Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author
10000+ posts
Offline
Award-Winning Author
10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Exactly.


Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!

All hail King Snarf!

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Shut up, Snarf.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Offline
Officially "too old for this shit"
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951
Likes: 6
 Originally Posted By: King Snarf
The fact is, we were effectively at war with the entire nation of Japan. Citizens were prepared to send out women, children and the elderly to fight us, not to mention dropping radioactive particles on the beaches....


...as opposed to Muslim terrorists who condition women, kids and the elderly to be suicide bombers? It seem to me that the two cultures are more alike than not under your description of Japan.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Quote:
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.


Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Quote:
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists.


Had they been nuked then, we wouldn't have had 9-11, no one would have harbored or financed them. Thank you for making my point.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Quote:
The bomb is a last resort weapon.


Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.

Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.


Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.


Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists.


Had they been nuked then, we wouldn't have had 9-11, no one would have harbored or financed them. Thank you for making my point.


They would have still been financed, probably even more so. Maybe not by governments, but by the Muslims who would be shown that America is truly in a holy war with Islam.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.


Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.


Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.


We must be having two different conversations. Where are you getting I think Bin Laden would strap on a bomb? I've always maintained he is a coward who uses other people, what does that got to do with having States cut off support for Al Qaida?

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
The bomb is a last resort weapon.


Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.

Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.


But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
It's not because of our lack of the nuclear option being on the table. Don't forget the WTC bombings of the 90's or the Oklahoma City bombing which, though done by an American, is believed to have been funded by Muslim extremists.


Had they been nuked then, we wouldn't have had 9-11, no one would have harbored or financed them. Thank you for making my point.


They would have still been financed, probably even more so. Maybe not by governments, but by the Muslims who would be shown that America is truly in a holy war with Islam.


The governments can stop the flow of money. If you don't think Saudi Arabia and Iran know who is sending the money then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.


Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.


Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.


We must be having two different conversations. Where are you getting I think Bin Laden would strap on a bomb? I've always maintained he is a coward who uses other people, what does that got to do with having States cut off support for Al Qaida?


My point is that a terrorist isn't just the guy on the plane or in the subway. As for your question about funding terrorist, see my post about yours.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
The bomb is a last resort weapon.


Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.

Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.


But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.


But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
I think the concept of us sending soldiers to put a boot up your ass for fucking or even thinking about fucking with the USA is a bit more frightening for terrorists than simply dieing in a possible atomic blast.


Again your not reading my posts, terrorists aren't frightened of anything. If you think the guys who flew those planes are scared of a butt kicking your as naive as Snarf. I am talking about removing material support for them. Terrorist without safe havens or money aren't anymore dangerous than a racist redneck, he can spout hated all day but he doesn't have the means to carry it out.


Do you really think that Osama Bin Laden would be willing to strap a bomb onto himself to kill a bunch of US soldiers? I think he'd rather brainwash others into doing it than himself, just like all the other Al-Quaida leaders. And since we've been picking them off one by one, they haven't had a chance to come up for air to implement another attack on us.


We must be having two different conversations. Where are you getting I think Bin Laden would strap on a bomb? I've always maintained he is a coward who uses other people, what does that got to do with having States cut off support for Al Qaida?


My point is that a terrorist isn't just the guy on the plane or in the subway. As for your question about funding terrorist, see my post about yours.


Bin Laden is no good without his money, he can order all the attacks in the world, without the financing he is no different that any racist punk mouthing off.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
The governments can stop the flow of money. If you don't think Saudi Arabia and Iran know who is sending the money then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


Criminals are going to find a way. Terrorists collected money here in the US and probably still are. And we're closing them down. Not with nukes, but with our intelligence and police agencies.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
So are we shutting them down or not. You say not with nukes, which proves my point. If we nuked them this would be over. I respect the fact doc that you wanna believe that nuclear bombs are somehow more evil than crashing a plane into a building unprovoked killing thousands, but I'll never buy it.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
Award-Winning Author
10000+ posts
Offline
Award-Winning Author
10000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,353
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
The bomb is a last resort weapon.


Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.

Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.


But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.


But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?


What thedoctor is trying to say, I believe, is that in the case of Japan a ground war was simply not feasible from any standpoint without enormous costs in human life, time, and resources on the part of the U.S. I don't believe that is the case in Afghanistan. A ground war can eventually win there without more loss of life than is necessary.


Knutreturns said: Spoken like the true Greatest RDCW Champ!

All hail King Snarf!

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Offline
The conscience of the rkmbs!
15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 30,833
Likes: 7
So you're saying it's worth the life, time, and resources to subdue a country that will always regress back to its old habits, effectively making the sacrifices we make a waste.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
He doesn;t know what he thinks, he's changed positions 3 times in this thread.

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001
Likes: 1
PJP Offline
We already are
15000+ posts
Offline
We already are
15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001
Likes: 1
Shut up Snarf!

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
The bomb is a last resort weapon.


Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.

Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.


But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.


But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?


Like I said, a ground war would have cost us dearly in US soldiers' lives. That's why Truman decided to use the bomb. He wanted to end the Japanese agression and take Japan, quite honestly, before the Soviets attempted it.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
So are we shutting them down or not. You say not with nukes, which proves my point. If we nuked them this would be over. I respect the fact doc that you wanna believe that nuclear bombs are somehow more evil than crashing a plane into a building unprovoked killing thousands, but I'll never buy it.


I can't honestly tell if you're really not understanding what I'm saying or just arguing for shits and giggles. Let me take your own 9/11 reference and put it into easier to understand terms. What did 9/11 do? It killed about 3,000 Americans, civilians, in a terrifying way that was made a media spectacle around the world. What happened shortly afterwards? When the sheer horror it hit every one of us with finally wore off, we got pissed. We got pissed, and we kicked ass.

So say we dropped the bomb on Afghanistan instead of a ground invasion. Regular ole Muslims like Ahmed the used camel dealer can see that America is truly the Great Satan that Osama and his pals have been saying we were. OPEC decides to reduce production to one barrel a day (an exaggerated figure, I know), and gas prices shoot up to over $50 a gallon. Russia says to itself, "Fuck! These crazy Americans are going to use a bomb for any little thing," and start placing their nuke carrying subs off our coastlines again, ready to push the button if it looks even remotely like we're going to fuck with them. Pakistan and India say, "Well, the US did it," and nuke the shit out of each other. Total chaos. Dogs and cats living together. And Snarf still won't be able to get laid.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
 Originally Posted By: PJP
Shut up Snarf!



whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
 Quote:
The bomb is a last resort weapon.


Exactly, attack the homeland, get nuked.

Japan's Navy was depleted and the islands in ruin when we nuked them, so in the case of tit for tat warfare that you prescribe the last resort wasn't needed.


But they were still capable of fending off a ground invasion and willing to do so would have cost millions of lives in the end.


But in your last resort scenario there is no need to invade, the threat had been defeated. They no longer posed a threat. Besides, boots on the ground kicking ass would have made them decide not to ever attack again right?


Like I said, a ground war would have cost us dearly in US soldiers' lives. That's why Truman decided to use the bomb. He wanted to end the Japanese agression and take Japan, quite honestly, before the Soviets attempted it.


But if you are using force based on need, there was no need to take Japan by troops or bomb, they were defeated economically and militarily. So you point about need is moot.

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
 Originally Posted By: BASAMS The Plumber
So are we shutting them down or not. You say not with nukes, which proves my point. If we nuked them this would be over. I respect the fact doc that you wanna believe that nuclear bombs are somehow more evil than crashing a plane into a building unprovoked killing thousands, but I'll never buy it.


I can't honestly tell if you're really not understanding what I'm saying or just arguing for shits and giggles. Let me take your own 9/11 reference and put it into easier to understand terms. What did 9/11 do? It killed about 3,000 Americans, civilians, in a terrifying way that was made a media spectacle around the world. What happened shortly afterwards? When the sheer horror it hit every one of us with finally wore off, we got pissed. We got pissed, and we kicked ass.

So say we dropped the bomb on Afghanistan instead of a ground invasion. Regular ole Muslims like Ahmed the used camel dealer can see that America is truly the Great Satan that Osama and his pals have been saying we were. OPEC decides to reduce production to one barrel a day (an exaggerated figure, I know), and gas prices shoot up to over $50 a gallon. Russia says to itself, "Fuck! These crazy Americans are going to use a bomb for any little thing," and start placing their nuke carrying subs off our coastlines again, ready to push the button if it looks even remotely like we're going to fuck with them. Pakistan and India say, "Well, the US did it," and nuke the shit out of each other. Total chaos. Dogs and cats living together. And Snarf still won't be able to get laid.


First off the OPEC guys couldn't cut off our oil, and won't. You mistaking these guys for idiots, they are in this to make money. Also you obviously dont understand how the oil supply demand works. Hugo Chavez himself and Iran have bragged about trying such but the experts point out that if they quit selling to the US then other countries pick up the slack in that lost market share its very fluid. If they could just cut off supplies they would do so now to prop up the price, but they have $ spent that must be replenished, projects in the works, the machine cant stop.

Also 9-11 wasn't any little thing, it was an unprovoked attack on thousands so Russia wouldn't look at it like that. Also Russia cares about itself not Muslims in Afghanistan(check your history book for reference). If Russia didn't nuke us during the Cuban missile crisis when we blockaded them, they aren't going to nuke us for killing people they were unsuccessful at killing.

Pakistan and India aren't going to kill themselves because we killed our attackers, that is very Snarfian of you to say so.

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Offline
Timelord. Drunkard.
15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 24,593
You missed everything I said.

One, most of our oil doesn't come from the Middle East, so nothing I said has to do with them selling us oil. My point was decreasing the amount of oil they put on the market, which would have increased prices dramatically. They're not going to do it now because the world is consuming less gas than we were five years ago when people were buying up every SUV and Hemi powered vehicle Detroit rolled off its lines.

Two, in case you haven't noticed, over the past few years, Russia has been restructuring itself to duplicate its old Soviet glory. Us attacking Afghanistan with nukes when that country itself hadn't actually attacked us or declared war on us would be all they would need to convince their people of the need to rearm and redeploy to the cold war levels. Our willingness to use a nuke on such a small, easily defeatable country would make them more likely to use nukes as a first round alternative to any other form of combat or even diplomacy.


whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules.
It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness.
This is true both in politics and on the internet."

Our Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man said: "no, the doctor's right. besides, he has seniority."
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
OP Offline
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you)
50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734
Your really not making sense, if Russia wants to re-arm they dont have to convince people. Also the way the war in Afghanistan went for the Soviets and now us, makes your easily defeatable comment absurd. Also maybe I left out when the Taliban refused to turn over Al-Qaida we should have nuked them. Please dont reply that they had no power over them, a considerably less powerful Sudanese government kicked them out of their country.

Your point about decreasing oil is null and void as well. The guys who control OPEC arent nuts, they are very smart business people.

And finally, Snarf agrees with you.

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Offline
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
If this isn't the January 21st surprise then it has to be economical...


Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Offline
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240


Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Offline
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
On a serious note.....




Last edited by Pig Iran; 2008-12-07 4:43 AM.

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Offline
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass
15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240


Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5