Life was good while it lasted [Archive]

CofyCrakCocaine

01-06-2007, 02:18 PM

The key word is tactical nukes. Those are tinier nukes, that level, oh, 25 square miles as opposed to those giant nukes that we had pointed at Russia. It's still a bad idea to give a precedent for using modern nukes, and we should do what we can to pressure Israel out of using nukes. Israel can take action, I think Iran needs to be taught a lesson, but nukes are definately something they should not use. As for the theory that if one nation nukes another, everyone else will nuke each other, well, that's crazy talk. Any competent government knows that US has so many nuclear subs out there with their missiles ready to go, that they would sign their own death warrant if they launched their shorter range missiles. If Russia and China did anything, same goes for them, and the suicide of their own nation is definately not something any true leader wants. Maybe I'm just an idealistic asshole, but the guys who are willing to do that have shorter range nukes that won't reach USA. I'm more worried about Israel getting annihilated.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-06-2007, 02:18 PM

Shit. Does this make me 'Too much information' guy?

Marc with a c

01-06-2007, 02:19 PM

reeshy wrote: Hey marc.....she does have 2 heads...can I tag along??? sure. you can bring whoever you want

Kevin

01-06-2007, 02:20 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Shit. Does this make me 'Too much information' guy? naaa That title is forever held by that sexy man in a skirt known as Yerdaddy. But point well taken though.

lintpit

01-06-2007, 02:23 PM

sr71blackbird wrote: I would LOVE to see this escalate!!! I am so disappointed. You have always seemed like one of the more level headed posters. My children and I thank you for your callousness. Sweet Dreams..."good bye blue skies, goodbye blue skies,goodbye"...

boeman

01-06-2007, 02:36 PM

I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.

Gvac

01-06-2007, 02:39 PM

Eternal sleep sounds pretty good right about now.I'm exhausted.

Doctor Z

01-06-2007, 02:48 PM

HUMANKIND:  Disappointing God, one day at a time.

SatCam

01-06-2007, 02:58 PM

Marc with a c wrote: i would like to hang out with that two headed chick first.

after israel uses nukes I think there will be a lot more two headed chicks hanging around

Team_Ramrod

01-06-2007, 03:01 PM

Hopefully they can do it before my next morgage payment so I can go out with some money to my name.

Bulldogcakes

01-06-2007, 03:02 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: I'm more worried about Israel getting annihilated.That makes one of you.  Any country with its track record of racism and disregard for innocent life can fall off the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned. Always remember this about Israel, if Palestinians are having babies too fast, it represents a threat to their existence. Any country built around preserving power for any specific ethnic group is by definition a racist state. And we in America back this up to the tune of 4 billion per year of our tax dollars. Which is to say they're using OUR weapons which WE pay for to kill Palestinians with. Then we wonder why were so unpopular in the Arab world. We dont have a dog in that fight, yet were constantly drawn into it. If anything, we have more reason to be friends with Saudi Arabia than Israel. Why? Because we need their oil. What the fuck does Israel give us but aggravation? It was the pro-Israel neo cons were the driving force behind this ill concieved, poorly executed Iraq war. Why? Because remaking the region would be good for Israel's security interests, among other reasons. And this idiot of a president bought into it.  More trouble than they're worth if you ask me.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-06-2007, 04:18 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: I'm more worried about Israel getting annihilated.That makes one of you. Any country with its track record of racism and disregard for innocent life can fall off the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned. Always remember this about Israel, if Palestinians are having babies too fast, it represents a threat to their existence. Any country built around preserving power for any specific ethnic group is by definition a racist state. I couldn't disagree with ya more Bulldog. No one country deserves nuclear annihilation, that should go without fucking saying. Both sides are wrong, and if you really want to label countries as deserving mass annihilation, then according to your principles, USA up until about 50 years ago should have been annihilated too. After all, we had slaves for about two or three times the years Israel has existed, we pretty much destroyed numerous cultures in our 'God Divined Manifest Destiny' (Native Americans were composed of numerous 'tribal nations') far worse than the Israelis have done to the Palestinians. Look up 'The Battle' of Wounded Knee on Wiki. I suppose if you've already established your ethnic superiority in a region, it's OK, but if you're brand new to an area and think your ethnicity is THE SHIT, you must be purged. That's logical on a humane level. And I'm far from a minority who thinks it's a bad thing if Israel (or any nation for that matter) got nuked. A single nuclear explosion could theoretically effect the sunset in New York, if all you care about is scenery. Nevermind the MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE caught in the blast. I dislike alot of what Israel does and the BURDEN it's been to our country, but if it got nuked, whether you like it or not Bulldog, our country would fire back, and then WE'RE involved anyway. As for the racist thing. Israel was created as a direct result of the Holocaust, which resulted for many Jews due to the fact they had nowhere they could go- America's immigration chief refused them passage into our country for instance- it's certainly a racist state, but you should blame the Allies for creating this Jewish state where they did. You could also go and blame the billions of racist assholes who have always hated the Jewish people and persecuted them for millenia, right down from the Romans to the Germans, that drove them to create this nation. But that's pointless because there's so many assholes out there who just hate Jews because their daddies do too, and no one would bother doing that, because the notion of racism begetting racism is just ridiculously difficult for these people to comprehend and care about.Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying YOU are racist Bulldog. I've just known people who have been stabbed, beaten, and persecuted just for being Jewish, and so I'm aware how real the hatred is for them, and how violent and mindless it is. Listen to the Beatles. They had good ideas for a pop group.

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 1-6-07 @ 8:21 PM

Bulldogcakes

01-06-2007, 04:32 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote:I couldn't disagree with ya more Bulldog. No one country deserves nuclear annihilation, that should go without fucking saying. You just adressed a point I never made. I never said they deserved to be nuked off the planet. I said that given their track record on human rights, I dont care one way or the other. I'm agnostic on Israel. Whatever happens, happens. Just dont tell me they're the "good guys". It makes me sick. They've killed roughly 10 Palestinians for every one Israeli who's been killed in this conflict over the past 20 years. And yet Israel is portayed as having its hands tied by the US and the UN. Please. Let all those animals kill each other over there. Just leave MY COUNTRY out of it.     

This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 1-6-07 @ 8:35 PM

CofyCrakCocaine

01-06-2007, 08:27 PM

The only good guys in this world are the ones who win the war. In other words, there are no 'good guys'. Israel has killed tons of Palestinians over the years, and the Palestinians have killed plenty of Israelis. Both sides have murdered children, and many people on both sides deserve death, and far more deserve life. Israel incited that wave of violence in 2000, and that was their damn fault. Their treatment of your average Palestinian is despicable. And I recognize that Palestinians aren't all ak47 waving asses either, and are actually quite intelligent, fascinating individuals. But I'd rather support Israel than Palestine which we saw celebrating in the streets on 9-11 (Arafat denounced the attacks that day, but then, so did the Taliban). Just my personal bias. Palestinians would be more likely to support Al Qaeda cells, Israel would not. But again, this is my personal bias, and has nothing to do with the arguments in this thread.  As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? Our government does it of their own personal interest. 'Democracy in the Middle East' for some, money for others, God knows what else from yet others motivate this pursuit. Also, our country ain't so great when it comes to supporting foreign powers, so it's not like we're wasting our money on foreign aid to just Israel. We gave guns and training to A) Taliban B) Al Qaeda C) Saddam, to name some topical organizations and fellows that we shouldn't have armed. Really, I see this as more a fault of OUR COUNTRY. So blame Israel all you want for this country's fuckups in the Middle East, but they're still a mess the USA has made, and not all of them were because of Israel. And I'm sorry, but our country's entrenched in this sandlot for quite some time to come. It sucks, and I wish it weren't so, lots of good people are dying, and it's all a damn waste, but we're stuck there now. So what happens to Israel matters for our troops. And I don't want our country involved in a nuclear war, mmkay? That's a bit worse than Iraq. Just a tad worse. As for our role in Iraq, you can thank the current Administration and your average hysterical dummy who thought Hussein was behind the West Nile Virus back in '98.  I'm putting Yerdaddy in a run for his money as biggest poster.

FUNKMAN

01-06-2007, 08:54 PM

reeshy wrote: Calm the fuck down , everyone.....you'll be safe in your beds when you die....trust me!!! i want to die like my uncle, he died in his sleep. not screaming and clawing at the windows like the passengers on his bus

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 01:35 AM

f<img src="http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a311/possum5/kimjong158.jpg" border="0" width="120" height="158" /> Herrooooooo!The story is bogus - more or less. It's a right-wing attempt to help out Bush in his strategy to force Iran to end it's nuclear program. The idea is that, since the US has no military options in Iran they have to give Iran the impression that we or Israel are ignoring the conventional wisdom of the experts (again) and are planning to attack Iran anyway. Six months ago the same story came out about us drawing up war plans, but not the way the administration wanted it. Seymour Hersh reported it [<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact" target="_blank">The Iran Plans</a> and <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060710fa_fact" target="_blank">The Last Stand</a>] when the uniformed military got freaked out by what Bush was doing - actually having the war plans drawn up - and called Hersh. Problem is, having actual war plans drawn up is a dangerous thing to do. It's a political action that is going to be found out. It is possible the Bush adminstration and the Israelis (a closer ally of the Bush administration than they ever have been to America) are trying to make the Iranian regime think that they're just crazy enough to attack them. The idea being that the Iranians would be more willing to negotiate a lower price, in terms of economic aid, in exchange for giving up their nuclear program if they think they are being offered both carrots and sticks - the bigger stick you have the less carrots you have to offer. Problem is, so far the Iranians aren't buying it. Or at least they aren't going for it. You can't fucking have official war plans drawn up as a bluff because the act is the kind of thing that could end up escalating to the point where you have to attack. That's why the uniformed leadership at the Pentagon got so freaked out and called Hersh. But the Bush administration - especially Rumsfeld and Cheney - have utter contempt for the uniformed military and may actually try this stunt and even authorize Israel to do the same. I wrote more about this <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/Forum/87/Topic/49832/page/Preemptive_Nuclear_Strike_.htm" target="_blank">here.</a>But, ultimately this story doesn't mean shit unles the dreaded mainstream media picks it up. The Washington Post and the NYT are the pros. This would be a monster story if true and I'm sure the pros have called their contacts in the White House and the Israeli government to check it out. They haven't reported it yet so if they haven't written about it by tomorrow then it's dead. Didn't happen. So far it's only a few right wing papers. Someone might have figured out this could give the president a boost in this game and they're circulating it. But ultimately it's probably just as worthless as that bogus "Iran to make Jews wear badges" story that LordJezo got all excited about a few months ago. A right-wing Candadian paper reported it, Drudge picked it up and it proved to be bullshit.Which should be a surprise to nobody at this point. Drudge is not a journalist. He's a hack who's found his tabloid niche and is cashing in. Good for him. But it's our responsibility to know the difference between good and bad sources of information. He's a bad one. WP and NYT are good ones. The track records show this.I can't find the old thread in which I linked a bunch of sources on Iran and Israeli nukes and the poor prospect of an attack on Iran so I just read the the original article and here are my general comments on it's details:[quote]Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fi

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 01:43 AM

Kevin wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Shit. Does this make me 'Too much information' guy?  naaa That title is forever held by that sexy man in a skirt known as Yerdaddy. But point well taken though. 5 Sharmoota points for you Ho #4!

sr71blackbird

01-07-2007, 01:56 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: I'm more worried about Israel getting annihilated.That makes one of you.  Any country with its track record of racism and disregard for innocent life can fall off the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned. Always remember this about Israel, if Palestinians are having babies too fast, it represents a threat to their existence. Any country built around preserving power for any specific ethnic group is by definition a racist state. And we in America back this up to the tune of 4 billion per year of our tax dollars. Which is to say they're using OUR weapons which WE pay for to kill Palestinians with. Then we wonder why were so unpopular in the Arab world. We dont have a dog in that fight, yet were constantly drawn into it. If anything, we have more reason to be friends with Saudi Arabia than Israel. Why? Because we need their oil. What the fuck does Israel give us but aggravation? It was the pro-Israel neo cons were the driving force behind this ill concieved, poorly executed Iraq war. Why? Because remaking the region would be good for Israel's security interests, among other reasons. And this idiot of a president bought into it.  More trouble than they're worth if you ask me.  Amen

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 02:00 AM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: The key word is tactical nukes. Those are tinier nukes, that level, oh, 25 square miles as opposed to those giant nukes that we had pointed at Russia. It's still a bad idea to give a precedent for using modern nukes, and we should do what we can to pressure Israel out of using nukes. Israel can take action, I think Iran needs to be taught a lesson, but nukes are definately something they should not use. As for the theory that if one nation nukes another, everyone else will nuke each other, well, that's crazy talk. Any competent government knows that US has so many nuclear subs out there with their missiles ready to go, that they would sign their own death warrant if they launched their shorter range missiles. If Russia and China did anything, same goes for them, and the suicide of their own nation is definately not something any true leader wants. Maybe I'm just an idealistic asshole, but the guys who are willing to do that have shorter range nukes that won't reach USA. I'm more worried about Israel getting annihilated. This is the problem I have with tactical nukes and the nuclear bunker busters Bush ordered developed - they're too fucking tempting to use under the theory that "they're small so they're not that bad." Doesn't fucking matter. They're nukes, and using them, whatever their size or practical purpose on a battlefield, raises the possibility of them being used again by another country. Right now nobody wants to be the next guy to use nukes. It would be political and economic suicide - the international community's outrage would necessary isolate them which would be the kiss of death. But after that the moral floodgates are open. It would be a big fucking blow to peace in the world.As for Israel being destroyed, well they've got over 200 good nukes and the best US equipment money can buy - although they get most of it for free. They have some American shit that's more advanced than our own. Isreal's neighbors have plenty of American planes and equipment but deliberately less advanced than we give Israel. And they know this. They also probably won't launch a military attack because they're already concearned with the fact that "the new Iraq" represents, with Iran, a new ascendance of Shiia nations that they actually wouldn't mind being weakened. Sunnis and Shiia hate each other. Hate! Now they would be pissed and will look for some symbolic way to punish Israel and the US. And Hezbollah and all the Palestinian organizations would launch an all-out attack with everything they've got. Israel sure as shit doesn't want that. But Israel is not in any risk of being destroyed. None of their "enemies", even combined are even capable militarily of doing it. And China and Russia would have no reason to get involved in any major conflict between Israel and the US against the Muslim world. They'll sit out and watch their economies go up relative to our own.

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 02:07 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: I couldn't disagree with ya more Bulldog. No one country deserves nuclear annihilation, that should go without fucking saying. You just adressed a point I never made. I never said they deserved to be nuked off the planet. I said that given their track record on human rights, I dont care one way or the other. I'm agnostic on Israel. Whatever happens, happens. Just dont tell me they're the "good guys". It makes me sick. They've killed roughly 10 Palestinians for every one Israeli who's been killed in this conflict over the past 20 years. And yet Israel is portayed as having its hands tied by the US and the UN. Please. Let all those animals kill each other over there. Just leave MY COUNTRY out of it. This message was edited by Bulldogcakes on 1-6-07 @ 8:35 PM I agree more or less. Our hard-line stance against the Arab and Muslim world has encouraged Israel to take an even harder-line stance and it fucking magnifies the damage we've done. Bush's ideological views of Israel as some God-chosen land and the Israelis as incapable of misdeeds has allowed them to exploit us for all we're worth. They launched their assault on Jenin, what, two weeks into our invasion of Iraq? It looked like a classic pincer movement for fuck's sake! But let me just reiterate, this attack by Iran is possible. And they know we feel we have to defend them. Bush has too much invested in them not to. And we will be involved. Israel doesn't even have planes that can fly to Iran and back without refueling in or above Iraq. That means we will have to be involved just so we don't shoot them down. And if it happens, the war on terror will never end.

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 02:28 AM

boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.Tactical nuclear weapons are advanced military technology that only a handful of countries even have the technology to maintain much less develop or obtain. No terrorists will ever possess them. Dirty bombs are easy to produce, but mainly because we made so much nuclear materials available by not having enough troops to secure Iraq's supplies. They had tons of the stuff sitting in warehouses with UN inspection seals on them. We knew where all of it was. By the time we got around to going to the sites - weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the locals were using the empty drums to store water for their laundry. Best we can hope for is the locals dumped most of the shit in the ground before Saddam's former military had the sense to take it away. But I doubt it. Then again, dirty bombs aren't all that big a deal. The require an explosion to disperse the materials and the explosion would kill more people than the uranium or whatever. It's more a scare tactic - by those who would use such things, and those who want you to be afraid of someone who might use them - ie. the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. I'm more afraid of a dirty bum than a dirty bomb. That reminds me to pick up some toilet paper. They don't use it much here in Thailand either.And if you're really not worried because you live in the Kansas, let me ask you this: why haven't we been attacked the way that most terrorist attacks occur - with small groups of terrorists taking AKs into crowded places? You can't tell me that Bush has completely eliminated this threat in America. We've got how many guns in this country? Gangs have no problem getting them. Why not terrorists? You can still load up on everything you need to make a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that we haven't been attacked is a really powerful question that we should all be asking ourselves. There's no shortage of ways in which we're vulnerable - and always have been and always will be. If the Ahmish schoolgirls had been killed by Muslim terrorists it would have had the desired effect, so why hasn't it happened? Why is it always us shooting up our own schools? Why? I don't have an answer, but I think we need to reevaluate our fears given the fact that the opportunities for America's 7 to 10 million Muslims, or the tens of thousands of Muslim visitors in this country to commit acts of terrorism. Only thing lacking was the will. Aside from the fact that American Muslims deserve more credit for being loyal Americans than they do. (This pussy ass crying about a Congressman swearing in on the Quran was an insult to them all.) But there has to be a lack of general will to hurt us and we need to understand why. And ask ourselves with all of these questions about nuking Iran and blinldy supporting Israel and our failure in Iraq, how much credit do we give Muslims here for remaining loyal?

sr71blackbird

01-07-2007, 04:36 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.Tactical nuclear weapons are advanced military technology that only a handful of countries even have the technology to maintain much less develop or obtain. No terrorists will ever possess them. Dirty bombs are easy to produce, but mainly because we made so much nuclear materials available by not having enough troops to secure Iraq's supplies. They had tons of the stuff sitting in warehouses with UN inspection seals on them. We knew where all of it was. By the time we got around to going to the sites - weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the locals were using the empty drums to store water for their laundry. Best we can hope for is the locals dumped most of the shit in the ground before Saddam's former military had the sense to take it away. But I doubt it. Then again, dirty bombs aren't all that big a deal. The require an explosion to disperse the materials and the explosion would kill more people than the uranium or whatever. It's more a scare tactic - by those who would use such things, and those who want you to be afraid of someone who might use them - ie. the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. I'm more afraid of a dirty bum than a dirty bomb. That reminds me to pick up some toilet paper. They don't use it much here in Thailand either.And if you're really not worried because you live in the Kansas, let me ask you this: why haven't we been attacked the way that most terrorist attacks occur - with small groups of terrorists taking AKs into crowded places? You can't tell me that Bush has completely eliminated this threat in America. We've got how many guns in this country? Gangs have no problem getting them. Why not terrorists? You can still load up on everything you need to make a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that we haven't been attacked is a really powerful question that we should all be asking ourselves. There's no shortage of ways in which we're vulnerable - and always have been and always will be. If the Ahmish schoolgirls had been killed by Muslim terrorists it would have had the desired effect, so why hasn't it happened? Why is it always us shooting up our own schools? Why? I don't have an answer, but I think we need to reevaluate our fears given the fact that the opportunities for America's 7 to 10 million Muslims, or the tens of thousands of Muslim visitors in this country to commit acts of terrorism. Only thing lacking was the will. Aside from the fact that American Muslims deserve more credit for being loyal Americans than they do. (This pussy ass crying about a Congressman swearing in on the Quran was an insult to them all.) But there has to be a lack of general will to hurt us and we need to understand why. And ask ourselves with all of these questions about nuking Iran and blinldy supporting Israel and our failure in Iraq, how much credit do we give Muslims here for remaining loyal? You bring up some amazing points and I have wondered why we have not been attacked like this myself.  Im wondering if they are just waiting us out to let our guard down and lose faith in our own leadership before they attack again?  If so, an attack is immin

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 04:45 AM

sr71blackbird wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.Tactical nuclear weapons are advanced military technology that only a handful of countries even have the technology to maintain much less develop or obtain. No terrorists will ever possess them. Dirty bombs are easy to produce, but mainly because we made so much nuclear materials available by not having enough troops to secure Iraq's supplies. They had tons of the stuff sitting in warehouses with UN inspection seals on them. We knew where all of it was. By the time we got around to going to the sites - weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the locals were using the empty drums to store water for their laundry. Best we can hope for is the locals dumped most of the shit in the ground before Saddam's former military had the sense to take it away. But I doubt it. Then again, dirty bombs aren't all that big a deal. The require an explosion to disperse the materials and the explosion would kill more people than the uranium or whatever. It's more a scare tactic - by those who would use such things, and those who want you to be afraid of someone who might use them - ie. the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. I'm more afraid of a dirty bum than a dirty bomb. That reminds me to pick up some toilet paper. They don't use it much here in Thailand either.And if you're really not worried because you live in the Kansas, let me ask you this: why haven't we been attacked the way that most terrorist attacks occur - with small groups of terrorists taking AKs into crowded places? You can't tell me that Bush has completely eliminated this threat in America. We've got how many guns in this country? Gangs have no problem getting them. Why not terrorists? You can still load up on everything you need to make a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that we haven't been attacked is a really powerful question that we should all be asking ourselves. There's no shortage of ways in which we're vulnerable - and always have been and always will be. If the Ahmish schoolgirls had been killed by Muslim terrorists it would have had the desired effect, so why hasn't it happened? Why is it always us shooting up our own schools? Why? I don't have an answer, but I think we need to reevaluate our fears given the fact that the opportunities for America's 7 to 10 million Muslims, or the tens of thousands of Muslim visitors in this country to commit acts of terrorism. Only thing lacking was the will. Aside from the fact that American Muslims deserve more credit for being loyal Americans than they do. (This pussy ass crying about a Congressman swearing in on the Quran was an insult to them all.) But there has to be a lack of general will to hurt us and we need to understand why. And ask ourselves with all of these questions about nuking Iran and blinldy supporting Israel and our failure in Iraq, how much credit do we give Muslims here for remaining loyal? You bring up some amazing points and I have wondered why we have not been attacked like this myself.  Im wondering if they are just waiting us out to let our guard down and lose faith in our own leaders

sr71blackbird

01-07-2007, 05:07 AM

So if there is not sleeper cells around and the terrorist have not attacked us yet and the Muslims have earned our trust (I know many and know they are good people - even better than most 'Americans"), then what is your point?  When the first trade center attack occured and we got all nervous and are guard was up and we looked at everything in suspicion, and then nothing happened, our guard slowly went down and by the time the second attack occured, we were totally lax.  Id say at this point most Americans are lax again.  The police and government seem to put on a show that we are vigilant and I agree with you that it is mostly an illusion.

sailor

01-07-2007, 05:38 AM

sailor

01-07-2007, 05:40 AM

Kevin wrote: MHasegawa wrote: hell yeah, this is the best bad news ive heard in a long time Are you out of your mind? That would give every Arab country the excuse it needs to make Israel a fucking parking lot. Then the US would have to do something then China will use it as their chance to do something ETC ETC...... WWIII This message was edited by Kevin on 1-6-07 @ 6:10 PM actually it would give every arab country the excuse to TRY to make israel a fucking parking lot.  if they THOUGHT they could have done it before now, they would not have waited for an "excuse."

Team_Ramrod

01-07-2007, 06:00 AM

Would they just fuckin do it already....Mortgage day is comming

Bulldogcakes

01-07-2007, 06:21 AM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote:As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? Our government does it of their own personal interest. 'Democracy in the Middle East' for some, money for others, God knows what else from yet others motivate this pursuit.  Again with the vieled "anti semitism" reference if someone disagrees with the Israeli right wing's view of the world. You'll have to do better than that with me. I dont let myself be bullied by anyone. Our own interest? Really? You've yet to make the case, so I'll give you another opportunity. Democracy in the Middle East is a crapshoot at best, as evidenced by the Palestinians voting in Hamas in what was by all accounts a free and fair election by international standards. Democratic Turkey refused to let us use their bases and airspace for the Iraq invasion. Dictators and monarchies can be more reliable for our purposes, Mubarak in Egypt, Jordan and the Sauds have been steady allies. "Money" could you please be more vague? I have no idea what you're talking about.

sailor

01-07-2007, 06:36 AM

Bulldogcakes

01-07-2007, 06:54 AM

sailor wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote:As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? Our government does it of their own personal interest. 'Democracy in the Middle East' for some, money for others, God knows what else from yet others motivate this pursuit.  i didn't even see any veiled threats of calling someone an anti-semite in there. i think you're reading your own ideas into crak's post. Thats what I'm referring to. Anti semites often claim that Jews either secretly run the country, or have excessive influence, and do so for the benefit of Israel.  Maybe you're just not up to date on what the conspiracy kooks are up to these days.

boeman

01-07-2007, 07:06 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.Tactical nuclear weapons are advanced military technology that only a handful of countries even have the technology to maintain much less develop or obtain. No terrorists will ever possess them. Dirty bombs are easy to produce, but mainly because we made so much nuclear materials available by not having enough troops to secure Iraq's supplies. They had tons of the stuff sitting in warehouses with UN inspection seals on them. We knew where all of it was. By the time we got around to going to the sites - weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the locals were using the empty drums to store water for their laundry. Best we can hope for is the locals dumped most of the shit in the ground before Saddam's former military had the sense to take it away. But I doubt it. Then again, dirty bombs aren't all that big a deal. The require an explosion to disperse the materials and the explosion would kill more people than the uranium or whatever. It's more a scare tactic - by those who would use such things, and those who want you to be afraid of someone who might use them - ie. the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. I'm more afraid of a dirty bum than a dirty bomb. That reminds me to pick up some toilet paper. They don't use it much here in Thailand either.And if you're really not worried because you live in the Kansas, let me ask you this: why haven't we been attacked the way that most terrorist attacks occur - with small groups of terrorists taking AKs into crowded places? You can't tell me that Bush has completely eliminated this threat in America. We've got how many guns in this country? Gangs have no problem getting them. Why not terrorists? You can still load up on everything you need to make a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that we haven't been attacked is a really powerful question that we should all be asking ourselves. There's no shortage of ways in which we're vulnerable - and always have been and always will be. If the Ahmish schoolgirls had been killed by Muslim terrorists it would have had the desired effect, so why hasn't it happened? Why is it always us shooting up our own schools? Why? I don't have an answer, but I think we need to reevaluate our fears given the fact that the opportunities for America's 7 to 10 million Muslims, or the tens of thousands of Muslim visitors in this country to commit acts of terrorism. Only thing lacking was the will. Aside from the fact that American Muslims deserve more credit for being loyal Americans than they do. (This pussy ass crying about a Congressman swearing in on the Quran was an insult to them all.) But there has to be a lack of general will to hurt us and we need to understand why. And ask ourselves with all of these questions about nuking Iran and blinldy supporting Israel and our failure in Iraq, how much credit do we give Muslims here for remaining loyal? You bring up some amazing points and I have wondered why we have not been attacked like this myself.  Im wondering if they are just waiting us out

sailor

01-07-2007, 07:14 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.Tactical nuclear weapons are advanced military technology that only a handful of countries even have the technology to maintain much less develop or obtain. No terrorists will ever possess them. Dirty bombs are easy to produce, but mainly because we made so much nuclear materials available by not having enough troops to secure Iraq's supplies. They had tons of the stuff sitting in warehouses with UN inspection seals on them. We knew where all of it was. By the time we got around to going to the sites - weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the locals were using the empty drums to store water for their laundry. Best we can hope for is the locals dumped most of the shit in the ground before Saddam's former military had the sense to take it away. But I doubt it. Then again, dirty bombs aren't all that big a deal. The require an explosion to disperse the materials and the explosion would kill more people than the uranium or whatever. It's more a scare tactic - by those who would use such things, and those who want you to be afraid of someone who might use them - ie. the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. I'm more afraid of a dirty bum than a dirty bomb. That reminds me to pick up some toilet paper. They don't use it much here in Thailand either.And if you're really not worried because you live in the Kansas, let me ask you this: why haven't we been attacked the way that most terrorist attacks occur - with small groups of terrorists taking AKs into crowded places? You can't tell me that Bush has completely eliminated this threat in America. We've got how many guns in this country? Gangs have no problem getting them. Why not terrorists? You can still load up on everything you need to make a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that we haven't been attacked is a really powerful question that we should all be asking ourselves. There's no shortage of ways in which we're vulnerable - and always have been and always will be. If the Ahmish schoolgirls had been killed by Muslim terrorists it would have had the desired effect, so why hasn't it happened? Why is it always us shooting up our own schools? Why? I don't have an answer, but I think we need to reevaluate our fears given the fact that the opportunities for America's 7 to 10 million Muslims, or the tens of thousands of Muslim visitors in this country to commit acts of terrorism. Only thing lacking was the will. Aside from the fact that American Muslims deserve more credit for being loyal Americans than they do. (This pussy ass crying about a Congressman swearing in on the Quran was an insult to them all.) But there has to be a lack of general will to hurt us and we need to understand why. And ask ourselves with all of these questions about nuking Iran and blinldy supporting Israel and our failure in Iraq, how much credit do we give Muslims here for remaining loyal? You bring up some amazing points and I have wondered why we have not been attacked like this myself. Im wondering if they are just waiting us out to let our guard down and lose faith in

A.J.

01-07-2007, 09:33 AM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? <a href="http://www.aipac.org/">No, not at all</a>.

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 09:45 AM

boeman wrote:Yeah, Russia still has a handful of tactical nukes that are unaccounted for... Pakistan has the ability to create tactical nukes, while I wouldn't suspect the Pakistani gov't would hand one to terrorists, the number of sympathizers in the country are great... I'd say the would be a posibility of that (maybe small, but it's there). I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say that N. Korea would have the ability to produce a tactical nuke... Would they give one to terrorists to be used against the US?I don't know of any terrorist groups that would know what to do with a tactical nuke. They're big rockets inside big rocket launchers. They're not like shoulder-fired surfce-to-air missiles, which are probably a bigger terrorist threat because of their portability and capability to shoot down passenger airliners. Nuclear warheads are big and heavy and require alot of explosives to detonate and alot of technology to operate, that means big missile, just not an ICBM. Pakistan is not very technologically advanced for a nuclear power. Most of their missiles will barely reach inside the border of India - their neighbor and primary threat. That's not because they're tactical but because they suck. And, if I remember correctly, they got most of their missiles and/or missile technology from NK. The Pakistani military does have parts with questionable loyalty to the president. But the president's a smart guy and I imagine has the country's nukes in the hands of loyalists. Pakistan's nukes only become a problem for us if something should happen to Musharraf, God forbid. That's a big problem too, however the biggest threat would be that of a first strike nuclear attack on India. India would come out better, but it'd be bad for everybody. I wonder what we would do if one of the frequent assassination attempts on Musharraf were to succeed? I wonder if we even have the military resources to go in and take over if we had to. It would have to be a NATO/UN backed operation. Shit. I don't want to think about it. One more way that the war in Iraq makes us more vulnerable.Giving a tactical nuke to a terrorist organization cannot be done without it being traced back to that country. That always had to be kept in mind. Nukes aren't like IPods - the parts only come from a couple of sources and the nuclear materials leave "fingerprints". One of the reasons assuming Saddam would give a nuke to a terrorist organization - especially one that was devoted to his overthrow - was extremely unlikely because it would be signing his death warrant. There aren't any countries that crazy that I can think of. None of them have nuclear programs. Even Iran isn't that crazy or stupid. And that's a good thing.BTW... I'm in Kansas City... which is in Missouri. Dude. What's with your freeways being taller than your buildings. I pulled a U-Haul with my 4-banger pickup through there and thought I was going to fall off or roll backwards! I'm just glad it was night. It's like the fucking Jetsons![quote]There have been plenty of groups in the US that have been busted doing business here... Minor players. Check them out. Virtually all of the high profile arrests in the States have turned out to be really dumb guys talking about doing something and getting caught in a sting operation. But they never got into the planning stages of anything and most of them didn't even seem capable. The guys busted near the airport in Britain a few months ago had their shit together. Could it be possible that their current objective is to funnel money back to the terror effort through the US by opening stores and working high paid jobs (relative to what the jobs pay elsewhere)? Why risk it? The US doesn't pay that much m

Yerdaddy

01-07-2007, 09:51 AM

sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]sr71blackbird wrote: [quote]Yerdaddy wrote: [quote]boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.Tactical nuclear weapons are advanced military technology that only a handful of countries even have the technology to maintain much less develop or obtain. No terrorists will ever possess them. Dirty bombs are easy to produce, but mainly because we made so much nuclear materials available by not having enough troops to secure Iraq's supplies. They had tons of the stuff sitting in warehouses with UN inspection seals on them. We knew where all of it was. By the time we got around to going to the sites - weeks after the fall of Baghdad, the locals were using the empty drums to store water for their laundry. Best we can hope for is the locals dumped most of the shit in the ground before Saddam's former military had the sense to take it away. But I doubt it. Then again, dirty bombs aren't all that big a deal. The require an explosion to disperse the materials and the explosion would kill more people than the uranium or whatever. It's more a scare tactic - by those who would use such things, and those who want you to be afraid of someone who might use them - ie. the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. I'm more afraid of a dirty bum than a dirty bomb. That reminds me to pick up some toilet paper. They don't use it much here in Thailand either.And if you're really not worried because you live in the Kansas, let me ask you this: why haven't we been attacked the way that most terrorist attacks occur - with small groups of terrorists taking AKs into crowded places? You can't tell me that Bush has completely eliminated this threat in America. We've got how many guns in this country? Gangs have no problem getting them. Why not terrorists? You can still load up on everything you need to make a fertilizer bomb like the Oklahoma City bombing. The fact that we haven't been attacked is a really powerful question that we should all be asking ourselves. There's no shortage of ways in which we're vulnerable - and always have been and always will be. If the Ahmish schoolgirls had been killed by Muslim terrorists it would have had the desired effect, so why hasn't it happened? Why is it always us shooting up our own schools? Why? I don't have an answer, but I think we need to reevaluate our fears given the fact that the opportunities for America's 7 to 10 million Muslims, or the tens of thousands of Muslim visitors in this country to commit acts of terrorism. Only thing lacking was the will. Aside from the fact that American Muslims deserve more credit for being loyal Americans than they do. (This pussy ass crying about a Congressman swearing in on the Quran was an insult to them all.) But there has to be a lack of general will to hurt us and we need to understand why. And ask ourselves with all of these questions about nuking Iran and blinldy supporting Israel and our failure in Iraq, how much credit do we give Muslims here for remaining loyal? You bring up some amazing points and I have wondered why we have not been attacked like this myself. Im wondering if they are just w

sailor

01-07-2007, 10:00 AM

A.J. wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? <a href="http://www.aipac.org/">No, not at all</a>. <a href="http://www.aapac.org/" target="_blank" title="arabs have a pac too">what does that prove?</a>

sailor

01-07-2007, 10:01 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: sr71blackbird wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: boeman wrote: I'm not worried about being nuked by these coutries... but we need to worry about terrorism. As an ally of Isreal, we will also be blamed for any move they make, Including plans to strike. We have yet to prove that the terrorists haven't gotten ahold of tactical nukes themselves... We're alredy damn sure they have the ability to make dirty bombs. I have to say, I'm glad I live in Kansas City because it would be a lower profile target for terrorists... but with the amount of terrorist organizations and fronts that have been shut down here, I would say I am at risk as well. To all of you in the northeast... good luck, bro.You bring up some amazing points and I have wondered why we have not been attacked like this myself. Im wondering if they are just waiting us out to let our guard down and lose faith in our own leadership before they attack again? If so, an attack is imminant (sp?).What the hell are you talking about? "Let our guard down"? For a public shooting spree there is no guard. We do it to ourselves all the time. There's nothing to stop terrorists from doing the same but better. "Lose faith in our leadership"? Why? Why would terrorists give a shit if we have faith in our leaders? Why would that be more important in setting the time for a terrorist attack than, say, the launch of the Iraq war, or the elections? And why wouldn't they define a lack of faith in our leadership when Bush's poll numbers went below 50% like almost two years ago. My point was that this is probably evidence that there are not "sleeper cells" around every corner in America and that American Muslims have earned our trust, whether we give it to them or not. sr71blackbird wrote: You bring up some amazing points Yerdaddy wrote: What the hell are you talking about?let the record show yerdaddy is unbiased in who he bashes. <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/images/smile.gif" border="0" width="15" height="15" /> You're either against me or you're against me!  it's a rough world.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-07-2007, 10:07 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote:As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? Our government does it of their own personal interest. 'Democracy in the Middle East' for some, money for others, God knows what else from yet others motivate this pursuit.  Again with the vieled "anti semitism" reference if someone disagrees with the Israeli right wing's view of the world. You'll have to do better than that with me. I dont let myself be bullied by anyone. Our own interest? Really? You've yet to make the case, so I'll give you another opportunity. Democracy in the Middle East is a crapshoot at best, as evidenced by the Palestinians voting in Hamas in what was by all accounts a free and fair election by international standards. Democratic Turkey refused to let us use their bases and airspace for the Iraq invasion. Dictators and monarchies can be more reliable for our purposes, Mubarak in Egypt, Jordan and the Sauds have been steady allies. "Money" could you please be more vague? I have no idea what you're talking about. It seems you are going to read what you wanna read in my posts, and not read what I actually wrote. That's fine, people are stubborn like that. I'm not calling you an anti-semite, and I tried to make that clear in the first place. I bashed Israel in my last post, yet you think I'm a right wing guy who wants to strike you down as an Anti-semite because you don't agree with me? In the words of Mr.Garrison: Bzzt! Wrong! Try again, Dumbass. I'll give you a not so veiled reference to what I currently think of you: Dumbass who doesn't hate Jews. Happy? I am speaking on a HYPOTHETICAL basis as to why A SELECT FEW INDIVIDUALS IN THE GOVERNMENT would want to support Israel for THEIR own purposes, and this sentence was an afterthought at most. My ultimate point was, American politicians have been supporting Israel along with all the other guys I listed in my previous post for their own reasons, many of which were personal however wrong, flawed they may be, and that I, as a dumbshit messageboard poster, has no idea why these suited up old men care so much about Israel- but they do, so I listed some hypothetical reasons why they do, and it is not something you're supposed to dwell on. There are certainly plenty in Bush's group that have a serious hard on for the notion of Democracy in the Middle East and look to Israel as that one bastion- and it's friendly to America. Why was America so intent on arming Saddam in the 80's? In other words, you're focusing on something that I don't A) believe in B) was creating as a merely hypothetical example as to possibly why these politicians are obsessed with Israel and have been funneling money to them C) was using to point out that our own country, in dealing with Israel like we have Hussein, Bin Laden, etc. can lead to the problems that the latter fellows are giving us today, and thus is retarded and our government's fault in many ways. I hope you can find me accusing you of anti-semitism in this post or my right-wing conspiracy to keep your opinions down, you've obviously got the nose for smelling shit that's not there. 

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 1-7-07 @ 2:34 PM

Fat_Sunny

01-07-2007, 10:11 AM

Not Too Divert From The Main Points, But Fat Just Wants To Clarify One Thing.Both Jews And A-Rabs Are Semites.When People Say That A-Rabs, Or Supporters Of A-Rabs, Are Anti-Semites, It Is A Total Misnomer.A-Rabs That Are Biased Against Jews Are Properly Called Jew-Haters, But Unless They Also Hate Themselves, They Are Not Anti-Semites.Just In Case Inquiring Minds Wanted To Know.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-07-2007, 10:22 AM

Yerdaddy wrote:   This is the problem I have with tactical nukes and the nuclear bunker busters Bush ordered developed - they're too fucking tempting to use under the theory that "they're small so they're not that bad." Doesn't fucking matter. They're nukes, and using them, whatever their size or practical purpose on a battlefield, raises the possibility of them being used again by another country. Right now nobody wants to be the next guy to use nukes. It would be political and economic suicide - the international community's outrage would necessary isolate them which would be the kiss of death. But after that the moral floodgates are open. It would be a big fucking blow to peace in the world.I absolutely agree with you on that! They're an awful idea, and shouldn't be used at all. That's what I mean by we don't want anyone to set a precedent for using nukes- the moral floodgates would most definately open. Think of how much easier it was for Julius Caesar to cross the Rubicon after Sulla had already marched on Rome and set the precedent for another army to threaten the city they were supposed to serve. Same idea.As for Israel being destroyed, well they've got over 200 good nukes and the best US equipment money can buy - although they get most of it for free. They have some American shit that's more advanced than our own. Isreal's neighbors have plenty of American planes and equipment but deliberately less advanced than we give Israel. And they know this. They also probably won't launch a military attack because they're already concearned with the fact that "the new Iraq" represents, with Iran, a new ascendance of Shiia nations that they actually wouldn't mind being weakened. Sunnis and Shiia hate each other. Hate! Now they would be pissed and will look for some symbolic way to punish Israel and the US. And Hezbollah and all the Palestinian organizations would launch an all-out attack with everything they've got. Israel sure as shit doesn't want that. But Israel is not in any risk of being destroyed. None of their "enemies", even combined are even capable militarily of doing it.I was always under the impression that one well placed full scale nuke could wipe out the entirety of Israel, which is really quite a tiny country. I doubt Israel will ever be destroyed, so long as it doesn't use actual nukes, and again, set that moral precedent. It would just be utter strategic suicide, as you well point out. And China and Russia would have no reason to get involved in any major conflict between Israel and the US against the Muslim world. They'll sit out and watch their economies go up relative to our own.         Yep. Hysteria would suggest they would get themselves involved. Well spoken sir!

boeman

01-07-2007, 10:23 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: Dude. What's with your freeways being taller than your buildings. I pulled a U-Haul with my 4-banger pickup through there and thought I was going to fall off or roll backwards! I'm just glad it was night. It's like the fucking Jetsons!We expanded out... not up. much like the fat people (me) of the midwest. Those areas you are talking about are where the Missouri and Kaw river meet, it's a huge floodplain so the buildings get flooded but the freeways are still passable. plus that area houses the old stockyards, and the trainyards of Kansas City so the highways have to go over them. You forgot to mention the crappy statues that some race from a different planet left on our convention center.  Back to the points... the tactical nukes I was referring to are suitcase nukes. Russia states they have some missing. Pakistan has claimed they made at least one during one of the standoffs with India, etc , etc. Your points are very valid and I hope they are correct, but right now with the amount of info being withheld from the public and the amount of BS being spouted to keep us scared, I don't know what to believe. I'm prepared for the worst, but I hope for the best.

boeman

01-07-2007, 10:25 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Not Too Divert From The Main Points, But Fat Just Wants To Clarify One Thing.Both Jews And A-Rabs Are Semites.When People Say That A-Rabs, Or Supporters Of A-Rabs, Are Anti-Semites, It Is A Total Misnomer.A-Rabs That Are Biased Against Jews Are Properly Called Jew-Haters, But Unless They Also Hate Themselves, They Are Not Anti-Semites.Just In Case Inquiring Minds Wanted To Know.Did someone hack your account? Where's the third person statements?

Fat_Sunny

01-07-2007, 10:28 AM

boeman wrote: Did someone hack your account? Where's the third person statements?  See Line 1; After The Comma.  So Says Fat.

boeman

01-07-2007, 10:29 AM

Fat_Sunny wrote: boeman wrote: Did someone hack your account? Where's the third person statements?  See Line 1; After The Comma.  So Says Fat.I guess I'm just a blind rube.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-07-2007, 10:39 AM

boeman wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: Dude. What's with your freeways being taller than your buildings. I pulled a U-Haul with my 4-banger pickup through there and thought I was going to fall off or roll backwards! I'm just glad it was night. It's like the fucking Jetsons!We expanded out... not up. much like the fat people (me) of the midwest. Those areas you are talking about are where the Missouri and Kaw river meet, it's a huge floodplain so the buildings get flooded but the freeways are still passable. plus that area houses the old stockyards, and the trainyards of Kansas City so the highways have to go over them. You forgot to mention the crappy statues that some race from a different planet left on our convention center. Kansas City, right? Some ancestor of mine actually helped design the city itself. Doubt he did any freeway work, so this point really has no validity to what you're talking about. I'm a whore.  Back to the points... the tactical nukes I was referring to are suitcase nukes. Russia states they have some missing. Pakistan has claimed they made at least one during one of the standoffs with India, etc , etc. The so-called suitcase nukes, I have been told, probably would weigh quite a bit more than you could carry in a suitcase. I have nothing else to add to this.  Your points are very valid and I hope they are correct, but right now with the amount of info being withheld from the public and the amount of BS being spouted to keep us scared, I don't know what to believe. I'm prepared for the worst, but I hope for the best. As do we all.

hafast

01-07-2007, 10:46 AM

This is what I like to see.  Instead of blanket statements of what we should be doing, there's some thought and back-and-forth in a discussion of something.  I think this is what a lot of the country could benefit from.  It seems like everyone just takes the stance of their party of choice and leaves it at that.  Anyways, I just wanted to throw out to the folks with the "I don't care, blow it all up" attitude, jokingly, sarcastically, or apathetically, remember that the U.S. has a lot of people in the area, and I know that I for one do not want to see a nuke of any type set off around here.  Bad stuff all around.  BTW, I was stationed in the KC area for a few years, loved the area.  Pissed off at the Chiefs right now, but I won't hold that against the city. end ramble

CofyCrakCocaine

01-07-2007, 11:01 AM

Bulldogcakes wrote: sailor wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote:As for our country this and our country that, do you honestly think our country is being forced into supporting Israel? Our government does it of their own personal interest. 'Democracy in the Middle East' for some, money for others, God knows what else from yet others motivate this pursuit.  i didn't even see any veiled threats of calling someone an anti-semite in there. i think you're reading your own ideas into crak's post. Thats what I'm referring to. Anti semites often claim that Jews either secretly run the country, or have excessive influence, and do so for the benefit of Israel. Maybe you're just not up to date on what the conspiracy kooks are up to these days.   AH, I see what you're referring to. Yeah, that was a rhetorical question, and I did not even think of it as an aside to the conspiracy cunts who say they run the media, etc. The fact that you interpreted it as such is your own business and revealing of how a person can see what they THINK is there as opposed to what is REALLY there, and had nothing to do with my argument. Sailor's right, you're reading your own ideas in my post. Again, you're wrong. I wouldn't have made these asides if I hadn't already told you that I'm NOT calling you out on anti-semitism. Anyway, interpret whatever bullshit I'm not saying as you please. It won't change the fact you're focusing on shit peripheral at best to my argument and that you are missing the real points of this thread's discussion. Are you doing it deliberately? 

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 1-7-07 @ 3:08 PM

CofyCrakCocaine

01-07-2007, 11:18 AM

hafast wrote: This is what I like to see. Instead of blanket statements of what we should be doing, there's some thought and back-and-forth in a discussion of something. I think this is what a lot of the country could benefit from. It seems like everyone just takes the stance of their party of choice and leaves it at that. Anyways, I just wanted to throw out to the folks with the "I don't care, blow it all up" attitude, jokingly, sarcastically, or apathetically, remember that the U.S. has a lot of people in the area, and I know that I for one do not want to see a nuke of any type set off around here. Bad stuff all around.  BTW, I was stationed in the KC area for a few years, loved the area. Pissed off at the Chiefs right now, but I won't hold that against the city. end ramble   My point exactly. Hafast picked up on the crux of my argument right away: Apathy (the word Bdog wanted to use but used a religious term instead) is not a fucking achievement of thinking and while you say you don't care, there's lots of Americans caught up in Israel, so if the country did slide off the map, lots of our people would be going with it; still don't care? I like you sir. Post more often! And yes, KC is a good place. Fucking Chiefs tho.

DJEvelEd

01-07-2007, 11:29 AM

We gave the Shah of Iran nuclear technology in the 60's & 70's! We can blame ourselves!

Here is a basic timeline for Bush's window of opportunity. Scary stuff.

From globalsecurity.org:
December 2004
Sightings of unidentified flying objects in Iranian skies increased in late December 2004. There were sightings in Markazi Province (where Tehran is located) and Bushehr Province (where nuclear reactors are being built). Sightings in Isfahan Province occurred near Arak and Natanz (where other nuclear-related facilities are located). Observers suggested these could be military-reconnaissance aircraft. US combat aircraft allegedly were sighted near Khorramshahr on 29 December and again on 30 December 2004. An anonymous informed source said, "The circling of two American fighter planes on Wednesday and their maneuvers over border areas of Iran and Iraq indicated that the planes were involved in spying." It is not clear if the Iranian antiaircraft units were able to react to the alleged violation of their airspace.

7 November 2006
The US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. It is unclear how the United States election cycle would influence the timing of strikes against Iran. If the White House is risk averse, it would be unlikely to launch strikes in the run-up to the 2006 election [or the 2008 election]. However, as soon as the election concludes, risk averse domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran might be greatly diminished. Alternately, it might be conjectured that the White House might judge that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party. This would argue for timing the strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.

December 2006
Some analysts predicted that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006. As of mid-2003 the CIA reportedly assessed that Iran was two or three years away from developing nuclear weapons. IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei told Der Spiegel 21 February 2005 that if Iran was determined to have nuclear weapons - as the US believes it is - it was "likely to have a bomb in two or three years". These estimates would seem rather pessimistic. A more realistic date would seem to be around 2010.

01 February 2007
The year 2007 begins to mark the closing of the window of opportunity for military strkes against Iran.

CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007, arriving on station around 01 February 2007. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Moving up the Stennis' departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. It is difficult for one Carrier Air Wing [CVW] to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the Carrier Task Force (CTF) is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle.

If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, striking Iran in early February 2007 would allow the maximum time betweeenr the strikes and the 2008 Presidential election.

1-11 February 2007 - Ten-Day Dawn
The 10 Day Dawn (Daheh-ye Fajr) celebrations mark anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. On 12th of Bahman 1357 (01 February 1979), the Imam Khomeini appeared in Iran on the steps of an Air France plane. The great crowd of people who had gone to welcome their Imam we

Ogre

01-07-2007, 11:41 AM

wow...that's all I can say Ed..is wow.   Somebody to remind me to check, "#69 Doing rails off a hooker's ass" off of my list by Dec 2009.  Thanks.

sailor

01-07-2007, 12:10 PM

Fat_Sunny wrote: Not Too Divert From The Main Points, But Fat Just Wants To Clarify One Thing.Both Jews And A-Rabs Are Semites.When People Say That A-Rabs, Or Supporters Of A-Rabs, Are Anti-Semites, It Is A Total Misnomer.A-Rabs That Are Biased Against Jews Are Properly Called Jew-Haters, But Unless They Also Hate Themselves, They Are Not Anti-Semites.Just In Case Inquiring Minds Wanted To Know. i had a muslim friend who used to say this all the time, but it's a silly argument that takes you away from the point of the anti-semitism.  this is how the phrase is used today.  get used to it.

Bulldogcakes

01-07-2007, 12:20 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote:AH, I see what you're referring to. Yeah, that was a rhetorical question, and I did not even think of it as an aside to the conspiracy cunts who say they run the media, etc. The fact that you interpreted it as such is your own business and revealing of how a person can see what they THINK is there as opposed to what is REALLY there, and had nothing to do with my argument. Sailor's right, you're reading your own ideas in my post. Again, you're wrong. I wouldn't have made these asides if I hadn't already told you that I'm NOT calling you out on anti-semitism. Anyway, interpret whatever bullshit I'm not saying as you please. It won't change the fact you're focusing on shit peripheral at best to my argument and that you are missing the real points of this thread's discussion. Are you doing it deliberately? What exactly is your argument? That Israel doesn't deserve to be nuked? I thought we moved past that already, and you've YET to directly answer my direct question, so I'll try again for a 3rd and final time.Why is it in the US national interest to support the state of Israel? Please respond with something tangible, not some vague platitudes that politicians use which sound as if they actually mean something, but dont.

epo

01-07-2007, 12:32 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: The story is bogus - more or less. It's a right-wing attempt to help out Bush in his strategy to force Iran to end it's nuclear program. So you're telling me that a report from the Drudge Report as originally given by the Sunday Times (UK), which is run by News Corp. is bogus?  Shocker that Rupert Murdoch would be behind such a thing!

A.J.

01-07-2007, 12:34 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: Why is it in the US national interest to support the state of Israel? Because that's where Baby Jesus was born, silly!

CofyCrakCocaine

01-07-2007, 12:45 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote:  What exactly is your argument? That Israel doesn't deserve to be nuked? I thought we moved past that already, and you've YET to directly answer my direct question, so I'll try again for a 3rd and final time.Why is it in the US national interest to support the state of Israel? Please respond with something tangible, not some vague platitudes that politicians use which sound as if they actually mean something, but dont.    You don't seem to understand that I am not saying in any way that it's the US national interest to support the state of Israel, but rather the interest of a select group of men who think incorrectly that it is the US national interest. Read my post I made at 2:07 pm if you want to understand what I was talking about in that paragraph, and why I'm not going to waste time talking at length about a point I wasn't making. You're talking about something that I wasn't focusing on. My point is that we're to blame for alot of the shit in the Middle East in terms of what's going on. That was the point of that single paragraph in a post full of paragraphs. If you don't understand still, then you're beyond hope of understanding.You have an agenda with that question, and you are placing that question into a thread that's talking about Israel talking about nuking Iran. The threat of nuclear war is the point of this thread, and lots of people are still talking about it, so no, we haven't moved beyond it. You're trying to make it about your own agenda about how we should cut off Israel financially and your own hypersensitivity to honest questions. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder. And no, I don't think the US national interest is in supporting the state of Israel. But the US national interest is different from the interest of the politicians who are in charge of supporting Israel. It's not in the US national interest to be in Iraq, yet there we are because some politicians wanted us there. If you still don't understand, oh well. Post a new thread talking about why we shouldn't support Israel, and I will talk about it in there. This thread's about why nuclear war is bad and our response to this obviously faulty report posted by Kevin. Stay on topic.

Yerdaddy

01-08-2007, 12:26 AM

[quote]DJEvelEd wrote: We gave the Shah of Iran nuclear technology in the 60's & 70's! We can blame ourselves! Here is a basic timeline for Bush's window of opportunity. Scary stuff. From globalsecurity.org: December 2004 Sightings of unidentified flying objects in Iranian skies increased in late December 2004. There were sightings in Markazi Province (where Tehran is located) and Bushehr Province (where nuclear reactors are being built). Sightings in Isfahan Province occurred near Arak and Natanz (where other nuclear-related facilities are located). Observers suggested these could be military-reconnaissance aircraft. US combat aircraft allegedly were sighted near Khorramshahr on 29 December and again on 30 December 2004. An anonymous informed source said, "The circling of two American fighter planes on Wednesday and their maneuvers over border areas of Iran and Iraq indicated that the planes were involved in spying." It is not clear if the Iranian antiaircraft units were able to react to the alleged violation of their airspace. 7 November 2006 The US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. It is unclear how the United States election cycle would influence the timing of strikes against Iran. If the White House is risk averse, it would be unlikely to launch strikes in the run-up to the 2006 election [or the 2008 election]. However, as soon as the election concludes, risk averse domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran might be greatly diminished. Alternately, it might be conjectured that the White House might judge that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party. This would argue for timing the strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise. December 2006 Some analysts predicted that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006. As of mid-2003 the CIA reportedly assessed that Iran was two or three years away from developing nuclear weapons. IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei told Der Spiegel 21 February 2005 that if Iran was determined to have nuclear weapons - as the US believes it is - it was “likely to have a bomb in two or three years”. These estimates would seem rather pessimistic. A more realistic date would seem to be around 2010. 01 February 2007 The year 2007 begins to mark the closing of the window of opportunity for military strkes against Iran. CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007, arriving on station around 01 February 2007. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Moving up the Stennis’ departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. It is difficult for one Carrier Air Wing [CVW] to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the Carrier Task Force (CTF) is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle. If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, striking Iran in early February 2007 would allow the maximum time betweeenr the strikes and the 2008 Presidential election. 1-11 February 2007 - Ten-Day Dawn The 10 Day Dawn (Daheh-ye Fajr) celebrations mark anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. On 12th of Bahman

Yerdaddy

01-08-2007, 12:51 AM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  What exactly is your argument? That Israel doesn't deserve to be nuked? I thought we moved past that already, and you've YET to directly answer my direct question, so I'll try again for a 3rd and final time.Why is it in the US national interest to support the state of Israel? Please respond with something tangible, not some vague platitudes that politicians use which sound as if they actually mean something, but dont.    You don't seem to understand that I am not saying in any way that it's the US national interest to support the state of Israel, but rather the interest of a select group of men who think incorrectly that it is the US national interest. Read my post I made at 2:07 pm if you want to understand what I was talking about in that paragraph, and why I'm not going to waste time talking at length about a point I wasn't making. You're talking about something that I wasn't focusing on. My point is that we're to blame for alot of the shit in the Middle East in terms of what's going on. That was the point of that single paragraph in a post full of paragraphs. If you don't understand still, then you're beyond hope of understanding.You have an agenda with that question, and you are placing that question into a thread that's talking about Israel talking about nuking Iran. The threat of nuclear war is the point of this thread, and lots of people are still talking about it, so no, we haven't moved beyond it. You're trying to make it about your own agenda about how we should cut off Israel financially and your own hypersensitivity to honest questions. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder. And no, I don't think the US national interest is in supporting the state of Israel. But the US national interest is different from the interest of the politicians who are in charge of supporting Israel. It's not in the US national interest to be in Iraq, yet there we are because some politicians wanted us there. If you still don't understand, oh well. Post a new thread talking about why we shouldn't support Israel, and I will talk about it in there. This thread's about why nuclear war is bad and our response to this obviously faulty report posted by Kevin. Stay on topic. Honestly, I don't understand what you guys are arguing about. I think somebody misunderstood something somewhere and now you're both arguing two different things. You could probably kiss and make up and forget the whole thing at this point. Or not.

sailor

01-08-2007, 12:52 AM

Yerdaddy wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  What exactly is your argument? That Israel doesn't deserve to be nuked? I thought we moved past that already, and you've YET to directly answer my direct question, so I'll try again for a 3rd and final time.Why is it in the US national interest to support the state of Israel? Please respond with something tangible, not some vague platitudes that politicians use which sound as if they actually mean something, but dont.    You don't seem to understand that I am not saying in any way that it's the US national interest to support the state of Israel, but rather the interest of a select group of men who think incorrectly that it is the US national interest. Read my post I made at 2:07 pm if you want to understand what I was talking about in that paragraph, and why I'm not going to waste time talking at length about a point I wasn't making. You're talking about something that I wasn't focusing on. My point is that we're to blame for alot of the shit in the Middle East in terms of what's going on. That was the point of that single paragraph in a post full of paragraphs. If you don't understand still, then you're beyond hope of understanding.You have an agenda with that question, and you are placing that question into a thread that's talking about Israel talking about nuking Iran. The threat of nuclear war is the point of this thread, and lots of people are still talking about it, so no, we haven't moved beyond it. You're trying to make it about your own agenda about how we should cut off Israel financially and your own hypersensitivity to honest questions. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder. And no, I don't think the US national interest is in supporting the state of Israel. But the US national interest is different from the interest of the politicians who are in charge of supporting Israel. It's not in the US national interest to be in Iraq, yet there we are because some politicians wanted us there. If you still don't understand, oh well. Post a new thread talking about why we shouldn't support Israel, and I will talk about it in there. This thread's about why nuclear war is bad and our response to this obviously faulty report posted by Kevin. Stay on topic. Honestly, I don't understand what you guys are arguing about. I think somebody misunderstood something somewhere and now you're both arguing two different things. You could probably kiss and make up and forget the whole thing at this point. Or not. what's the fun in that?

CofyCrakCocaine

01-08-2007, 12:59 AM

It's just politics...typical stupid politics...sometimes you just run into someone who is a complete brick wall and just wants to talk about what he wants to talk about, and you can't reason with him. Nothing personal, but it gets very boring and ruins a good discussion. Might be fun for you spectators, but not fun for me. I took umbrage at the fact that he imagined up me charging him with anti-semitism, and that's where it took off.It's not really worth continuing at this point. If he wants to talk about Israel and supporting it, I'll do some actual research and post my stance on why or why not we should support Israel, etc., in a new thread later. I just wanted to talk about how nuclear war is bad, something a six year old can talk about.  How's the hammer hanging?

Yerdaddy

01-08-2007, 04:13 AM

sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote:  What exactly is your argument? That Israel doesn't deserve to be nuked? I thought we moved past that already, and you've YET to directly answer my direct question, so I'll try again for a 3rd and final time.Why is it in the US national interest to support the state of Israel? Please respond with something tangible, not some vague platitudes that politicians use which sound as if they actually mean something, but dont.   You don't seem to understand that I am not saying in any way that it's the US national interest to support the state of Israel, but rather the interest of a select group of men who think incorrectly that it is the US national interest. Read my post I made at 2:07 pm if you want to understand what I was talking about in that paragraph, and why I'm not going to waste time talking at length about a point I wasn't making. You're talking about something that I wasn't focusing on. My point is that we're to blame for alot of the shit in the Middle East in terms of what's going on. That was the point of that single paragraph in a post full of paragraphs. If you don't understand still, then you're beyond hope of understanding.You have an agenda with that question, and you are placing that question into a thread that's talking about Israel talking about nuking Iran. The threat of nuclear war is the point of this thread, and lots of people are still talking about it, so no, we haven't moved beyond it. You're trying to make it about your own agenda about how we should cut off Israel financially and your own hypersensitivity to honest questions. You clearly have a chip on your shoulder. And no, I don't think the US national interest is in supporting the state of Israel. But the US national interest is different from the interest of the politicians who are in charge of supporting Israel. It's not in the US national interest to be in Iraq, yet there we are because some politicians wanted us there. If you still don't understand, oh well. Post a new thread talking about why we shouldn't support Israel, and I will talk about it in there. This thread's about why nuclear war is bad and our response to this obviously faulty report posted by Kevin. Stay on topic. Honestly, I don't understand what you guys are arguing about. I think somebody misunderstood something somewhere and now you're both arguing two different things. You could probably kiss and make up and forget the whole thing at this point. Or not. what's the fun in that? The kissing part.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-08-2007, 04:44 AM

This discussion went from sexless to sexy fast.

Ritalin

01-08-2007, 04:54 AM

I can't decide between egg whites and oatmeal this morning. Usually I know right away which one I want, but not this morning.<>Oh, look, it's raining outside.

CofyCrakCocaine

01-08-2007, 04:56 AM

Ham n' Eggs, all the way.

DJEvelEd

01-08-2007, 07:22 AM

Well let's hope for a diplomatic solution in Iran. Maybe a Gore/Clinton Whitehouse would push for that. (not that I would vote for those republicrats, I always vote 3rd party)

Iran is now surrounded by American forces and Bush may want to use one of his "windows of opportunity" to start more shit. I'm sure he realizes that Iran is much bigger than Iraq and has many more men & even kids that will fight to the death. Can the USA fight multiple wars by itself?

BTW: If terrorists sent nukes up to the North Pole and blew off a chunk of it, causing mass flooding in the USA, would that be considered a direct attack on the USA? Would we have the right to nuke their country, even though their country never shot a nuke at us directly?
What if the terrorists blowing up the North Pole were Saudi's? See what I'm saying ? Terrorists will strike at our weaknesses, and use our technology against us. What's to stop them from nuking the North Pole? There's no security there...
Maybe no culpability either...

.



This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-8-07 @ 4:26 PM

cougarjake13

01-08-2007, 04:15 PM

DJEvelEd wrote: Well let's hope for a diplomatic solution in Iran. Maybe a Gore/Clinton Whitehouse would push for that. (not that I would vote for those republicrats, I always vote 3rd party) Iran is now surrounded by American forces and Bush may want to use one of his "windows of opportunity" to start more shit. I'm sure he realizes that Iran is much bigger than Iraq and has many more men & even kids that will fight to the death. Can the USA fight multiple wars by itself? BTW: If terrorists sent nukes up to the North Pole and blew off a chunk of it, causing mass flooding in the USA, would that be considered a direct attack on the USA? Would we have the right to nuke their country, even though their country never shot a nuke at us directly? What if the terrorists blowing up the North Pole were Saudi's? See what I'm saying ? Terrorists will strike at our weaknesses, and use our technology against us. What's to stop them from nuking the North Pole? There's no security there... Maybe no culpability either... . This message was edited by DJEvelEd on 1-8-07 @ 4:26 PM well that would not only put us in danger but definitely canada and the world as well so i think we'd have no problem bombing the shit out of them

Bulldogcakes

01-08-2007, 04:40 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote:I just wanted to talk about how nuclear war is bad, something a six year old can talk about.  That was my impression of our little debate.

Bulldogcakes

01-08-2007, 04:44 PM

Yerdaddy wrote: sailor wrote: Yerdaddy wrote:what's the fun in that? The kissing part. OK fine. I'll spread my ass cheeks . . . . here . . . thats right . . . . a little tongue you little bitch . . . . . yeah . . oh yeah, thats it.  Better?

CofyCrakCocaine

01-08-2007, 07:39 PM

Bulldogcakes wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote:I just wanted to talk about how nuclear war is bad, something a six year old can talk about.  That was my impression of our little debate.     Sigh... <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wallbash.gif" border="0" /> I wouldn't say it was a debate, it was about as effective as trying to convince a Creationist that Dinosaurs lived 60 million years before man, but you certainly are as stubborn as a big ol' rock. I'll give ya that.  

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 1-8-07 @ 11:46 PM

CofyCrakCocaine

01-08-2007, 07:47 PM

CofyCrakCocaine wrote: Bulldogcakes wrote: CofyCrakCocaine wrote:I just wanted to talk about how nuclear war is bad, something a six year old can talk about.  That was my impression of our little debate. Sigh... <img src="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/tiny_mce/plugins/emotions/images/wallbash.gif" border="0" /> I wouldn't say it was a debate, it was about as effective and useful as trying to convince a Creationist that Dinosaurs lived 60 million years before man, but you certainly are as stubborn as a big ol' rock. I'll give ya that. Edit: Oops, somehow double posted that one by mistake. Sorry mods.  

This message was edited by CofyCrakCocaine on 1-8-07 @ 11:50 PM