shipping routes currently outweigh the profits.

Besides, it's not our oil. I wish we <i>would</i> take it in payment... as funding for our effort to free Iraq of despotic madmen and terrorist shitbags, but nooooooo, then all of the "Iraq war was all about the oil!" nutjobs would be squeeling like the little piggies they are (as if they aren't squeeling already).

Donger
03-14-2005, 03:13 PM
if the democracy movement continues, then Iraq could turn out to be a positive. I continue to puke every time I see what we're budgeting for it, however. You'd think the oil revenues would help just a wee bit on that front.

Remove Libya from your list, however. It was moving solidly towards the West back in the late 90s. I don't think Iraq significantly altered anything that wasn't happening anyway. Might have moved things along a bit faster, at most.

Yes, but it just happened to very rapidly turn the corner after we went into Iraq, didn't they? It may be a legend but I think that the Italian PM is quoted as saying the Khaddafi said something along the lines of, "I didn't want to end up like Hussein," or words to that effect.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 03:15 PM
You'd think the oil revenues would help just a wee bit on that front.

At $55/bbl, pumping that black gold would solve a lot of the money problems real quick.

Cochise
03-14-2005, 03:16 PM
Production is still down. Infrastructure costs to repair and maintain, and then SECURE the fields, pumps, lines, and shipping routes currently outweigh the profits.

Besides, it's not our oil. I wish we <i>would</i> take it in payment... as funding for our effort to free Iraq of despotic madmen and terrorist shitbags, but nooooooo, then all of the "Iraq war was all about the oil!" nutjobs would be squeeling like the little piggies they are (as if they aren't squeeling already).

I don't see anything wrong with discounting the oil to subsidize the cost, but you're right, then the moonbats will be on the march.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 03:16 PM
Oops, bad news for terrorist- I mean, Syrian sympathizers.

ROFL

:clap:

Donger
03-14-2005, 03:17 PM
You would hate me as president... Syria would already have been invaded by now. I wouldn't have dicked around in Iraq. We bypassed far too much of the country, and dismantled the military - sending armed, trained, <i>unemplyed</i> men home to squallor. I would have brought hammer strikes down in the "Sunni Triangle", then employed Saddam's own heavy-handed forces to ensure security. American contractors such as Blackwarter would not have liked it - as I would have basically given their contracts to internal agencies, but so be it - Iraq would be policing itself from day-one (post surrender).

Syria is going to get bombed... I have no doubts. They will f*ck this whole situation up; they'll either continue to thumb their nose at the UN (which, surprisingly, will do nothing), start a "civil war" in Lebanon (how civil can it be when they're the only ones w/ guns?), or they'll allow Hezbollah to strike Israeli targets (possibly all three). The US <i>must</i> react swiftly to any/all of those actions. If Lebanon is allowed to fall back into anarchy, democratization of the ME will surely crumble.

No. I doubt I would. I actually agree. I would've gone into Syria first as well.

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:19 PM
Production is still down. Infrastructure costs to repair and maintain, and then SECURE the fields, pumps, lines, and shipping routes currently outweigh the profits.

Besides, it's not our oil. I wish we would take it in payment... as funding for our effort to free Iraq of despotic madmen and terrorist shitbags, but nooooooo, then all of the "Iraq war was all about the oil!" nutjobs would be squeeling like the little piggies they are (as if they aren't squeeling already).
I know WHY it's not funding our efforts, but it's annoying as hell that we're freeing the countrying sitting on the world's 2nd or 3rd largest proven oil reserves and we're still paying $1B/week or whatever.

And it always was about oil (along with Iraq's location in the middle of the Middle East). But WTF cares about that now -- it's the ridiculously growing deficit/debt I'm annoyed about.

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:21 PM
At $55/bbl, pumping that black gold would solve a lot of the money problems real quick.

We ought to seriously negotiate with the new government about a long term loan for us to get repaid. Even if we give them a 10 year, no interest grace period before repayments begin, and even if repayments are on 100 year schedule.

Amnorix
(annoyed that Bush went in there to begin with, but JUST AS annoyed at what it's doing to the deficit/debt)

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:22 PM
I don't see anything wrong with discounting the oil to subsidize the cost, but you're right, then the moonbats will be on the march.

They're already on the march. Fug'em.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 03:24 PM
I know WHY it's not funding our efforts, but it's annoying as hell that we're freeing the countrying sitting on the world's 2nd or 3rd largest proven oil reserves and we're still paying $1B/week or whatever.

And it always was about oil (along with Iraq's location in the middle of the Middle East). But WTF cares about that now -- it's the ridiculously growing deficit/debt I'm annoyed about.

You and me both. Iraq was once one of the wealthiset countries in the world - prior to Saddam (and even during his reign - just before he decided a war with Iran was a good idea). The masochistic, pessimist cynic in me keeps giggling about the thought of Iraq in 10-15years having a greater GDP than the US.

Mr. Kotter
03-14-2005, 03:25 PM
They're already on the march. Fug'em.

You see this, jettio/Duhnise/jAZ???

This is a principled, as opposed to partisan, liberal. Heh. :thumb:

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:26 PM
Yes, but it just happened to very rapidly turn the corner after we went into Iraq, didn't they? It may be a legend but I think that the Italian PM is quoted as saying the Khaddafi said something along the lines of, "I didn't want to end up like Hussein," or words to that effect.

Again, I didn't see Libya's policy as changing all that radically in the wake of Gulf War II. I'm not Libya expert, so I'm willing to be corrected, but they'd already started moving westward, so to speak, in the late 90s.

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:27 PM
You and me both. Iraq was once one of the wealthiset countries in the world - prior to Saddam (and even during his reign - just before he decided a war with Iran was a good idea). The masochistic, pessimist cynic in me keeps giggling about the thought of Iraq in 10-15years having a greater GDP than the US.

Remember that the US encouraged that war with Iran.

But yes, the Iranian war ruined what was once among the most secular and wealthy of ME nations.

Soupnazi
03-14-2005, 03:28 PM
We ought to seriously negotiate with the new government about a long term loan for us to get repaid. Even if we give them a 10 year, no interest grace period before repayments begin, and even if repayments are on 100 year schedule.

Amnorix
(annoyed that Bush went in there to begin with, but JUST AS annoyed at what it's doing to the deficit/debt)

There's no reason not to repay us for part of our expense. We've given them freedom and the keys to unlock a large economic machine.

Gaz is not going to be happy that you stole his schtick.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 03:30 PM
Remember that the US encouraged that war with Iran.

But yes, the Iranian war ruined what was once among the most secular and wealthy of ME nations.

Pissed about the Shah getting booted; and we saw them as the greatest threat in the region (still are now, btw).

As for Khadafi - I think his attitude began to change once we sent a couple of F-111s to bomb his tent. IIRC one of his sons was killed in the blast. Terrible it had to come to that, but it tends to bring the point across: "keep pushing us and eventually we'll push back... and, ftr, we push <i>hard</i>".

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 03:47 PM
Pissed about the Shah getting booted; and we saw them as the greatest threat in the region (still are now, btw).

As for Khadafi - I think his attitude began to change once we sent a couple of F-111s to bomb his tent. IIRC one of his sons was killed in the blast. Terrible it had to come to that, but it tends to bring the point across: "keep pushing us and eventually we'll push back... and, ftr, we push hard".

The Shah was installed by the US back in the 50s when we supported him in toppling the then existing government of Iran. What went around, came around, and we reaped our own whirlwind on that one.

Donger
03-14-2005, 03:55 PM
The Shah was installed by the US back in the 50s when we supported him in toppling the then existing government of Iran. What went around, came around, and we reaped our own whirlwind on that one.

Well, sort of. His father was friendly to the Axis Powers and the Allies invaded, forcing Dad to abdicate. They allowed Reza to take the crown.

That was in 1941, IIRC.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 04:05 PM
Well, sort of. His father was friendly to the Axis Powers and the Allies invaded, forcing Dad to abdicate. They allowed Reza to take the crown.

That was in 1941, IIRC.

No, you're wrong... he was an evil puppet and this whole situation is OUR fault!!

Libbie playbook, chapter 2, pg 1.

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 04:06 PM
Well, sort of. His father was friendly to the Axis Powers and the Allies invaded, forcing Dad to abdicate. They allowed Reza to take the crown.

That was in 1941, IIRC.

Aug. 19-22, 1953 Leftist government of Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran is ousted and replaced with regime loyal to Shah Pahlevi.

http://www.ku.edu/heritage/abilene/ikeeven.html



Any analysis of America’s position in the Middle East would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of the U.S. role in overthrowing Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister who nationalized Iran’s oil. In All The Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer revisits Operation Ajax, the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup that ousted Mossadegh and returned the Shah to power. Though not forgotten in Iran, the 1953 coup has sadly faded from memory in the United States. It is, therefore, refreshing and timely for Kinzer to provide a highly readable account of America’s first intervention in Middle Eastern affairs, a coup d'état that may be at the root of the terrorist threats America faces today. This book implicitly argues that the Eisenhower administration’s Cold War mentality caused an error in judgment with tremendously negative long-term ramifications for U.S. policy.

[this is the first paragraph of a long read.]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/current/booknotes-All.shtml

Amnorix
03-14-2005, 04:07 PM
No, you're wrong... he was an evil puppet and this whole situation is OUR fault!!

Libbie playbook, chapter 2, pg 1.

Don't be a moron. If there was a change of governemnts in Iran during WWII at our behest (a fact of which I am unaware), then it was the highly liberal FDR administration that was involved.

That, however, is not at all what I'm talking about.

HC_Chief
03-14-2005, 04:18 PM
Don't be a moron. If there was a change of governemnts in Iran during WWII at our behest (a fact of which I am unaware), then it was the highly liberal FDR administration that was involved.

That, however, is not at all what I'm talking about.

Dude, that's EXACTLY what you're talking about! Did you even read the paragraph you quoted? FFS, a book that implies the CIA overthrew a "democratically elected and <i>revered</i> Prime Minister" in 1953 is the root of our problems in the ME now?

Nahhh, that's not saying we're at fault. Nope... nuh uhh.

lol

Donger
03-14-2005, 04:20 PM
Aug. 19-22, 1953 Leftist government of Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran is ousted and replaced with regime loyal to Shah Pahlevi.

http://www.ku.edu/heritage/abilene/ikeeven.html



Any analysis of America’s position in the Middle East would be incomplete without a thorough understanding of the U.S. role in overthrowing Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, the democratically elected and revered Prime Minister who nationalized Iran’s oil. In All The Shah’s Men, Stephen Kinzer revisits Operation Ajax, the 1953 CIA-sponsored coup that ousted Mossadegh and returned the Shah to power. Though not forgotten in Iran, the 1953 coup has sadly faded from memory in the United States. It is, therefore, refreshing and timely for Kinzer to provide a highly readable account of America’s first intervention in Middle Eastern affairs, a coup d'état that may be at the root of the terrorist threats America faces today. This book implicitly argues that the Eisenhower administration’s Cold War mentality caused an error in judgment with tremendously negative long-term ramifications for U.S. policy.

[this is the first paragraph of a long read.]

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/current/booknotes-All.shtml

Like I said, "the Shah" was allowed to assume his father's throne in 1941. He was ousted in 1953 and then re-installed with the help from the Virginia Farm Boys. My point was that he had been in power in Iran for many years before he was ousted and then reinstated.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 05:09 PM
Now they're reporting that it is closer to 1.5 million. And they didn't even need to bus any Syrians in to get their numbers up.

Still curious as to why D-Nise pimps the terrorist-sponsored rally that was without female support and not a peep about this one today:

<img src="http://www.nationalreview.com/images/crowd3.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://www.nationalreview.com/images/crowd4.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br />

<img src="http://www.nationalreview.com/images/crowd5.gif" border="0" alt="" /><br />
<br />

One more...




http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050314/capt.xhm10503141604.mideast_lebanon_syria_xhm105.jpg

Donger
03-14-2005, 05:11 PM
One more...




http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050314/capt.xhm10503141604.mideast_lebanon_syria_xhm105.jpg

That's classic, on many levels.

Boobies, freedom and Braveheart. Not a bad combination.

Michael Michigan
03-14-2005, 05:21 PM
That's classic, on many levels.

Boobies, freedom and Braveheart. Not a bad combination.

Okay...one more



http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050314/capt.bei11503141806.mideast_lebanon_syria_bei115.jpg



Coutney Love?

Donger
03-14-2005, 05:23 PM
Okay...one more



http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050314/capt.bei11503141806.mideast_lebanon_syria_bei115.jpg



Coutney Love?

I've no idea. But that brunette looks like she approves.

RINGLEADER
03-14-2005, 07:23 PM
Okay...one more



http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050314/capt.bei11503141806.mideast_lebanon_syria_bei115.jpg



Coutney Love?


Well you solved the question that I had regarding why D-Nise only seems to be interested in the pro-terror demostrations.

Only the hot chicks dig democracy.