# north korea calling out bush



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

fox 5 news said something about the UN chargen NK sanctions

then that NK guy said 
"that would be a decliration of war"

who the hell else are they gonna go to war with 
even if they dont start with the US 
were gonna have to go fight this war also

so a war is up to the UN

why didnt we take over the world

life would be so much easier if we all had the same rules


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

each of your political posts are the same bullshit...''we should take over the world and everyone would be happy'' or ''we should nuke them all''...yeah right







I hope this is a joke


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

canadians can be like you because the US will always protect you

otherwise your all not smart enuff to realize 
the nukes that hit us 
will screw yous also
anyways 
anyone else hear about this sanction stuff 
is it like a fine 
or readjusting the rules so they dont fire anymore
cuz if its the fire issue 
do they really think there gonna stop?


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

matc said:


> each of your political posts are the same bullshit...''we should take over the world and everyone would be happy'' or ''we should nuke them all''...yeah right
> 
> 
> 
> ...


its not a joke, but hemi means well, after all its the thought that counts..

actually the NK leader kimjung ill or whatever the f his name, he is about as far off his rocker as the iranina president. there both flipping mentally unstable..

you cat just go to war with NK they have alot of allies just like us..

to put it in better terms for hemi, 
there is a crew of dudes and there all alittle crazy but north korea is the really crazy one.

so there like hey lest go jack some cars then north korea is like yeah thats a great idea then we can rape some lions at the zoo, and the rest of his crew is like dude you gotta chill out...


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Good luck messing with North Korea. They've got enough ordnance on the DMZ to level Seoul which is the largest city in the world.


----------



## matc (Jul 31, 2004)

I'm not talking about North Korea. I'm talking about your mentality...


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

see candians know about that nuclear barrier that seprates them fro the rest of north america

plastic sheets 
and 
DUCT TAPE

woo-hoo were all nuclear proof


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

I live in Seoul and I can tell you South Koreans are not stressed about this. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the "Dear Leader" for a long time. It's all about media attention. Kim Jung Il may be crazy, but he is not stupid, trust me. He has a family legacy and seat of power that is far more important to him than causing a war. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula he knows that his seat of power would be threatened and he definately doesn't want that to happen.

I think before talking so lightly of nuclear war







it may be a good idea to look at the situation from another angle/perspective and take into account some of the motivations and the "politics" involved here.

Jay


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Hemi said:


> see candians know about that nuclear barrier that seprates them fro the rest of north america
> 
> plastic sheets
> and
> ...


dude. dont class all canadians into the same boat.

i for one dont share the same ideas as the guy from quebec.

i think North korea is f*cking nuts, and i also know that our country isnt capable of defending itself, so we rely on the US and UK forces.lol

ive always said if North korea starts a war id join up. but i wouldnt join up to go to Iraq, as i dont agree as much with it. but north korea is f8cking nuts.

but seriously, not all canadians think like stoned hippies. some of us are normal.lol


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Hemi said:


> canadians can be like you because the US will always protect you
> 
> otherwise your all not smart enuff to realize
> the nukes that hit us
> ...


Listen you uninformed meat sack. Time to go to school;

1) You aren't in range of north Korea's nukes. Nukes won't hit you, and they won't hit us

2) Never in the history of the United States or Canada have you protected us from a single invader.

Maybe I misunderstood the intention of your post because I'm not fluent in idiot and it seems to be your native tongue, but it seems as though you're badly in need of getting outside, finding a book, and learning a bit about whatever the hell you're trying to say.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

and for the record. canada is the only country to SUCCESSFULLY invade the US.lol

we burned down part of the white house in 1812.hehehe.

most ppl dont know that.

altho these days our forces would have trouble even finding the border.lol


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

Hemi said:


> and for the record. canada is the only country to SUCCESSFULLY invade the US.lol
> 
> we burned down part of the white house in 1812.hehehe.
> 
> ...


What do you mean we? That was me man.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

hey twit-ch
a nuke could come from mexico 
and your country will suffer also 
so why dont you get the book and read a little 
stop playing around with a camera 
and figure out what your gonna do if they nuke northern USA

oh but wait im sure you got some duct tape and plastic wrap to save you


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

Hemi said:


> hey twit-ch
> a nuke could come from mexico
> and your country will suffer also
> so why dont you get the book and read a little
> ...










You have got to be kidding me...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

This sh*t is bananas

b-a-n-a-n-a-s

sorry


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

dude..duct tape is a life saver...

dont disrespect duct tape!!

but seriously? why does everything negative you say about canada have to do with duct tape and plastic?

we use tinfoil hats to protect ourselves up here.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

for the record twitch, in the history of both the US and canada, has either been successfully been invaded by an organized army of another country? not to my knowledge. i give canada snipers props where they're due, those mo-fo's can shoot a bullet.

gotta agree with hemi too, im sure cuba would have no problem taking on some missile bases...anyone remember 1962? when one of the best presidents this country has seen bailed us out of a nuclear war?

also, hemi...i think it was the US, with our brilliant administration, recommending duct-tape and plastic wrap iirc in the event of a terrorist attack...hahahahaha














just in-case i get half my head blown off by an IED, i'll be all set if i have my duct tape and plastic wrap...hahahaha


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

r1dermon. check into the history books man.

the canadians, augmented with some british (or it might have been frog) forces came over the border and burned down part of the white house in 1812.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington it says that it was british forces. but it's better put as "commonwealth" forces. it was british and canadians, organized into a legit army, who retaliated on the US destruction of parts of canada...so we burnt down part of the whitehouse.lol

but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?

if you call coming in to WW2 late "protecting" then i would have to disagree. we backed your country up in afghanistan and our snipers saved hundreds, if not thousands of US soldiers in some of the mountain fighting. we give you guys electricity and fresh water...

and how are repaid?? oh yeah, your governent steals $5.2 billion dollars in illegal softwood lumber taxes.

great protection if you ask me...lol


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> ...anyone remember 1962?


actually... no.


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

...i can't stand hippies...

why doesn't canada worry about nukes... because they're not busy fu*kin up relationships all over the world??? that is the touchiest feeliest P.O.S. comment i've ever heard... diplomacy, clean water, enough food to eat... that's all fine and dandy... staying out of other people's business... great... do you honestly think that if the US satisfied every other nation in the world that we or the world would be better off?? ...short answer... no...

power, whether it's guns, bombs, or economic sanctions etc is the only thing that will keep a psycho like KJIl in line...

Twitch, you're usually pretty level headed so good for you...

Hemi, seriously... educate yourself before you go shooting your mouth off... i lean toward your side on this, but you'll alienate more people than you win over going about it the way you do...


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

acestro said:


> ...anyone remember 1962?


actually... no.:laugh:
[/quote]

Actually, I believe GG was just entering his 50's during that year.


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

Puff said:


> but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?


...read up on game theory...

let's say somebody wants to invade Canada... they can decide to invade or not invade...

immediate consequences:

Invade: roll through Canada like the Nazis rolled through Poland - invaders win
Don't invade: Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

Canada's turn:

if Invade: Call on US; us runs sh*t - invaders lose
if Don't invade : Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

so basically, if invaders invade they lose, if they don't then it's they dont get pummeled...

why doesn't the US "protect" Canada?

nobody's f*cking stupid enough to invade Canada because the US will ALWAYS back up an ally...


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

An ally?

I feel like an ally when I got to Canada and get flipped off because of my plates.

Nobody invades Canada because were f*cking Canada. The only country we have beef with is Denmark, because they are trying to steal one of our polar islands. But our rescue chopped scared them off apparently. Haha.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Calling Kennedy one of our greatest presidents is a joke. I hope you were joking? You were joking... right?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Puff said:


> r1dermon. check into the history books man.
> 
> the canadians, augmented with some british (or it might have been frog) forces came over the border and burned down part of the white house in 1812.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington it says that it was british forces. but it's better put as "commonwealth" forces. it was british and canadians, organized into a legit army, who retaliated on the US destruction of parts of canada...so we burnt down part of the whitehouse.lol
> ...


the army that came accross was not an organized army representing a government of another country. the only time america has ever been attacked in any of its 50 states was pearl harbor, by any organized army representing another country. the only time we've ever been attacked as a country on our mainland was 9/11/01, but that was a group of guerilla warriors if you will, the new "cool" term is "terrorist".

im really not getting into an america is better than canada debate, because thats not how i feel, both have their strong points, both have their weak points. the fact is, america hands out more aid than anyone, and we damn well should, as well off as we are, but what do we get in return? a sh*t load of flak. im not saying "poor us" we can handle ourselves, our army/navy/airforce is the largest combined military power on earth, we've got more aircraft carrier fleets than the rest of the world, COMBINED. obviously there are people (leaders of other countries) who have a problem with this, and so they feel like we need to be "thinned out". now, i dont necessarily agree with the hypocritical notion that we can have nukes and nobody else can, i dont think that that's fair, and i also dont think that that's a good way to win allies. however, on the flip side, i also dont think that mentally derranged leaders should have access to those weapons simply because they want to blow sh*t up. that's not the intention of the US, and thats not the intention of most of the other nations with nuclear capabilities.

at the end of the day, if you're an ally of the US, then most likely, you having nuclear power is not going to be a big deal to us, but if you're an idiot, who constantly threatens other countries, and carries out attrocities for no reason other than "religion" or "philosophy" then most likely the US and its allies are not going to be warm and fuzzy with you having nuclear power.

and dont forget, iirc ALL of the hijackers on 9/11 came through the canadian border... "great protection if you ask me"...it swings both ways dude, thats not a real debate, its unintelligent at best and progresses nowhere except in creating a polarized mindset in which the priorities are insults and one liners, and the non-priorities are discussions of solutions to nuclear weapons and war.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?


...read up on game theory...

let's say somebody wants to invade Canada... they can decide to invade or not invade...

immediate consequences:

Invade: roll through Canada like the Nazis rolled through Poland - invaders win
Don't invade: Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

Canada's turn:

*if Invade: Call on US; us runs sh*t - invaders lose*
if Don't invade : Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

so basically, if invaders invade they lose, if they don't then it's they dont get pummeled...

why doesn't the US "protect" Canada?

nobody's f*cking stupid enough to invade Canada because the US will ALWAYS back up an ally...
[/quote]

hahahaha. sorry man. but there's this crazy thing called the "Commonwealth" which Canada is a part of. altho i dont deny the fact that America would "back us up" if we were attacked, the UK has been, and always will be the first to help us, as we are part of the commonwealth.

and what you just said doesnt prove a thing about WHEN the US protected us. all you used was theories....none of which have ever happened...

im talking about actual "protection" that has ACTUALLY happened. not some theory that ppl have.

also, in the future, the US is the most likely country to invade canada. we have more fresh water than we can use...and the US is quickly running out of fresh water.

in the future fresh water sources will be more valuable than oil wells, and America's thirst for fresh water will one day rival their thirst for oil in the present day. many historians and those sorts have all said that. and it isnt too hard to imagine happening.

i dont think it would happen in the next 50 years. but eventually you guys will run out of water, and our unprotected, wide open borders will prove too easy a target for the US to NOT invade.

it's common sense. water = life. no water = death.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> Calling Kennedy one of our greatest presidents is a joke. I hope you were joking? You were joking... right?


yeah...its a big joke dude! seriously! like, he only saved the entire US and the rest of the world for that matter from being vaporized in a 2 week period during his what...2...3 years total in office? that one thing alone makes him one of the best presidents ever. please tell me why you think so lowly of him? perhaps its because anne coulter told you that he wasnt so good? or was it hannity?


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> An ally?
> 
> I feel like an ally when I got to Canada and get flipped off because of my plates.
> 
> Nobody invades Canada because were f*cking Canada. The only country we have beef with is Denmark, because they are trying to steal one of our polar islands. But our rescue chopped scared them off apparently. Haha.


dude. i was just in denmark. i f*cking HATE that country. they all smoke like chimney's, their airport is one of the most retardedly constructed airports ive ever been in, most of their women are hideous...

the only good part about them is some of their beer.lol

stupid Danish...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1,
Its funny you mention aide we give. We may give the most, but if you break it down, %wise we are one of the bottom contributing countries.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

yeah, but your country makes so much money that it's still more than anyone else.

being a super power must be nice









*goes and hides in igloo*


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> r1,
> Its funny you mention aide we give. We may give the most, but if you break it down, %wise we are one of the bottom contributing countries.


are you seriously telling me that? did i seriously just quote YOU saying that?!?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA....you f*cking socialist you...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> Calling Kennedy one of our greatest presidents is a joke. I hope you were joking? You were joking... right?


yeah...its a big joke dude! seriously! like, he only saved the entire US and the rest of the world for that matter from being vaporized in a 2 week period during his what...2...3 years total in office? that one thing alone makes him one of the best presidents ever. please tell me why you think so lowly of him? perhaps its because anne coulter told you that he wasnt so good? or was it hannity?
[/quote]

You need to do some better research on the cuban missle crisis. The soviets wanted to put nukes on cuban in response to us putting nukes in the uk, italy and turkey. To defuse the situation Kennedy bargained with the soviets. We removed the nukes from turkey.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

> and dont forget, iirc ALL of the hijackers on 9/11 came through the canadian border... "great protection if you ask me"...it swings both ways dude, thats not a real debate, its unintelligent at best and progresses nowhere except in creating a polarized mindset in which the priorities are insults and one liners, and the non-priorities are discussions of solutions to nuclear weapons and war


What do you mean? Didnt they train and live in the states? Dont you need proper ID to learn how to fly a plane?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> r1,
> Its funny you mention aide we give. We may give the most, but if you break it down, %wise we are one of the bottom contributing countries.


are you seriously telling me that? did i seriously just quote YOU saying that?!?!?!?! HAHAHAHAHA....you f*cking socialist you...
[/quote]










No, I mentioned it because you yet again are strewing facts so ridiclous. You cant twist truth to suit your arguement








Your whole point about how good the US is because we give so much is bullshit. If you know the conditions we give money you would be disgusted as well...


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > and dont forget, iirc ALL of the hijackers on 9/11 came through the canadian border... "great protection if you ask me"...it swings both ways dude, thats not a real debate, its unintelligent at best and progresses nowhere except in creating a polarized mindset in which the priorities are insults and one liners, and the non-priorities are discussions of solutions to nuclear weapons and war
> 
> 
> What do you mean? Didnt they train and live in the states? Dont you need proper ID to learn how to fly a plane?


not to mention that when you go from Canada TO the States over the border, then it's American Customs and border guards dealing with the ppl.

when ppl are heading from the US TO Canada then it's canadian border guards...


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

Puff said:


> but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?


...read up on game theory...

let's say somebody wants to invade Canada... they can decide to invade or not invade...

immediate consequences:

Invade: roll through Canada like the Nazis rolled through Poland - invaders win
Don't invade: Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

Canada's turn:

*if Invade: Call on US; us runs sh*t - invaders lose*
if Don't invade : Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

so basically, if invaders invade they lose, if they don't then it's they dont get pummeled...

why doesn't the US "protect" Canada?

nobody's f*cking stupid enough to invade Canada because the US will ALWAYS back up an ally...
[/quote]

hahahaha. sorry man. but there's this crazy thing called the "Commonwealth" which Canada is a part of. altho i dont deny the fact that America would "back us up" if we were attacked, the UK has been, and always will be the first to help us, as we are part of the commonwealth.

and what you just said doesnt prove a thing about WHEN the US protected us. all you used was theories....none of which have ever happened...

im talking about actual "protection" that has ACTUALLY happened. not some theory that ppl have.

also, in the future, the US is the most likely country to invade canada. we have more fresh water than we can use...and the US is quickly running out of fresh water.

in the future fresh water sources will be more valuable than oil wells, and America's thirst for fresh water will one day rival their thirst for oil in the present day. many historians and those sorts have all said that. and it isnt too hard to imagine happening.

i dont think it would happen in the next 50 years. but eventually you guys will run out of water, and our unprotected, wide open borders will prove too easy a target for the US to NOT invade.

it's common sense. water = life. no water = death.
[/quote]

first you're gonna ream me for using a theory and then you're gonna ream me some more using a theory that says we're gonna invade canada over WATER... over F*CKING WATER???? THE MOST ABUNDANT RESOURCE OR THE PLANET?????????

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHhahahHAHSDHAFSHAHHhHHhhahhafhahahhahF

ROFLMAOWMTUMA...

for those of you that dont know... that means "rolling on floor laughing my ass off with my thumb up my ass"

seriously, i laughed when i read that... that is far and away the most asinine i've read on this thread... it rivals that thread about the guy who fed his RBP's peppers to kill bacteria in their stomachs...

the whole point of my "theory" is that there's no need for anybody to defend canada... why? is it because canada's such a nice country with such nice people with such pretty trees and flowers and clean water??

NO.... no, no , no, no, no, no NO!! FUC*ING NO!!! F*CK!!!!

nobody in their right mind would ever invade Canada... this isn't because of Canada's foreign policy with terrorists or because canada is full of hippies who would rather take a nuke up the ass rather than step on anybody's toes... it's because anybody who would want to fight canada knows they would be dealing with the US ...(and the "commonwealth" i suppose)

need i remind you that canada spawned from france?? do you know how many times the US saved France's ass??? ...i don't actually know

if your theory of how valuable your fu*king clean water is is actually true, then why aren't people trying to take over canada so they'll have all the valuable water when the time comes??

there are 2 possibilities...

1) you're theory is complete sh*t...
2) my "theory" says that even if your theory is true, people still wouldn't invade canada because the US would "put a boot in their ass... it's the American way"

...by the way, it's not one OR two... it's one AND two...

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

i was simply using one theory in the same way that you used one.

but you just proved yourself a complete f*cking twat with that post.

i hope the doc dropped you on your head when you were born. or else they're starting to let the mentally handicapped breed. i feel sorry for your children...if you ever figure out how to concieve one.

and what's up with the generic "god bless america" bullshit at the end of your post. try to be original for once buddy, or is that what you always say when you think you've proven yourself?


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

no one would invade canada ever

this is why

the US would not allow it 
it would make it way to easy to hurt us

so in all reallity 
you guys never need a dam army 
cuz we will fight your battles

and El---Twit---cho
keep your head up your ass 
if the country has a nuke and an airport 
they can drop that nuke on anyone
delay a flight to LA 
send a plane up with a nuke 
as its going to land 
drop the nuke

long range short range 
nukes kill long after there dropped 
i believe its 15 years for the radiation to be livable again

and the fact you could be obliviuos to the fact that 
if 1 nuke is launched 
then more are to come 
makes me wonder if your french canadian

if we were talking no nuke 
i wouldnt give a sh*t 
i would go to my other house up in the mountians 
its so far away from anything 
id be safe 
oneonta is the closest major town to the house 
and thats still 30 mins away

think about this 
instead of sending AID to other countries 
if we just took over 
our economy would be that much better 
cuz we wouldnt be owed money
we would make the world diffrent 
other countries could keep ther beliefs 
in religon and traditions 
but have commonly followed laws 
like dont kill people and such
and they would have a better way of life
instead of there blatently corrupt governments 
they could have our super duper cover up specialists for a government
and maybe with our police force there 
they could have a normal way of life 
some sorta peace 
the AID money could be used to for instance 
make man made rivers through africa 
that would help there soil become fertile
there countries would also benifit from our economy 
and they might actually make more in salaries
i mean there are countries like the US out there 
were they try to keep social morals up 
we aint perfectionist at it 
be were doing a pretty good dam job

also the best most obvious point 
there would be no more need to worry if the US is gonna
KICK YOUR ASS

so in all reality 
would it be so bad if the middle east , africa , and other tuff to live places 
were part of the US ???/

this country 
these united states 
were born fighting 
we kicked the englishes ass 
and made our country great

we stopped the dam south in there crusade to destroy our states

and prevaled in making an awsome place to be 
when we win 
were usually right 
its just the sweet smell of freedom 
has been lost in the minds of some people 
to were its not right to fight

if its worth something 
then its worth fighting for 
and thats the god dammed truth


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

why dont we all roll a gigantic cross continent fatty and all get stoned?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dude, ok...what's your point? do we not give the most aid out of anyone in the world? im sure i'd be disgusted at a lot of things, but the fact is the fact, and the fact is, america gives more money than anyone in the world...not to mention military services.

and danny, the whole point of my argument went way over your head...go back and reread.

as for the cuban missile crisis, haha, this is my strong point, so i'd be glad to argue this with you forever...it's true, america had placed ICBM's carrying nuclear missiles in the UK, Italy and Turkey, and it's also true that the ones in turkey were not only capable of striking the soviet union, but that was their PURPOSE. however, the soviets knew this, and the US openly admitted to it. obviously the soviets were outraged however, they LIED about constructing ICBM launchers in cuba, and they also lied about shipping nuclear warheads to cuba, and they also lied about having any desire to attack america. the FACT is, that the soviets shipped their missiles (40ish in total iirc) to cuba and constructed sites without admitting it to america, and even lying about it when asked. not only that, but the soviets were 90 miles from america in cuba, the US was a lot more than that from the soviet union in turkey, and the soviets strategically placed the missiles in cuba because they knew our radars were pointed towards the soviet union and would not be able to track a missile from cuba with much accuracy. this is the reason that kennedy was pissed, and this is the reason that he publically scaulded them for "secrecy and deception". it was more than just missiles on an island...the fact that the soviets could strike a lot quicker, and a lot more undetectable than us was the reason that actions were taken to get them to dismantle their operations. it was taken as a serious threat and the intent to strike was there...either way, if kennedy said "gungho, im a man of my convictions (bush), and attacked cuba, the US would be a desert right now and the only living creatures would have 3 eyes and 2 tongues. this is why kennedy was the best president in history.


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

Puff said:


> i was simply using one theory in the same way that you used one.
> 
> but you just proved yourself a complete f*cking twat with that post.
> 
> ...


...my mom almost had me on the elevator going up the delivery room... luckily they managed to keep my from bumpin my head in the first 5 seconds of my life...

...you were simply using one theory like i used one?? no, let's try "you were randomly babbling about complete random bullshit while i had / have something worthwhile to say... " you might as well be saying "i love carpet... i love lamp"

...i'm a "f*cking twat"??? ROFLMAOWMTUMA























...i'll say GOD BLESS AMERICA whenever i want, thanks... you want original??? i think my argument was so original that you had nothing to say so you started babbling about how WATER is gonna be more valuable that OIL... again, let me repeat... you said CLEAN WATER will be MORE VALUABLE than OIL!!! again... CLEAN WATER... a f*cking RENEWABLE RESOURCE will be more valuable than OIL?!?!?!?!

hahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahah....

whoa... gotta catch my breath...

pant, pant, pant...
sigh...

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!!!!!!!

as far as me not being able to figure out how to conceive... you don't have to try and personally assault me because i make you look like the dumb ass you are....


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

lol.

ok. so my "theory" isnt as good as your one?

"Invade: call on us. we kick their ass"
your 'theory' sounds like it was made up by a 4 year old. at least have some basis for it.

wow man, that sounds like one in depth theory there. at least mine has some f*cking base. you obviously have never spent any time looking at things from any other perspective than your own country.

and "personally assault"?

you're the one talking about putting your thumb up your arse. dont flatter yourself dumbass. you also went on to call me a dumbass, stupid, and say that my "theory" is totally unplausible.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Hemi said:


> no one would invade canada ever
> 
> this is why
> 
> ...


Apart from when an attack on Canada wouldn't affect America in anyway, and they weren't hostile towards America.

Then America would do nothing, they won't attack unless it affects them, just like in WW2, they were happy to sit back and watch the world almost fall apart, whilst the rest of the country were fighting as hard as they could, until America got attacked, *THEN* they decided to join the war, and exploit countrys for their own gains.



Hemi said:


> and El---Twit---cho
> keep your head up your ass
> if the country has a nuke and an airport
> they can drop that nuke on anyone
> ...


I think most countrys have a more advanced method of delivering a nuclear bomb instead of "An airport"

15 years for the radiation to be livable again, it comes back to live?!

OH NO!!!

And no, it's not 15 years until the land is fit for human life.



> think about this
> instead of sending AID to other countries
> if we just took over
> our economy would be that much better
> ...


Yeah, this is 2006, you won't be making a global empire anytime soon without a global retalation, most likely resulting in mutually assured destruction.

So basically you want to make a scaled down version of the British Empire, in 2006?

That's the most moronic thing in this thread yet.



> this country
> these united states
> were born fighting
> we kicked the englishes ass
> and made our country great


Who are the "Englishes"?

If of course you mean Britain, then yes, france of all people helped you there, by blocking the ports so Britain couldn't land more troops, and the fact Britain was fighting around the world.



> and prevaled in making an awsome place to be
> when we win
> were usually right
> its just the sweet smell of freedom
> ...


War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left.

Many countrys have won wars, that doesn't mean they were "right"

Get an ounce of knowledge, please.

Before you start spamming again.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ummm, hemi, i didnt quote you because thats a big ass exerpt, but just to point out, we didnt defeat the english to gain independance...we defeated the british...

also, war of 1812, we invaded canada. just for you canadians out there...you know who you are (puff). hahaha.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

look at russia. they helped win WW2...then their country went to sh*t....even moreso than it already was.lol


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

g23 french canadian


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

> no one would invade canada ever
> 
> this is why
> 
> ...


Luckily, Canada has few-to-zero enemies and the enemies we do have are because we are allied with the States.



> and El---Twit---cho
> keep your head up your ass
> if the country has a nuke and an airport
> they can drop that nuke on anyone
> ...


Governments dont control airlines, and dropping a nuke correctly and accurately so that it will have a proper impact (a nuke hitting the ground and exploding wouldnt do sh*t, atleast not when compared to other bombs) takes more then simply pushing it out the...wait a second...where the f*ck would they drop it from?

Honestly, did you just read up this plot in some bullshit Clancy novel?



> long range short range
> nukes kill long after there dropped
> i believe its 15 years for the radiation to be livable again


You're telling us...remember who dropped the only one on a civilian population?



> and the fact you could be obliviuos to the fact that
> if 1 nuke is launched
> then more are to come
> makes me wonder if your french canadian


Why would more then one be launched? Where is the reasoning?

And what is with the knock against French Canadians? Yes, they mainly are pricks, but they also make up a huge percentage of the Canadian military and are helping in Afghanistan. Dont you support the troops?



> think about this
> instead of sending AID to other countries
> if we just took over
> our economy would be that much better
> ...


Was that a joke or something?I mean that honestly, I cant comprehend that someone would actually think this and be serious.



> also the best most obvious point
> there would be no more need to worry if the US is gonna
> KICK YOUR ASS


Like youre kicking Iraqs asses?



> so in all reality
> would it be so bad if the middle east , africa , and other tuff to live places
> were part of the US ???/


Last I checked, America had plenty of poor and needy to help inside its own borders....



> this country
> these united states
> were born fighting
> we kicked the englishes ass
> and made our country great


You do realize that Britain didnt really care about America by the time they left right. And that you guys had to have the FRENCH, yes le francais, come and help you. I normally wouldnt mean that as an insult, just a fact, but I know being the overly patriotic goonhead you are that it will bother you.



> we stopped the dam south in there crusade to destroy our states
> 
> and prevaled in making an awsome place to be
> when we win
> ...


I hope all Americans dont think like this?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

You have a few decent points... but the warheads that the soviets had in cuba were not large and they were not on long range missels. They were tactical nukes (battlefield nukes) mounted on shortrange rockets. They were intended to decimate any landing forces IF the US sent in troops. 
Ya it was shitty the soviets did this under cloak and dagger but WE pinned them between a rock and a hard place when we put those nukes in turkey. When the reality of this is the missles in turkey were totally pointless. A nuclear sub would have carried more firepower than the 30(i think) or so nukes we had in turkey at the time.

re: the aid

My point is that you pointing out we give the most aid around the world is irrevelant. We may give the mst but the restrictions and conditions we put on the aid is ridiclous. If you break down how much money out gov pulls in to how much money it hands out in aid, its sad... esp when some countries give upwards of 10%+, while we give >1%.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Hemi said:


> g23 french canadian


That must be the most worthless post of the thread.

I am neither French, OR Canadian.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> ummm, hemi, i didnt quote you because thats a big ass exerpt, but just to point out, we didnt defeat the english to gain independance...we defeated the british...
> 
> also, war of 1812, we invaded canada. just for you canadians out there...you know who you are (puff). hahaha.


lol. i know i know.haha

when we attacked the white house it was in retaliation for the Battle of York. where the US decimated a good deal of the populated part of canada (lol, populated at the time...).

that was the war of 1812. lots of border crossing.hahaha


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

It makes me sad in the pants to see the divide between US and Canada


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> That's the most moronic thing in this thread yet.


nah, i'm gonna have to go with Puff's "water more valuable than oil" idea...

EVERYBODY GO VOTE IN THE LOUNGE ABOUT WHETHER WATER WILL BE MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL!!!


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

In many countrys, fresh water is one of the most expensive things, and very hard to get hold of.

Not to mention the fact 3% of the worlds water is freshwater, and we need it more than anything to survive.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> That's the most moronic thing in this thread yet.


nah, i'm gonna have to go with Puff's "water more valuable than oil" idea...

EVERYBODY GO VOTE IN THE LOUNGE ABOUT WHETHER WATER WILL BE MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL!!!
[/quote]

ok dipshit. what makes up a good percentage of every human body? and what do humans need to live? and die quickly if depraved of??

im sorry if you've been told otherwise, but you can't drink crude oil.

in the future fresh water supplies will be more important than oil. why do you think ppl are creating electric and hydro car engines? to stop our dependency on oil.

have you ever been to remote countries? ive travelled through the middle east (late 90s) and a bottle of water was more than 2-3 times the price of oil. that's the same story in other countries. fresh water is a hot commodity, and in lots of places it's more expensive than oil. not just the middle east. Africa is the exact same.

humans will always need water to survive, so the thought of water being more valuable than oil at some point isnt as far fetched as it seems. you're just so close-minded that you cant think ahead. why havent we found life on other planets? usually because there is no fresh water. living things need water to live. did you fail biology or something?


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

its not that i hate canada
its i hate people who bash america 
ive actually thought about moven there 
i like smoken weed 
id rather live in the cold

in some way the world is better cuz of us

we do clean up all the worlds problems

we are dubbed the "world police"

""in the future fresh water supplies will be more important than oil. why do you think ppl are creating electric and hydro car engines? to stop our dependency on oil. ""
wouldnt this statment be the wrong idea 
especially if water is gonna be equal to diamonds one day?


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Hemi said:


> we are dubbed the "world police"


"Team America - World Police"

Is a comedy movie, and not meant to be taken literally.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

America, f*ck YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother f*cking day yeah,
America, f*ck YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, f*ck YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, f*ck YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it's the dream that we all share; it's the hope for tomorrow

f*ck YEAH!

McDonalds, f*ck YEAH!
Wal-Mart, f*ck YEAH!
The Gap, f*ck YEAH!
Baseball, f*ck YEAH!
NFL, f*ck, YEAH!
Rock and roll, f*ck YEAH!
The Internet, f*ck YEAH!
Slavery, f*ck YEAH!

f*ck YEAH!

Starbucks, f*ck YEAH!
Disney world, f*ck YEAH!
Porno, f*ck YEAH!
Valium, f*ck YEAH!
Reeboks, f*ck YEAH!
Fake Tits, f*ck YEAH!
Sushi, f*ck YEAH!
Taco Bell, f*ck YEAH!
Rodeos, f*ck YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (f*ck yeah, f*ck yeah)

Liberty, f*ck YEAH!
White Slips, f*ck YEAH!
The Alamo, f*ck YEAH!
Band-aids, f*ck YEAH!
Las Vegas, f*ck YEAH!
Christmas, f*ck YEAH!
Immigrants, f*ck YEAH!
Popeye, f*ck YEAH!
Demarcates, f*ck YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(f*ck yeah, f*ck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books

that movie is f*cking hilarious.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> we are dubbed the "world police"


"Team America - World Police"

Is a comedy movie, and not meant to be taken literally.
[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHA thats funny 
in WW2 im sure matt and trey were around then tooo


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> You have a few decent points... but the warheads that the soviets had in cuba were not large and they were not on long range missels. They were tactical nukes (battlefield nukes) mounted on shortrange rockets. They were intended to decimate any landing forces IF the US sent in troops.
> Ya it was shitty the soviets did this under cloak and dagger but WE pinned them between a rock and a hard place when we put those nukes in turkey. When the reality of this is the missles in turkey were totally pointless. A nuclear sub would have carried more firepower than the 30(i think) or so nukes we had in turkey at the time.
> 
> re: the aid
> ...


well...most of the nukes in cuba were surface nukes intended for deployment upon an invasion, there were medium range ballistic missiles set up ALL over cuba, i can't remember if they were nuclear tipped or if anyone really knows for sure, but either way, they'd do a lot of damage...after we deployed our jupiter missiles in turkey, the USSR was like, oh sh*t, we need something that can strike far and hard, so they responded with SS-4 and SS-5 missiles, with ranges between 1200 and 2400 miles, which the SS-4's could barely reach washington DC, but the SS-5's could do it with ease. not to mention, most of our bomber bases holding bombers with nuclear capability, were in strike range of the SS-4's, not only that, both missiles could reach washington DC in under 20 minutes, AND given our radar situation, we'd detect them like 2 minutes before impact.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

i was watchign a documentary on teh missile crisis. supposedley the commander of one of the subs or something like that was told by the russian government to fire a nuke...

the russian guy pretended that the message never got through correctly and never fired it. he lost his job and military pension, and was disgraced upon his return to russia. when in reality the whole world should have praised him for saving us from a nuclear war.

its pretty amazing how some countries work...russia is so backwards


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Hemi said:


> we are dubbed the "world police"


"Team America - World Police"

Is a comedy movie, and not meant to be taken literally.
[/quote]

HAHAHAHAHA thats funny 
in WW2 im sure matt and trey were around then tooo
[/quote]

Congratulations, you just made another illiterate post that makes no sense.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

g23 
are you like from ice land

did you ever hear of WW2

when went over there and kicked some major ass

i believe we were dubbed world police at this point 
but i will call a few old guys tommorow to find out when it really started

but ill be illiterate 
if you be smart
actually ill make this easier for you to understand

when i said in ww2 im sure mat and trey were around then too
i meant 
the creators of that movie 
who by your accounts were the first ever to come up with us being world police
must have been around during ww2 
cuz i mean 
this isnt a term from the 1990s

how old are you 
and please dont be in america


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Puff said:


> i was watchign a documentary on teh missile crisis. supposedley the commander of one of the subs or something like that was told by the russian government to fire a nuke...
> 
> the russian guy pretended that the message never got through correctly and never fired it. he lost his job and military pension, and was disgraced upon his return to russia. when in reality the whole world should have praised him for saving us from a nuclear war.
> 
> its pretty amazing how some countries work...russia is so backwards


hmm, i hadnt heard about that...i do know that the commanders of the russian army were given permission to use nukes ONLY upon an american invasion where they couldnt contact moscow, but closer to the end of the crisis, they were told not to use them unless they were like 99% sure they were going to be defeated in cuba.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Hemi said:


> g23
> are you like from ice land
> 
> did you ever hear of WW2
> ...


No, I am not from iceland.

And no, you were not dubbed world police at that point.

You were dubbed, the country who only joins affairs if it directly affects them, otherwise you'll just sit back and let the world destroy it's self, then uses the situation to exploit other countrys for their own gains.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> You were dubbed, the country who only joins affairs if it directly affects them, otherwise you'll just sit back and let the world destroy it's self, then uses the situation to exploit other countrys for their own gains.


ummm g23, i think every country has been "dubbed" that...


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> > You were dubbed, the country who only joins affairs if it directly affects them, otherwise you'll just sit back and let the world destroy it's self, then uses the situation to exploit other countrys for their own gains.
> 
> 
> ummm g23, i think every country has been "dubbed" that...


All 243 of them?


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

Puff said:


> That's the most moronic thing in this thread yet.


nah, i'm gonna have to go with Puff's "water more valuable than oil" idea...

EVERYBODY GO VOTE IN THE LOUNGE ABOUT WHETHER WATER WILL BE MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL!!!
[/quote]

ok dipshit. what makes up a good percentage of every human body? and what do humans need to live? and die quickly if depraved of??

im sorry if you've been told otherwise, but you can't drink crude oil.

in the future fresh water supplies will be more important than oil. why do you think ppl are creating electric and hydro car engines? to stop our dependency on oil.

have you ever been to remote countries? ive travelled through the middle east (late 90s) and a bottle of water was more than 2-3 times the price of oil. that's the same story in other countries. fresh water is a hot commodity, and in lots of places it's more expensive than oil. not just the middle east. Africa is the exact same.

humans will always need water to survive, so the thought of water being more valuable than oil at some point isnt as far fetched as it seems. you're just so close-minded that you cant think ahead. why havent we found life on other planets? usually because there is no fresh water. living things need water to live. did you fail biology or something?
[/quote]

sure... if you're in the middle of the desert about to die of thirst, you'd probably pay more for a 20 ounce bottle of water than a 20 ounce bottle of crude oil... if you're in some sh*t hole country where they don't have a decent sanitation system, but you can get crude oil by stickin a straw in the ground, you might pay more for water than oil... but in the united states, where we have a good economy that delivers what our citizens need, if there's a shortage of fresh water, you know what we'll get?? FRESH WATER... you know the recipe for fresh water??? take salt water, remove salt, BADDA BING!!! FRESH f*cking WATER!!!

somebody please tell me that oil, a f*cking FINITE RESOURCE will be less valuable than something that's trivial to make?? OK, if the oceans dry up and there's some fresh water left in some lake in canada, you can bet your sweet ass we're gonna come take it... but give me a break... if you honestly think water will one day be more valuable than oil, then more power to you i suppose... anybody who thinks that is too dumb to reason with...

idiotic people try to argue with others by bring you down to their level and then beating you with experience... that being said, i'm done arguing with you...

water more valuable than oil... HA!

and no, i didn't fail biology... i aced it, along with organic chemistry, and a bunch of other classes you couldn't cheat your way through... i know humans need water to live...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> You have a few decent points... but the warheads that the soviets had in cuba were not large and they were not on long range missels. They were tactical nukes (battlefield nukes) mounted on shortrange rockets. They were intended to decimate any landing forces IF the US sent in troops.
> Ya it was shitty the soviets did this under cloak and dagger but WE pinned them between a rock and a hard place when we put those nukes in turkey. When the reality of this is the missles in turkey were totally pointless. A nuclear sub would have carried more firepower than the 30(i think) or so nukes we had in turkey at the time.
> 
> re: the aid
> ...


well...most of the nukes in cuba were surface nukes intended for deployment upon an invasion, there were medium range ballistic missiles set up ALL over cuba, i can't remember if they were nuclear tipped or if anyone really knows for sure, but either way, they'd do a lot of damage...after we deployed our jupiter missiles in turkey, the USSR was like, oh sh*t, we need something that can strike far and hard, so they responded with SS-4 and SS-5 missiles, with ranges between 1200 and 2400 miles, which the SS-4's could barely reach washington DC, but the SS-5's could do it with ease. not to mention, most of our bomber bases holding bombers with nuclear capability, were in strike range of the SS-4's, not only that, both missiles could reach washington DC in under 20 minutes, AND given our radar situation, we'd detect them like 2 minutes before impact.
[/quote]

Sorry, I dont remember the types of missiles involved unless I look it up. I know there were short and medium range missiles in cuba and I know that they could reach most the the eastern seaboard. I also know tho that the only nukes found to be in cuba were tactical nukes, not a single short-medium range missile were hot.

btw- did you look up info on the crisis or did you actually know the particular kind of missiles that the russian deployed and their max distances?


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> That's the most moronic thing in this thread yet.


nah, i'm gonna have to go with Puff's "water more valuable than oil" idea...

EVERYBODY GO VOTE IN THE LOUNGE ABOUT WHETHER WATER WILL BE MORE VALUABLE THAN OIL!!!
[/quote]

ok dipshit. what makes up a good percentage of every human body? and what do humans need to live? and die quickly if depraved of??

im sorry if you've been told otherwise, but you can't drink crude oil.

in the future fresh water supplies will be more important than oil. why do you think ppl are creating electric and hydro car engines? to stop our dependency on oil.

have you ever been to remote countries? ive travelled through the middle east (late 90s) and a bottle of water was more than 2-3 times the price of oil. that's the same story in other countries. fresh water is a hot commodity, and in lots of places it's more expensive than oil. not just the middle east. Africa is the exact same.

humans will always need water to survive, so the thought of water being more valuable than oil at some point isnt as far fetched as it seems. you're just so close-minded that you cant think ahead. why havent we found life on other planets? usually because there is no fresh water. living things need water to live. did you fail biology or something?
[/quote]

sure... if you're in the middle of the desert about to die of thirst, you'd probably pay more for a 20 ounce bottle of water than a 20 ounce bottle of crude oil... if you're in some sh*t hole country where they don't have a decent sanitation system, but you can get crude oil by stickin a straw in the ground, you might pay more for water than oil... but in the united states, where we have a good economy that delivers what our citizens need, if there's a shortage of fresh water, you know what we'll get?? FRESH WATER... you know the recipe for fresh water??? take salt water, remove salt, BADDA BING!!! FRESH f*cking WATER!!!

somebody please tell me that oil, a f*cking FINITE RESOURCE will be less valuable than something that's trivial to make?? OK, if the oceans dry up and there's some fresh water left in some lake in canada, you can bet your sweet ass we're gonna come take it... but give me a break... if you honestly think water will one day be more valuable than oil, then more power to you i suppose... anybody who thinks that is too dumb to reason with...

idiotic people try to argue with others by bring you down to their level and then beating you with experience... that being said, i'm done arguing with you...

water more valuable than oil... HA!

and no, i didn't fail biology... i aced it, along with organic chemistry, and a bunch of other classes you couldn't cheat your way through... i know humans need water to live...
[/quote]

there you go spewing sh*t out of your mouth again. you have no f*cking clue what my marks were in school. yet you decide to attempt to rip me.

have you ever drank desalinated water? it tastes like f*cking sh*t. and has numerous additives to kill off other sh*t in it. believe me, ppl would not want to drink desalinated water for the rest of their lives. it's water, but it is not the same as naturally occuring fresh water. if you think all the soccer moms and gym monkies will be happy drinking their bottled desalinated water all day long, then you my friend, are dumber than you make me out to be.

grow the f*ck up.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> take salt water, remove salt, BADDA BING!!! FRESH f*cking WATER!!!


Oh god...














































Congratulations, you've just saved the world.


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> Congratulations, you've just saved the world.


ok... obviously an oversimplification... seriously, be honest with yourself, mull this over...

water is the most abundant resource on the planet... some of it is "fresh" and able to be consumed by humans etc... some isn't "fresh" and, if your all's theory is going to hold any water (haha no pun intended), then the non- fresh water must be somewhat useless for our immediate purposes...

BUT, there are methods we currently know which cant remove chemicals, salt, impurities, sperm... f*cking ANYTHING from water and make it fresh, pure, WHATEVER....

now, oil is a finite resource... that's all you damn hippies want to talk about... we need to get over our dependence on oil because we're gonna run out...

so tell me... in the future, when oil reserves are becoming depleted, and we still have the ability to purify water, how will fresh water be more valuable than oil???

an easy answer is "we'll be using other forms of energy" in which case oil would have no value... yay!! frest water will be more valuable than something that has no value!! still, the US wouldn't be invading canada for it's fresh water reserves...


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

you are wrong.

WATER is a basically finite source. like 3\4s of the earth is covered in the stuff. oil is finite as well, and in an even shorter supply than water.

the arguement is about FRESH WATER from the source...not salt water that has been filtered. fresh water sources are quickly depleting around the world.

WATER and FRESH WATER are two different things.

and seriously, this isnt even about the US invading Canada anymore. its about whether fresh water will one day cost more than oil..get over it. that part of the arguement is long gone buddy.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> so tell me... in the future, when oil reserves are becoming depleted, and we still have the ability to purify water, how will fresh water be more valuable than oil???












We don't even have the ability to do that now, so your plan is to just purify all the salt water, and keep re-filtering the freshwater.

We simply DO NOT have acess to unpolluted water fit for that use.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

id really love to hook up a water filter to my toilets, and simply filter out all the feces and urine...and then drink that water...

i hope it gets to that point someday....


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

Puff said:


> id really love to hook up a water filter to my toilets, and simply filter out all the feces and urine...and then drink that water...
> 
> i hope it gets to that point someday....


Dude, my fish tank water is filtered, AND it has no salt in it, HA, I win, i've got an infinite supply of fresh water for my self!

It's fresh because it's filtered intensely you see


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Puff said:


> id really love to hook up a water filter to my toilets, and simply filter out all the feces and urine...and then drink that water...
> 
> i hope it gets to that point someday....


... it already has

l'eau de toilette

^says so on some of them fancy fagrance bottles you kids are wearing these days


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> You have a few decent points... but the warheads that the soviets had in cuba were not large and they were not on long range missels. They were tactical nukes (battlefield nukes) mounted on shortrange rockets. They were intended to decimate any landing forces IF the US sent in troops.
> Ya it was shitty the soviets did this under cloak and dagger but WE pinned them between a rock and a hard place when we put those nukes in turkey. When the reality of this is the missles in turkey were totally pointless. A nuclear sub would have carried more firepower than the 30(i think) or so nukes we had in turkey at the time.
> 
> re: the aid
> ...


well...most of the nukes in cuba were surface nukes intended for deployment upon an invasion, there were medium range ballistic missiles set up ALL over cuba, i can't remember if they were nuclear tipped or if anyone really knows for sure, but either way, they'd do a lot of damage...after we deployed our jupiter missiles in turkey, the USSR was like, oh sh*t, we need something that can strike far and hard, so they responded with SS-4 and SS-5 missiles, with ranges between 1200 and 2400 miles, which the SS-4's could barely reach washington DC, but the SS-5's could do it with ease. not to mention, most of our bomber bases holding bombers with nuclear capability, were in strike range of the SS-4's, not only that, both missiles could reach washington DC in under 20 minutes, AND given our radar situation, we'd detect them like 2 minutes before impact.
[/quote]

Sorry, I dont remember the types of missiles involved unless I look it up. I know there were short and medium range missiles in cuba and I know that they could reach most the the eastern seaboard. I also know tho that the only nukes found to be in cuba were tactical nukes, not a single short-medium range missile were hot.

btw- did you look up info on the crisis or did you actually know the particular kind of missiles that the russian deployed and their max distances?








[/quote]

ok, so here's how it started, i watched a documentary on the cold war, more specifically, the cuban missile crisis, when i was in the 7th grade. it was awesome, and it is ultimately what made me a huge kennedy supporter and possibly even had something to do with me being a democrat. anyway, i fell in love with the crisis and looked up everything about it, i had to get more and more information on it, every single presentation project i did for a history class up until 12th grade, i did on the cuban missile crisis, and each one of them was a new project. not like using the previous years project for 5 years straight or whatever...anyway, the lowest grade i got on the CMC projects was an A-, probably one of my most proudest feats.
in honor of most of the missiles involved in the crisis, and being an accomplished high power rocketry enthusiast, i constructed my own versions of the rockets involved, i constructed ALL 4 of the mercury rockets, all ranging in size from 5 feet to 6.5 feet in height, this means i constructed the redstone, the jupiter-C, the mercury redstone, and the jupiter IRBM. and due to me not being able to afford or build a guidance system, i had to attach some modified fins to the jupiter IRBM. in addition to those, i also constructed an SS-4, also called an R12U or something like that...which flew and hit a tree full speed flying on an I thrust motor. i also attempted an SS-5 Skean(sp?) but i wanted it to scale, and it was almost finless so #1, i'd need an incredible fast motor, or #2 i'd need a guidance system...neither were an option for me, so i ditched the project. anyway, for the most part, im not huge on history, but the CMC is like, MY subject...i still have all my projects and reports on them somewhere in my room...good sh*t to look back at. haha.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> id really love to hook up a water filter to my toilets, and simply filter out all the feces and urine...and then drink that water...
> 
> i hope it gets to that point someday....


... it already has

l'eau de toilette

^says so on some of them fancy fagrance bottles you kids are wearing these days








[/quote]

DUDE!!! I HAVE SOME OF THAT!!!























I WIN AS WELL!!! Toilet water for EVERYBODY!!!!


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Puff said:


> id really love to hook up a water filter to my toilets, and simply filter out all the feces and urine...and then drink that water...
> 
> i hope it gets to that point someday....


umm, ever hear of a water treatment facility? it can be done, in-fact, i think there's a machine out there that you can piss in, and it'll make fairly clean water, drinkable at least...probably not the tastiest thirst quencher out there, but hey, when you've got no water, its the solution!


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

> 1983...not the cold war...


The cold war didnt end until November 9, 1989.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> > You were dubbed, the country who only joins affairs if it directly affects them, otherwise you'll just sit back and let the world destroy it's self, then uses the situation to exploit other countrys for their own gains.
> 
> 
> ummm g23, i think every country has been "dubbed" that...


All 243 of them?
[/quote]



> is a retired Russian Strategic Rocket Forces colonel who, on September 26, 1983, averted a potential nuclear war by refusing to believe that the United States had launched missiles against the USSR,


1983...not the cold war...

[/quote]

My mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Alexandrovich_Arkhipov

It's that guy if you're talking about the cuban missile crisis.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

you guys up north really think that water will be that vaulable 
did your gov sell you stock in that sh*t

i mean we go into outter space 
we invent sh*t all the time

your telling me that cant make man made lakes to make fresh water supplies

am i forgetting when it rains 
couldnt we controll that and use it 
theres never really been a need to make fresh water 
but like i stated 
im sure they know how to do it allready


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> so tell me... in the future, when oil reserves are becoming depleted, and we still have the ability to purify water, how will fresh water be more valuable than oil???












We don't even have the ability to do that now, so your plan is to just purify all the salt water, and keep re-filtering the freshwater.

We simply DO NOT have acess to unpolluted water fit for that use.
[/quote]

somebody said water's not a renewable resource... if it isn't, what is???

if you can't grasp this then you're a moron and i'm not wasting any more time on you... i'm goin to bed...


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> somebody said water's not a renewable resource... if it isn't, what is???


You think the earth is generating masses of new freshwater?

Ha.



> if you can't grasp this then you're a moron and i'm not wasting any more time on you... i'm goin to bed...


Thank god, bye.


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Hemi said:


> you guys up north really think that water will be that vaulable
> *did your gov sell you stock in that sh*t
> *
> i mean we go into outter space
> ...


actually my stocks are mostly in potash and gold


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> > You were dubbed, the country who only joins affairs if it directly affects them, otherwise you'll just sit back and let the world destroy it's self, then uses the situation to exploit other countrys for their own gains.
> 
> 
> ummm g23, i think every country has been "dubbed" that...


All 243 of them?
[/quote]



> is a retired Russian Strategic Rocket Forces colonel who, on September 26, 1983, averted a potential nuclear war by refusing to believe that the United States had launched missiles against the USSR,


1983...not the cold war...

[/quote]

My mistake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Alexandrovich_Arkhipov

It's that guy if you're talking about the cuban missile crisis.
[/quote]

great find dude...seriously, i think i remember hearing about that, but its still new to me...but yeah, props, good find.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

You know. Im a franchise member, and we in here talkin about practice?

We talking about practice?

Im too good for practice.

I know team work is important, and I agree with that. But we talkin about practice! Practice man. Practice. Not the game man, not practice.

You see me play right? You watch me play. Why we talkin about practice. How can I make my fellow members better by practice. Practice. Man, not a game. Practice.

I know man, its practice.

We talkin about practice. Not a game. Practice.

Man, we talkin about practice.

Sincerly,

Danny Iverson.


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

SidewalkStalker said:


> but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?


...read up on game theory...

let's say somebody wants to invade Canada... they can decide to invade or not invade...

immediate consequences:

Invade: roll through Canada like the Nazis rolled through Poland - invaders win
Don't invade: Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

Canada's turn:

*if Invade: Call on US; us runs sh*t - invaders lose*
if Don't invade : Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

so basically, if invaders invade they lose, if they don't then it's they dont get pummeled...

why doesn't the US "protect" Canada?

nobody's f*cking stupid enough to invade Canada because the US will ALWAYS back up an ally...
[/quote]

hahahaha. sorry man. but there's this crazy thing called the "Commonwealth" which Canada is a part of. altho i dont deny the fact that America would "back us up" if we were attacked, the UK has been, and always will be the first to help us, as we are part of the commonwealth.

and what you just said doesnt prove a thing about WHEN the US protected us. all you used was theories....none of which have ever happened...

im talking about actual "protection" that has ACTUALLY happened. not some theory that ppl have.

also, in the future, the US is the most likely country to invade canada. we have more fresh water than we can use...and the US is quickly running out of fresh water.

in the future fresh water sources will be more valuable than oil wells, and America's thirst for fresh water will one day rival their thirst for oil in the present day. many historians and those sorts have all said that. and it isnt too hard to imagine happening.

i dont think it would happen in the next 50 years. but eventually you guys will run out of water, and our unprotected, wide open borders will prove too easy a target for the US to NOT invade.

it's common sense. water = life. no water = death.
[/quote]

first you're gonna ream me for using a theory and then you're gonna ream me some more using a theory that says we're gonna invade canada over WATER... over F*CKING WATER???? THE MOST ABUNDANT RESOURCE OR THE PLANET?????????

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHhahahHAHSDHAFSHAHHhHHhhahhafhahahhahF

ROFLMAOWMTUMA...

for those of you that dont know... that means "rolling on floor laughing my ass off with my thumb up my ass"

seriously, i laughed when i read that... that is far and away the most asinine i've read on this thread... it rivals that thread about the guy who fed his RBP's peppers to kill bacteria in their stomachs...

the whole point of my "theory" is that there's no need for anybody to defend canada... why? is it because canada's such a nice country with such nice people with such pretty trees and flowers and clean water??

NO.... no, no , no, no, no, no NO!! FUC*ING NO!!! F*CK!!!!

nobody in their right mind would ever invade Canada... this isn't because of Canada's foreign policy with terrorists or because canada is full of hippies who would rather take a nuke up the ass rather than step on anybody's toes... it's because anybody who would want to fight canada knows they would be dealing with the US ...(and the "commonwealth" i suppose)

need i remind you that canada spawned from france?? do you know how many times the US saved France's ass??? ...i don't actually know

if your theory of how valuable your fu*king clean water is is actually true, then why aren't people trying to take over canada so they'll have all the valuable water when the time comes??

there are 2 possibilities...

1) you're theory is complete sh*t...
2) my "theory" says that even if your theory is true, people still wouldn't invade canada because the US would "put a boot in their ass... it's the American way"

...by the way, it's not one OR two... it's one AND two...

*GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!







**
[/quote]

Preach it brothaman!! The water thing made me laugh as well. We hear a stir when species are projeccted to become extinct in 50 years....so why is there no REAL noise made about the "US water shortage"?? Answer: Because it is untrue. Im sure we will run out of water one day, but not anytime soon. Maybe when our kid's kid's kid's kid's kid's kids are around...maybe. The powers that be will probably force humanity into extinction before we actually run out of frickin' water!

Tom

Damn...with this huge water shortage on the horizon, I better look into a new hobby!*


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

PygoFanatic said:


> "US water shortage"??


"World freshwater shortage"


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> "US water shortage"??


"World freshwater shortage"
[/quote]

it's great how things only ever seem to matter if it involves the US. isnt it?









the rest of the world can f*ck off and die of thirst!! as long as Hank Hill can still water his lawn.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

SidewalkStalker said:


> think about this
> instead of sending AID to other countries
> if we just took over
> our economy would be that much better
> ...












That's not how economics, agriculture, politics or colonialism works.


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

Puff said:


> but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?


...read up on game theory...

let's say somebody wants to invade Canada... they can decide to invade or not invade...

immediate consequences:

Invade: roll through Canada like the Nazis rolled through Poland - invaders win
Don't invade: Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

Canada's turn:

if Invade: Call on US; us runs sh*t - invaders lose
if Don't invade : Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

so basically, if invaders invade they lose, if they don't then it's they dont get pummeled...

why doesn't the US "protect" Canada?

nobody's f*cking stupid enough to invade Canada because the US will ALWAYS back up an ally...
[/quote]

hahahaha. sorry man. but there's this crazy thing called the "Commonwealth" which Canada is a part of. altho i dont deny the fact that America would "back us up" if we were attacked, the UK has been, and always will be the first to help us, as we are part of the commonwealth.

and what you just said doesnt prove a thing about WHEN the US protected us. all you used was theories....none of which have ever happened...

im talking about actual "protection" that has ACTUALLY happened. not some theory that ppl have.

*also, in the future, the US is the most likely country to invade canada. we have more fresh water than we can use...and the US is quickly running out of fresh water.*

in the future fresh water sources will be more valuable than oil wells, and America's thirst for fresh water will one day rival their thirst for oil in the present day. many historians and those sorts have all said that. and it isnt too hard to imagine happening.

i dont think it would happen in the next 50 years. but eventually you guys will run out of water, and our unprotected, wide open borders will prove too easy a target for the US to NOT invade.

it's common sense. water = life. no water = death.
[/quote]

See bold print. Theyre your words, Im just using them to point out how much of an idiot you are.

Tom


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

PygoFanatic said:


> but seriously. when has america ever 'protected' canada?


...read up on game theory...

let's say somebody wants to invade Canada... they can decide to invade or not invade...

immediate consequences:

Invade: roll through Canada like the Nazis rolled through Poland - invaders win
Don't invade: Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

Canada's turn:

if Invade: Call on US; us runs sh*t - invaders lose
if Don't invade : Nothing Happens - invaders neither win nor lose

so basically, if invaders invade they lose, if they don't then it's they dont get pummeled...

why doesn't the US "protect" Canada?

nobody's f*cking stupid enough to invade Canada because the US will ALWAYS back up an ally...
[/quote]

hahahaha. sorry man. but there's this crazy thing called the "Commonwealth" which Canada is a part of. altho i dont deny the fact that America would "back us up" if we were attacked, the UK has been, and always will be the first to help us, as we are part of the commonwealth.

and what you just said doesnt prove a thing about WHEN the US protected us. all you used was theories....none of which have ever happened...

im talking about actual "protection" that has ACTUALLY happened. not some theory that ppl have.

*also, in the future, the US is the most likely country to invade canada. we have more fresh water than we can use...and the US is quickly running out of fresh water.*

in the future fresh water sources will be more valuable than oil wells, and America's thirst for fresh water will one day rival their thirst for oil in the present day. many historians and those sorts have all said that. and it isnt too hard to imagine happening.

i dont think it would happen in the next 50 years. but eventually you guys will run out of water, and our unprotected, wide open borders will prove too easy a target for the US to NOT invade.

it's common sense. water = life. no water = death.
[/quote]

See bold print. Theyre your words, Im just using them to point out how much of an idiot you are.

Tom
[/quote]

???

congratulations. you can use the "bold" button









was that really necessary to PM me calling me "idiot boy" because you disagree with what i say?

sure i said in that case that it was a US water shortage that would prompt a possible invasion, as that was what the topic was about AT THAT TIME. but why would the US invade us to get water for OTHER countries, which we are now talking about. the conversation...errr...totally fucked up debate...has long since moved on to the WORLD's need for fresh water in teh coming future.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Hemi said:


> Australia has no United States to protect them from invasion, how many times have they been invaded?


Just a minor correction. Without the US in the Pacific War, especially at Midway, Australia would have most likely been occupied by Japan.

But back on topic, what the hell should we do about N. Korea. Maybe if Kennedy were in office instead of a bumbling idiot (who also lies alot, Exodous - seriously you seem too intelligent to support such a fool), I wouldn't feel so nervous about this whole situation.


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> You think the earth is generating masses of new freshwater?
> 
> Ha.


YES you schmuck...
when you drink some fresh water does it disappear??? or do you piss it out and it gets recycled and you can drink it again??? you have your head so far up your ass it's unbelievable


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Fargo said:


> Australia has no United States to protect them from invasion, how many times have they been invaded?


Just a minor correction. Without the US in the Pacific War, especially at Midway, Australia would have most likely been occupied by Japan.

But back on topic, what the hell should we do about N. Korea. Maybe if Kennedy were in office instead of a bumbling idiot (who also lies alot, Exodous - seriously you seem too intelligent to support such a fool), I wouldn't feel so nervous about this whole situation.
[/quote]

Finally the thread gets a shot of intelligent dialect.

Sherman's march is one of the most horrid events in U.S. history and I'm sure most of the members of this board know nothing about it.









The water debate.... separate thread?


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

Different day...same stupid arguments. Canada this...USA that....who gives a sh*t. None of you set policy anyways so get over it...you live where you live because that is where you parents gave birth to you...not because of your social conscience. Half of you are not even old enough to vote. So before you go spewing how great your country is...or how bad another is...understand one thing...your ass didnt have anything to do with it.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

You know what, I hate Chile... we should invade Chile and steal all of their water.









b-a-n-a-n-a-s


----------



## Alexraptor (Jan 30, 2003)

G23.40SW said:


> You think the earth is generating masses of new freshwater?
> 
> Ha.


Thats exactly what it does. ever heard of a little thing called rain? ever heard of a little thing called evaporation? ever heard of little things called clouds?









Water that evaporates is relativley pure. there are no minerals or salt in it. and its the rain that repleneshis the worlds freshwater rescources.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> You think the earth is generating masses of new freshwater?
> 
> Ha.


Thats exactly what it does. ever heard of a little thing called rain? ever heard of a little thing called evaporation? ever heard of little things called clouds?:laugh:

Water that evaporates is relativley pure. there are no minerals or salt in it. and its the rain that repleneshis the worlds freshwater rescources.
[/quote]

Note the word "masses" if it was replenishing the freshwater resources enough, there wouldn't be a crisis.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Essentially all freshwater has been recycled.

You guys are running in circles. The point is water isn't easily distributed across the world. Lake Michigan alone could save the world from dehydration. And, no, it wouldn't be that hard to purify that water.

I meant to say water isn't "evenly" distributed.


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> Good luck messing with North Korea. They've got enough ordnance on the DMZ to level Seoul which is the largest city in the world.


You really have no idea what the U.S. is capable of do you? Lol I always laugh when people say not to mess with this country or the next. The world should be so lucky that the U.S. is not a Conquering nation. If we were, everyone would be speaking english as their first language. To all the haters of the US I laugh, the other super power is gone so we are the only ones left to hate. I'm not at all saying all other countries are lesser than us I'm just saying you aren't the U.S. I love seeing so many countries that talk bad about us even though we send them food, money, support in multiple ways. The only time it seems that anyone likes the U.S. is when they are getting into war and they need big brother to help. Actually it's alot like siblings lol if any of you have siblings older or younger you know what I'm talking about. You always talk trash when younger and are always screwing with each other but when push comes to shove and one of you is in trouble the other is always there for you.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> Good luck messing with North Korea. They've got enough ordnance on the DMZ to level Seoul which is the largest city in the world.


You really have no idea what the U.S. is capable of do you? Lol I always laugh when people say not to mess with this country or the next. The world should be so lucky that the U.S. is not a Conquering nation. If we were, everyone would be speaking english as their first language. To all the haters of the US I laugh, the other super power is gone so we are the only ones left to hate. I'm not at all saying all other countries are lesser than us I'm just saying you aren't the U.S. I love seeing so many countries that talk bad about us even though we send them food, money, support in multiple ways. The only time it seems that anyone likes the U.S. is when they are getting into war and they need big brother to help. Actually it's alot like siblings lol if any of you have siblings older or younger you know what I'm talking about. You always talk trash when younger and are always screwing with each other but when push comes to shove and one of you is in trouble the other is always there for you.








[/quote]

amen...the US has many many MANY nuclear vessels, many MANY nuclear bombs, many MANY fighter jets, super high advanced radar systems, missile defense systems, i mean sh*t, if N-korea launched a missile at us, we'd be able to detect it and shoot it out of the sky within minutes of its takeoff. we've got stealth airforce vehicles, UNMANNED airforce vehicles, all with a tremendous amount of firepower, 40-50 billion dollars a year for defense doesnt mean you've got 1 airplane, 1 machine gun, and 1 bomb...it means you've got more carrier fleets of 20-30+ boats than the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. N. Korea would have a very very tough time toppling us, same with any other nation in the world, and im not bragging, im just giving out facts. and im sure that some people on here dont like these facts and will respond with, oh, N. Korea has a million man army...blah blah blah...it doesnt matter, we could fit a million men on our boats, and still have a million other war vehicles to occupy. the strength of the states is far and away the strongest military/defense system in the world. will it remain that way? who knows, time will tell, china is really making a push and pretty much, they make all our sh*t, even this computer im on as im typing this...at this point in time though, america is like hundreds of times more powerful than N. Korea is or will be in the next 50 years.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> amen...the US has many many MANY nuclear vessels, many MANY nuclear bombs, many MANY fighter jets, super high advanced radar systems, missile defense systems, i mean sh*t, if N-korea launched a missile at us, we'd be able to detect it and shoot it out of the sky within minutes of its takeoff. we've got stealth airforce vehicles, UNMANNED airforce vehicles, all with a tremendous amount of firepower, 40-50 billion dollars a year for defense doesnt mean you've got 1 airplane, 1 machine gun, and 1 bomb...it means you've got more carrier fleets of 20-30+ boats than the ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED. N. Korea would have a very very tough time toppling us, same with any other nation in the world, and im not bragging, im just giving out facts. and im sure that some people on here dont like these facts and will respond with, oh, N. Korea has a million man army...blah blah blah...it doesnt matter, we could fit a million men on our boats, and still have a million other war vehicles to occupy. the strength of the states is far and away the strongest military/defense system in the world. will it remain that way? who knows, time will tell, china is really making a push and pretty much, they make all our sh*t, even this computer im on as im typing this...at this point in time though, america is like hundreds of times more powerful than N. Korea is or will be in the next 50 years.


That might all be true on paper, but the fact is there are obstacles that are major. China and Russia cannot be trusted - as well as the rest of the contemporary axis powers - and China can hold much of our economy hostage right now, because we're stupid enough to switch our manufacturing base there. We're also weighed down in Iraq, and no matter how brave and dedicated our soldiers are, we can't be everywhere at once. Our budget cannot contain it. If we're to fight N. Korea it has to be old school, not this politically correct occupation/reconstruction bullshit.


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> Good luck messing with North Korea. They've got enough ordnance on the DMZ to level Seoul which is the largest city in the world.


You really have no idea what the U.S. is capable of do you? 
[/quote]
Yes I do know what the US is capable of, and it sounds like you and R1 are bit delusional about what we're capable of. We have NO weapons with the ability to shoot down mortars or artillery. So what good does our fancy bombs and jets do when N. Korea decides to attack Seoul?

And how exactly are we supposed to invade N. Korea? A majority of our forces are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq. We don't have enough personnel stationed in S. Korea to even make it across the DMZ. If we do shift our forces to Korea we have to take on China too. China's aid is what brought the Korean War to a cease fire. We made it almost up to the Chinese border during the Korean War, then when China came to N.Korea's aid they pushed us back to where the DMZ is today. We got our asses handed to us by China.

We wouldn't be able to conquer China, let alone the world. sh*t, we almost depleted our supply of JDAM and laser guided bombs during Desert Shield/Storm. Yes, we do have all the hi-tech fancy weaponry. But that technology comes at a high price. Our government can't afford a war with N. Korea, let alone a three prong war.

Btw, I served with the 25th Infantry Division at Ft. Lewis which happens to be the filler station for all the 3rd ID units in Korea. Maybe a little service to your nation would get your heads out of the clouds.


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> Good luck messing with North Korea. They've got enough ordnance on the DMZ to level Seoul which is the largest city in the world.


You really have no idea what the U.S. is capable of do you? 
[/quote]
Yes I do know what the US is capable of, and it sounds like you and R1 are bit delusional about what we're capable of. We have NO weapons with the ability to shoot down mortars or artillery. So what good does our fancy bombs and jets do when N. Korea decides to attack Seoul?

And how exactly are we supposed to invade N. Korea? A majority of our forces are tied up in Afghanistan and Iraq. We don't have enough personnel stationed in S. Korea to even make it across the DMZ. If we do shift our forces to Korea we have to take on China too. China's aid is what brought the Korean War to a cease fire. We made it almost up to the Chinese border during the Korean War, then when China came to N.Korea's aid they pushed us back to where the DMZ is today. We got our asses handed to us by China.

We wouldn't be able to conquer China, let alone the world. sh*t, we almost depleted our supply of JDAM and laser guided bombs during Desert Shield/Storm. Yes, we do have all the hi-tech fancy weaponry. But that technology comes at a high price. Our government can't afford a war with N. Korea, let alone a three prong war.

Btw, I served with the 25th Infantry Division at Ft. Lewis which happens to be the filler station for all the 3rd ID units in Korea. Maybe a little service to your nation would get your heads out of the clouds.
[/quote]

I wasn't trying to talk down to you bud, but you are wrong sorry. We do in fact have lasers to shoot down artillery shells and it's been in testing for years. Maybe you don't read alot on this type of thing but I assure you, we are prepared on this event. You say we've depleted munitions and whatnot but our WAR machine is not turned on either. We are at a relaxed state of war compared to WORLD WAR. Yeah yeah yeah, china makes alot of our stuff but you guys are comparing two different states of the US as one. We have outsourced to china cause of the price, it by no means means we can't make the certain item, it simply means it's cheaper. Have you all forgotten what the US can produce in a state of war???? I'm talking about WW1 and WW2. If we get serious and turn into our military machine we can easily make what we need. Who cares how many soldiers you have??? How the f*ck is China gonna get them here? Equip them with speedos and teach them to swim? Ohh by boat ehh? yeah, our subs would never find them, by air you say?







that's one thing above all that we are known for which is AIR SUPPERIORITY. I think too many of us have forgotten how this great country was forged. We manage a major battle every 50 years. We have never lost, and to those techinical bastards out there, vietnam was not a war but was a CONFLICT and the reason that CONFLICT went the way it did was because of politics, it was not cause we didn't have the power. Russia couldn't take out Afganistan for over a decade, we took control in under a couple of months. I'm not braggin about WE ARE BIG AND BAD, I'm simply stating the simple fact, that NO ONE in current day status has the ability to topple us. The media makes up so many stories and embelishes soo much that they have us thinking we might actually have a threat which is sad, they want to keep us in fear mode so the US can use it's war machine in different avenues of the world and that is what I view as truly wrong and sad. Sorry about the rant guys and sorry if you took what I said personally Scrappy, that was not my intent


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> We do in fact have lasers to shoot down artillery shells and it's been in testing for years. Maybe you don't read alot on this type of thing but I assure you, we are prepared on this event.


You're talking about the THEL project (Tactical High Energy Laser) right? That and all other chemical based laser systems were cancelled last year. We're now developing solid state fiber lasers that may be ready for testing by 2011, but we have nothing now that can stop a salvo of artillery.

Btw, I don't take much personally, it just sounds like I get a little heated. Feel free to debate away, I won't take offense.


----------



## I-Eat-My-Master (Feb 19, 2006)

Is everyone kidding here....?

US is this great super power true... N.Korea has a few nuclear missles...... could it wipe the US off the face of the planet.... most likely not... could the US wipe N.Korea off the face of the planet.... probably........

But what happened on 9/11...? 12 terrorists with several COMMERCIAL airplanes brought america down to its knees...... Yes it did that, because America is still fighting a war that occured as a result of those actions..... the US. maybe have all these 'capabilities' but the reality of the situation isn't all that it seems.....

And The ppl that do hate the US that are recieving aid, etc.. and still hate the US. well considering that the US is the most 'advanced nation' in the world. it still has a large number of starving ppl in their own nation.....
Just thought i'd point that out... sorry.. if this is a repeat statment i just jumped ot page 6.


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> We do in fact have lasers to shoot down artillery shells and it's been in testing for years. Maybe you don't read alot on this type of thing but I assure you, we are prepared on this event.


You're talking about the THEL project (Tactical High Energy Laser) right? That and all other chemical based laser systems were cancelled last year. We're now developing solid state fiber lasers that may be ready for testing by 2011, but we have nothing now that can stop a salvo of artillery.

Btw, I don't take much personally, it just sounds like I get a little heated. Feel free to debate away, I won't take offense.
[/quote]

I was talking about them, and the new ones and they just had a new break through in size due to a new for of acceleration. I believe it was in last month's or the month before of Popular Science or Popular mechanics, sorry I read both and can't remember which one I gleamed it from. Same here, lol I might sound heated but I'm not, I just like to debate and sometimes my beav gets sand


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> I was talking about them, and the new ones and they just had a new break through in size due to a new for of acceleration.


The size is a problem, but what shut the program down was the use of toxic chemicals to operate it, and how difficult it is to transport those chemicals during war.


----------



## the_w8 (Jul 28, 2003)

I jus wish all this war sh*t would end







and reelect a new pres. that ain't asking for much now....


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

Scrappy said:


> I was talking about them, and the new ones and they just had a new break through in size due to a new for of acceleration.


The size is a problem, but what shut the program down was the use of toxic chemicals to operate it, and how difficult it is to transport those chemicals during war.
[/quote]

Yep yep, the new one I saw though can fit on a hummer and they actually have a working prototype of it. It can track and destroy 12 before a recharge. Pretty cool how they work and in realtime! Thank god they abondanded the chemical version, lol you imagine that thing getting hit and all the chemicals spilling or igniting???


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

Because we all learned of America's military dominance in Iraq...oh...wait a second


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

CNN is airing a documentary about N. Korea at 8PM ET.


----------



## G23.40SW (Sep 30, 2005)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> I was talking about them, and the new ones and they just had a new break through in size due to a new for of acceleration.


The size is a problem, but what shut the program down was the use of toxic chemicals to operate it, and how difficult it is to transport those chemicals during war.
[/quote]

Yep yep, the new one I saw though can fit on a hummer and they actually have a working prototype of it. It can track and destroy 12 before a recharge. Pretty cool how they work and in realtime! Thank god they abondanded the chemical version, lol you imagine that thing getting hit and all the chemicals spilling or igniting???
[/quote]

The unit on the hummer was made for detonating unexploded ordnance, not for taking out aerial targets.

There is however a quite large gas laser which is capable of taking out missiles, it CAN take out artillery.

But outside of tests it wouldn't be great, and wouldn't have a 100% sucess rate.

It'd be pretty hard to destroy a full scale artillery barrage from a real army.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

who is starving in America? I'm just really not sure about that line.







Sounds like someone is 'starving' for some solid facts.

Anyone in the mood to play










who is in the mood to play??!


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2006)

I would pwn you so hard at Risk its not even funny.


----------



## the_w8 (Jul 28, 2003)

i don't like that game......I always lose....


----------



## JustJoshinYa (Mar 25, 2006)

lol, why does everybody fight so much, if everyone in power smoked...there would be no wars and there would be relatively a small amount of fighting...everyone would be too lazy


----------



## jaxx (Jun 2, 2006)

the_w8 said:


> lol, why does everybody fight so much, if everyone in power smoked...there would be no wars and there would be relatively a small amount of fighting...everyone would be too lazy


Hippies................

El twitcho.....where you at BOY! Tell me who you want as American pres. 'Splain to us how your canidate will save the world.

FARGO buddy! What say you!


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Because we all learned of America's military dominance in Iraq...oh...wait a second


Lol our dominance wasn't the question bud, it was our information.


----------



## rocker (Aug 12, 2005)

wow lol


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> I was talking about them, and the new ones and they just had a new break through in size due to a new for of acceleration.


The size is a problem, but what shut the program down was the use of toxic chemicals to operate it, and how difficult it is to transport those chemicals during war.
[/quote]

Yep yep, the new one I saw though can fit on a hummer and they actually have a working prototype of it. It can track and destroy 12 before a recharge. Pretty cool how they work and in realtime! Thank god they abondanded the chemical version, lol you imagine that thing getting hit and all the chemicals spilling or igniting???
[/quote]

The unit on the hummer was made for detonating unexploded ordnance, not for taking out aerial targets.

There is however a quite large gas laser which is capable of taking out missiles, it CAN take out artillery.

But outside of tests it wouldn't be great, and wouldn't have a 100% sucess rate.

It'd be pretty hard to destroy a full scale artillery barrage from a real army.
[/quote]

Not trying to argue there but I beg to differ, I watch a ton of science channel and military channel. I watched a show witch talked directly about what I was typing about and they showed a prototype mounted and functioning on a hummer. Keep in mind that it was only popping ONE round at a time and yes, like you said lol not an entire barrage. It was never intended to take out an entire barrage but it was built to lessen the blow and if it was a weak firefight it could possibly take out the airborne targets. Not saying your wrong, but maybe you just haven't happen to see the updated version is all


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2006)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> Because we all learned of America's military dominance in Iraq...oh...wait a second


Lol our dominance wasn't the question bud, it was our information.
[/quote]

To me, those go hand in hand?


----------



## CROSSHAIR223 (Jan 17, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Because we all learned of America's military dominance in Iraq...oh...wait a second


Lol our dominance wasn't the question bud, it was our information.
[/quote]

To me, those go hand in hand?
[/quote]
Hmmm maybe you aren't understanding dominance then. Just cause I can beat the sh*t out of you doesn't make me smart lol Our forces dominated them at every encounter. Their forces are not trained or armed like ours are. So as far as our military is concerned we dominated theirs, our information on what they had or where they stored "IT" lol wasn't exactly accurate. Does this help???

Here, maybe this will help too

Dominance: The state that exists when one person or group has power over another.

Information: Acquired through study or experience or instruction (or) a collection of facts from which conclusions may be drawn.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dannyboy, we could level iraq into a smoking pile of molten sand, why dont we? they have oil, why would we blow them all to sh*t? that would make no sense, we'd spend money for no return. if N Korea wanted an all out war, why the hell would artillery be involved? we'd rape them from the sky...why would we risk soldiers lives? there's no reason, we've got precision bombs, advanced satellites...etc...you're telling me that we wouldnt totally bring them to their knees before we actually stepped one american foot on their soil? old school warfare is out the window, if we had any interest in N Korea then it'd be different, but honestly, what's there that we need or want? nothing at all, we'd have no problem carpet bombing them off the face of the earth...seriously though, this is all speculative, here we are talking about a war with Korea and it doesnt even exist yet...the only thing we KNOW is that N Korea test fired ballistic missiles when they were encouraged not to...woopdie doo.


----------



## Exile123 (Jun 23, 2006)

Scrappy said:


> Good luck messing with North Korea. They've got enough ordnance on the DMZ to level Seoul which is the largest city in the world.






































right if we did go to war it would be all bombs for the first few months


----------



## Guest (Jul 9, 2006)

I said hand in hand man, not the same thing.

How would America even pay for this war anyways? I cant imagine those precision bombs are cheap.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

hahaha...dannyboy...come on now...we've got a 400 billion dollar deficit, you think we're going to stop spending now? hell no, i think bush wants to see how much sh*t he can buy for a trillion dollars...kinda like a little game...


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

CROSSHAIR223 said:


> Hmmm maybe you aren't understanding dominance then. Just cause I can beat the sh*t out of you doesn't make me smart lol Our forces dominated them at every encounter. Their forces are not trained or armed like ours are. So as far as our military is concerned we dominated theirs, our information on what they had or where they stored "IT" lol wasn't exactly accurate. Does this help???
> 
> Here, maybe this will help too
> 
> ...


It's more like dominance vs. *occupation*. We can dominate them in every military encounter - disregarding for the fact that the land does not belong to us - but we can't occupy the Iraqis because, believe it or not, like Americans, they're patriotic and refuse to be ruled by another country. The nerve of them! I thought only Americans were aloud to be patriotic. DB17 is right that we cannot afford an occupation. We are not winning that war, which leads us back to the ridiculously common sense point that you better have a good reason to go to war, since you have to fight to win, not necessarily occupy, and collateral damage will be inevitable.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> hahaha...dannyboy...come on now...we've got a *400 billion dollar deficit*, you think we're going to stop spending now? hell no, i think bush wants to see how much sh*t he can buy for a trillion dollars...kinda like a little game...


So?

You didnt mention we have an economy who turns out about 40-60 trillion a year.

Look, im not trying to argue a $400 billion deficit isnt bad, it is... but its not as bad as some people want to make it.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

but honestly exodus...doesnt it seem like a shopping spree that bush is on? haha, i can imagine him and the joint chiefs playing RISK or something and making all their logistical moves based on that...whats a few billion more! if we dont spend it, the entire US will be vaporized by terrorists!!! gungho gungho gungho!!!! ohhh say can you seeee, by the dawns early liiight...ahh, if only every american was as patriotic as i am...or Mr. Bush for that matter...


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

jaxx said:


> lol, why does everybody fight so much, if everyone in power smoked...there would be no wars and there would be relatively a small amount of fighting...everyone would be too lazy


Hippies................

El twitcho.....where you at BOY! Tell me who you want as American pres. 'Splain to us how your canidate will save the world.

FARGO buddy! What say you!
[/quote]

Im neither Canadian nor Democrat nor Republican, but I think the next "one" for the Democratic Party is Barak Obama. Without looking anything up, his time may come in 2012 as opposed to 2008. Again, this is brought to you without some quick google search after which I act as though Ive known for years...

Tom


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

holy sh*t...AMAZING POST!!!! OBAMA IS THE f*cking MAN!!!! that guy was the BALLS a few years back at the DNC. mofo knows how to give a damn speach...fo sho!


----------



## jaxx (Jun 2, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> holy sh*t...AMAZING POST!!!! OBAMA IS THE f*cking MAN!!!! that guy was the BALLS a few years back at the DNC. mofo knows how to give a damn speach...fo sho!


He ain't gonna get you out of Iraq. What would he do different?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dude, how the hell can i speculate...i KNOW that he's not going to be like bush...period...who's ur choice? trent lott? bahahaha.


----------



## jaxx (Jun 2, 2006)

Newt Gingrich! I don't think he will run-I don't think he can get the repub. nomination-but firm conservative. Just don't give me Jeb Bush. I'd like to see things run differently like you but what I fail to see out of you guys (el twitcho-you r1-dannyboy) is how thing are going to change so much after 08'.

You are not going to win without the middle(moderate vote). So you can forget about anybody from the extreme right or left. If you are on the extreme, you need a stealth canidate and I can't see that happening in todays information age.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

you've got that wrong...todays age is the "mis-information" age...and its not going to change overnight, but serious strides can be taken to slowly reel some of our civil liberties back to shore...bush basically cut them loose and let them float.


----------



## jaxx (Jun 2, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> you've got that wrong...todays age is the "mis-information" age...and its not going to change overnight, but serious strides can be taken to slowly reel some of our civil liberties back to shore...bush basically cut them loose and let them float.


If you are refering to the patriot act, do you really think it is going away? Nope. Bush had alot of help getting the act passed. He can do very little without help from the repulican party-in fact I'll bet you there was democratic support for the act-still is. As far as the information age, with your name and approximate age, I can find out where you live, what grades you got in school, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, it goes on and on.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

So...

this thread was about....


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I believe some people just want to watch another war on their TV.

Give Palestinians & Israelis some more of my tax money and you'll see another.


----------



## jaxx (Jun 2, 2006)

User said:


> I believe some people just want to watch another war on their TV.
> 
> Give Palestinians & Israelis some more of my tax money and you'll see another.


If the palestinians don't get rid of Hamas there will be no $$$$$$ for them and it gives the Isrealies much credibility-who do you want Hamas or Isreal? If you take Hamas out of the picture you would see world outcry for the Isrealies to get out of Gaza. It was a bad move to kidnap that soldier.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Guys, it's a weiner joke...

...wait, wrong thread, sorry


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Hemi said:


> fox 5 news said something about the UN chargen NK sanctions
> 
> then that NK guy said
> "that would be a decliration of war"
> ...










ill just copy/paste because this is the botttom line..

what i tell ya about china and russia being in bed with north korea..and the iceing on the cake is around two years ago bush stated that north korea was at least 10 years away from having the technology to carry a warhead all the way to the states and here we are in 06 and theyre firing them off like thiers no tomorrow







testing and tweeking thier range capability and we re letting china and f*cking russia have the last word even tho thier "resolution" is for everybody to deny nk the technology its so f*cking obvious they have been getting from pakistan and iran..i hope everyone is happy with thier choice for president because he is signing all of our asses on the dotted line..

Hoorah to israel for not taking any sh*t, people claim bush is such a cowboy, meanwhile this push pop turned his back on one of the biggest allies we have telling them were not getting involved, all for the fear of the words Word War 3,







if your gonna talk about going balls in then be prepared to go balls in, every f*cking rogue city/state/country smells blood on us and thier balls are growing by the minute, north korea and iran are both calling our bluf and watching close how we deal with the other, well north korea just wants a fight, those crasy basteds have been calling us out for years while iran on the other hand is succeeding in drawing in all muslim states.. we got no choice, we wait any longer and ten years from now, if nk hasnt launched on us before then, russia and china will have already chosen sides making it almost impossable to get out with our cocks intacked.. mark my words..its not a secret to the arags that we back israel so why deny it anyway for the sake of "propiganda" of all f*cking things..

they want hellfire and brimstone, so be it, the time is now to strike with everything we got no prisoners no more talk, follow israels lead and lets see who can drop the bigger bomb..get the retarded gutless sheep out of office, iraq is terdcorn compared to what we re up against now..i dont know how many times i got to say it, bush is not a tough guy because he made the call to invade iraq, i can gaurentee you he was briefed well on how easy it would be to ride into baghdad and plant our flag







what he nor numbsfield counted on was getting draged into a jihad and with every muslem country on our heels and north korea in our face and now we want to worry about propiganda







.. we need a soldier in office, we need wesleymotherfuckingclark in office, and if the sh*t gets too thick we might even need to bring back ross perot and put his crasy ass in office, sh*t the crazier they get the crazier well get







...no really that perot part was a joke, but the only intelligent "decider" for us will be wesley clark in 08.. it was clear that the majority didnt have a clue when bush got in office but ill be surprised that any of you could wipe your own ass if hilery or julianis fake corupted ass is even on the ticket come 08..if that sh*t happens then thier is no f*cking hope for this country and ill see all you dumb fucks in hell because we will deserve what we get..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

after an attempt to test a long range missile that was aimed not to far from "hawaii", kim young jung fung states "we will continue to test our missles and if anyone trys to stop us, thier will be severe consiquences"..wtf, it took less to next to nothing for us to invade iraq and we continue to let this go unanswered, what kind of compitence are we showing our enemies, why shouldnt iran continue to tell us to go f*ck ourselves?? why in the world are we waiting for north korea to have range on us when all thier "missle testing" showed was thier ass and that at this time, no they do not have the range on us, why wait untill they do..now is the time to invoke a draft and drop many many bombs on them putting them back in the stone age..we should initiate north korea and let israel initiate iran before it is too late because once either country has range on us we will have no options..and both countries will not hesitate to launch on us..we cant rely on either countries greed to quiet them down because there is none, these people hate us with extremem prejudice and will risk thier very existence if it means having the chance to wipe us off the face of the earth..


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> after an attempt to test a long range missile that was aimed not to far from "hawaii", kim young jung fung states "we will continue to test our missles and if anyone trys to stop us, thier will be severe consiquences"..wtf, it took less to next to nothing for us to invade iraq and we continue to let this go unanswered, what kind of compitence are we showing our enemies, why shouldnt iran continue to tell us to go f*ck ourselves?? why in the world are we waiting for north korea to have range on us when all thier "missle testing" showed was thier ass and that at this time, no they do not have the range on us, why wait untill they do..now is the time to invoke a draft and drop many many bombs on them putting them back in the stone age..we should initiate north korea and let israel initiate iran before it is too late because once either country has range on us we will have no options..and both countries will not hesitate to launch on us..we cant rely on either countries greed to quiet them down because there is none, these people hate us with extremem prejudice and will risk thier very existence if it means having the chance to wipe us off the face of the earth..


dude iran and NK are far more equipt for war then iraq ever was.. at this point our amy is about a 1/4 the size of NK, we cant fight on three fronts. plus both iran and NK are very rugged terrain to fight..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> after an attempt to test a long range missile that was aimed not to far from "hawaii", kim young jung fung states "we will continue to test our missles and if anyone trys to stop us, thier will be severe consiquences"..wtf, it took less to next to nothing for us to invade iraq and we continue to let this go unanswered, what kind of compitence are we showing our enemies, why shouldnt iran continue to tell us to go f*ck ourselves?? why in the world are we waiting for north korea to have range on us when all thier "missle testing" showed was thier ass and that at this time, no they do not have the range on us, why wait untill they do..now is the time to invoke a draft and drop many many bombs on them putting them back in the stone age..we should initiate north korea and let israel initiate iran before it is too late because once either country has range on us we will have no options..and both countries will not hesitate to launch on us..we cant rely on either countries greed to quiet them down because there is none, these people hate us with extremem prejudice and will risk thier very existence if it means having the chance to wipe us off the face of the earth..


dude iran and NK are far more equipt for war then iraq ever was.. at this point our amy is about a 1/4 the size of NK, we cant fight on three fronts. plus both iran and NK are very rugged terrain to fight..
[/quote]

if we keep delaying the inevitable based on these fears, then when the time comes it will be too late, im not saying we work with what we got, we will need a draft and to first and formost bomb the hell out of them and cut them off before we put boots on the ground.. the terrain in both countries are nowhere close to being as exploiting as afganistans..but if we want to be in a fight with no direct danger of a capable warhead being launched at us, then the best time to strike would be now, and we should be encouraging and working with israel to initiate iran, so we can focus on north korea especially now that japans finally ready to make thier move..both north korea and iran are successfully buying themselves time at the same time making us look weak and encouraging everyone of our enemies to do the same..


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> after an attempt to test a long range missile that was aimed not to far from "hawaii", kim young jung fung states "we will continue to test our missles and if anyone trys to stop us, thier will be severe consiquences"..wtf, it took less to next to nothing for us to invade iraq and we continue to let this go unanswered, what kind of compitence are we showing our enemies, why shouldnt iran continue to tell us to go f*ck ourselves?? why in the world are we waiting for north korea to have range on us when all thier "missle testing" showed was thier ass and that at this time, no they do not have the range on us, why wait untill they do..now is the time to invoke a draft and drop many many bombs on them putting them back in the stone age..we should initiate north korea and let israel initiate iran before it is too late because once either country has range on us we will have no options..and both countries will not hesitate to launch on us..we cant rely on either countries greed to quiet them down because there is none, these people hate us with extremem prejudice and will risk thier very existence if it means having the chance to wipe us off the face of the earth..


dude iran and NK are far more equipt for war then iraq ever was.. at this point our amy is about a 1/4 the size of NK, we cant fight on three fronts. plus both iran and NK are very rugged terrain to fight..
[/quote]

if we keep delaying the inevitable based on these fears, then when the time comes it will be too late, im not saying we work with what we got, we will need a draft and to first and formost bomb the hell out of them and cut them off before we put boots on the ground.. the terrain in both countries are nowhere close to being as exploiting as afganistans..but if we want to be in a fight with no direct danger of a capable warhead being launched at us, then the best time to strike would be now, and we should be encouraging and working with israel to initiate iran, so we can focus on north korea especially now that japans finally ready to make thier move..both north korea and iran are successfully buying themselves time at the same time making us look weak and encouraging everyone of our enemies to do the same..
[/quote]

ok you are a nut.. i hope you cant vote..

you seriously want a draft? you think a draft army is affective?

or that yourone chance at life on this earth should be thrown away to some bull sh*t c*ck measuring match..

f*ck that..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> after an attempt to test a long range missile that was aimed not to far from "hawaii", kim young jung fung states "we will continue to test our missles and if anyone trys to stop us, thier will be severe consiquences"..wtf, it took less to next to nothing for us to invade iraq and we continue to let this go unanswered, what kind of compitence are we showing our enemies, why shouldnt iran continue to tell us to go f*ck ourselves?? why in the world are we waiting for north korea to have range on us when all thier "missle testing" showed was thier ass and that at this time, no they do not have the range on us, why wait untill they do..now is the time to invoke a draft and drop many many bombs on them putting them back in the stone age..we should initiate north korea and let israel initiate iran before it is too late because once either country has range on us we will have no options..and both countries will not hesitate to launch on us..we cant rely on either countries greed to quiet them down because there is none, these people hate us with extremem prejudice and will risk thier very existence if it means having the chance to wipe us off the face of the earth..


dude iran and NK are far more equipt for war then iraq ever was.. at this point our amy is about a 1/4 the size of NK, we cant fight on three fronts. plus both iran and NK are very rugged terrain to fight..
[/quote]

if we keep delaying the inevitable based on these fears, then when the time comes it will be too late, im not saying we work with what we got, we will need a draft and to first and formost bomb the hell out of them and cut them off before we put boots on the ground.. the terrain in both countries are nowhere close to being as exploiting as afganistans..but if we want to be in a fight with no direct danger of a capable warhead being launched at us, then the best time to strike would be now, and we should be encouraging and working with israel to initiate iran, so we can focus on north korea especially now that japans finally ready to make thier move..both north korea and iran are successfully buying themselves time at the same time making us look weak and encouraging everyone of our enemies to do the same..
[/quote]

ok you are a nut.. i hope you cant vote..

you seriously want a draft? you think a draft army is affective?

or that yourone chance at life on this earth should be thrown away to some bull sh*t c*ck measuring match..

f*ck that..
[/quote]








this is why this country is so fucked, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the majority are all talk and would rather buy thier way out instead of fight, at this point the safety and future of this country is on the line and thier is no buying your way out, our enemies want to wipe out our way of life and what it calls for is an old fashion ass whooping and if you are too pussified to defend this country then no one is stopping you, tuck tail and take your ass to canada..


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

i dunno man 
a draft 
whos gonna take care of my kid

and how would this bamaba guy get to run in 2012 
we all know its gonna be a democrat in 2008 
prolly hillary

she would just baked osama a cake and it all woulda been taken care of 
you know how woman scorn can be 
little arsnic in the frosting 
and POW wars over

wich brings back this memory

beavis

"i am the president of the united states.
the most powerful country in the world.
bow down.
the streets will flow with the blood of the non believers"


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: this is why this country is so fucked, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the majority are all talk and would rather buy thier way out instead of fight, at this point the safety and future of this country is on the line and thier is no buying your way out, our enemies want to wipe out our way of life and what it calls for is an old fashion ass whooping and if you are too pussified to defend this country then no one is stopping you, tuck tail and take your ass to canada..


no the problem is nuts like you that are looking for fight and feel that it is necesasry to pummle the world into submission. your the ones that are in fear, that have beceome teh terrorist bitch, this is what they want..

its not about being a p*ssy its about picking your fight and knowing when to use diplomecy and when to use force..

do you try to fix everything with a hammer or do you use the right tools for the job to minimize collateral damage or side effects?

i dont think it has any thing to do with being a p*ssy, my selfish for not being a stupid blindly patriot american but not p*ssy.. personally i feel that i only have one chace in this life and i dont want it to eb wasted fighing some BS political pissing match..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> :laugh: this is why this country is so fucked, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the majority are all talk and would rather buy thier way out instead of fight, at this point the safety and future of this country is on the line and thier is no buying your way out, our enemies want to wipe out our way of life and what it calls for is an old fashion ass whooping and if you are too pussified to defend this country then no one is stopping you, tuck tail and take your ass to canada..


no the problem is nuts like you that are looking for fight and feel that it is necesasry to pummle the world into submission. your the ones that are in fear, that have beceome teh terrorist bitch, this is what they want..

its not about being a p*ssy its about picking your fight and knowing when to use diplomecy and when to use force..

do you try to fix everything with a hammer or do you use the right tools for the job to minimize collateral damage or side effects?

i dont think it has any thing to do with being a p*ssy, my selfish for not being a stupid blindly patriot american but not p*ssy.. personally i feel that i only have one chace in this life and i dont want it to eb wasted fighing some BS political pissing match..
[/quote]

ok so how much diplomecy should we continue to throw at iran and north korea, and how long should we continue to allow them to spit in our faces..you do realize that the long ranged weapon that north korea was testing was aimed not to far from hawaii right, then they state that they will continue to test thier ranged missles and any action taken against them will be considered as an act of war.. do you even have a clue about the fanatics we're dealing with, the word "diplomecy" must make you feel comfy at night as long and a missle hasnt landed in your backyard yet, your problem is you throw around the word diplomecy without any true convictions, we've tried diplomecy for decades with these people and it doesnt work, and now that theyre on the verge of having missles capable of reaching the states, you still feel comfterble throwing around the word diplomecy







.. i wont even return the favor by agknowledging you as a bitch but for the sake of facts, your a clueless coward..

you do realize that the head of pakistans<a nuclear state> nuclear program abdul qadeer khan has been supplying north korea and iran thier nuclear capabilities for the past 20 years, while the pakistani president "supposedly" had no idea that this was going on and this was left unchecked..of course you did, i'd expect someone like your self who is an expert at diplomecy to have known this







hell id be surprised if you knew what f*cking year it is...

:laugh: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG71ECO571.DTL

heres some diplomecy for ya..


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: this is why this country is so fucked, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the majority are all talk and would rather buy thier way out instead of fight, at this point the safety and future of this country is on the line and thier is no buying your way out, our enemies want to wipe out our way of life and what it calls for is an old fashion ass whooping and if you are too pussified to defend this country then no one is stopping you, tuck tail and take your ass to canada..


no the problem is nuts like you that are looking for fight and feel that it is necesasry to pummle the world into submission. your the ones that are in fear, that have beceome teh terrorist bitch, this is what they want..

its not about being a p*ssy its about picking your fight and knowing when to use diplomecy and when to use force..

do you try to fix everything with a hammer or do you use the right tools for the job to minimize collateral damage or side effects?

i dont think it has any thing to do with being a p*ssy, my selfish for not being a stupid blindly patriot american but not p*ssy.. personally i feel that i only have one chace in this life and i dont want it to eb wasted fighing some BS political pissing match..
[/quote]

ok so how much diplomecy should we continue to throw at iran and north korea, and how long should we continue to allow them to spit in our faces..you do realize that the long ranged weapon that north korea was testing was aimed not to far from hawaii right, then they state that they will continue to test thier ranged missles and any action taken against them will be considered as an act of war.. do you even have a clue about the fanatics we're dealing with, the word "diplomecy" must make you feel comfy at night as long and a missle hasnt landed in your backyard yet, your problem is you throw around the word diplomecy without any true convictions, we've tried diplomecy for decades with these people and it doesnt work, and now that theyre on the verge of having missles capable of reaching the states, you still feel comfterble throwing around the word diplomecy :laugh: .. i wont even return the favor by agknowledging you as a bitch but for the sake of facts,* your a clueless coward..*

you do realize that the head of pakistans<a nuclear state> nuclear program abdul qadeer khan has been supplying north korea and iran thier nuclear capabilities for the past 20 years, while the pakistani president "supposedly" had no idea that this was going on and this was left unchecked..of course you did, i'd expect someone like your self who is an expert at diplomecy to have known this :laugh: hell id be surprised if you knew what f*cking year it is...
[/quote]

dude you are a fear /war monger.. do you belive everything you see and hear on the local news or on fox?

i belive im far more informed then you considering what you belive to be appropriate action clearly does not consider the implications of those actions..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> :laugh: this is why this country is so fucked, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the majority are all talk and would rather buy thier way out instead of fight, at this point the safety and future of this country is on the line and thier is no buying your way out, our enemies want to wipe out our way of life and what it calls for is an old fashion ass whooping and if you are too pussified to defend this country then no one is stopping you, tuck tail and take your ass to canada..


no the problem is nuts like you that are looking for fight and feel that it is necesasry to pummle the world into submission. your the ones that are in fear, that have beceome teh terrorist bitch, this is what they want..

its not about being a p*ssy its about picking your fight and knowing when to use diplomecy and when to use force..

do you try to fix everything with a hammer or do you use the right tools for the job to minimize collateral damage or side effects?

i dont think it has any thing to do with being a p*ssy, my selfish for not being a stupid blindly patriot american but not p*ssy.. personally i feel that i only have one chace in this life and i dont want it to eb wasted fighing some BS political pissing match..
[/quote]

ok so how much diplomecy should we continue to throw at iran and north korea, and how long should we continue to allow them to spit in our faces..you do realize that the long ranged weapon that north korea was testing was aimed not to far from hawaii right, then they state that they will continue to test thier ranged missles and any action taken against them will be considered as an act of war.. do you even have a clue about the fanatics we're dealing with, the word "diplomecy" must make you feel comfy at night as long and a missle hasnt landed in your backyard yet, your problem is you throw around the word diplomecy without any true convictions, we've tried diplomecy for decades with these people and it doesnt work, and now that theyre on the verge of having missles capable of reaching the states, you still feel comfterble throwing around the word diplomecy :laugh: .. i wont even return the favor by agknowledging you as a bitch but for the sake of facts,* your a clueless coward..*

you do realize that the head of pakistans<a nuclear state> nuclear program abdul qadeer khan has been supplying north korea and iran thier nuclear capabilities for the past 20 years, while the pakistani president "supposedly" had no idea that this was going on and this was left unchecked..of course you did, i'd expect someone like your self who is an expert at diplomecy to have known this :laugh: hell id be surprised if you knew what f*cking year it is...
[/quote]

dude you are a fear /war monger.. do you belive everything you see and hear on the local news or on fox?

i belive im far more informed then you considering what you belive to be appropriate action clearly does not consider the implications of those actions..
[/quote]

these are FACTS , f*ck fox, your so informed that you dont believe pakistans president himself when he admits supllying north korea and iran with nuclear technology?? and north korea testing a long ranged missle aimed near hawaii isnt something that happened or to be conserned about?? the north korean ambasidor stateing that if thier are any sanctions because of this missle testing,it will be considered as an act of war isn't an act of agression??







if your so well informed smart guy, how bout a little bit more into some detail about what kind of diplomecy that hasnt been tried that is warrented







show me how informed you are instead of out of the fear of the very thought of having to defend your own country youd rather allow north korea the time to be capable of launching several warheads at us on our own soil, with your so called diplomecy..


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2006)

Haha Liquid, people like you are the reason the whole world is starting to hate America.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Haha Liquid, people like you are the reason the whole world is starting to hate America.


 yeah..every year the whole world starts to hate america, but you know whats even more funny, when one of those missles misses us and hits canada







now thats what i call comedy..


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Haha Liquid, people like you are the reason the whole world is starting to hate America.


DannyBoy...lets just set the record straight...do YOU hate America? In just about everything I see from you outside of your camera thread, you are explaining what is wrong with America. I just wanted to hear it straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

Furthermore, America has BEEN hated forever and will continnue to be hated by most non-Americans and quite a few Americans themselves.

Its not like I am terribly proud of my country's spotted past, but I see no reason to bash it at every chance I get. Seeing that kind of behavior actually fuels my patriotism.

Tom


----------



## Puff (Feb 14, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Haha Liquid, people like you are the reason the whole world is starting to hate America.


 yeah..every year the whole world starts to hate america, but you know whats even more funny, when one of those missles misses us and hits canada :laugh: now thats what i call comedy..
[/quote]

wow man, you need an hour long special on the Comedy Channel...you f*cking idiot.

i myself dont hate americans. my sister is now an american citizen, marrying an american guy. ive met a LOT of awesome americans...but you are a f*cking idiot. ppl like you give the rest of the world a reason to dislike americans, when that is incredibly unfair to the rest of your country's population. for every few million awesome americans, there is one dumbass like yourself, and you bring down your country's international reputation with your war mongering and general dumbass-ery (yeah, i know its not a word...lol).

*this was not an Anti-american post. it was an anti-dumbass post*


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

Preach it Diddy! What happened to the Ronaldo avatar?

Tom


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: this is why this country is so fucked, because when the sh*t hits the fan, the majority are all talk and would rather buy thier way out instead of fight, at this point the safety and future of this country is on the line and thier is no buying your way out, our enemies want to wipe out our way of life and what it calls for is an old fashion ass whooping and if you are too pussified to defend this country then no one is stopping you, tuck tail and take your ass to canada..


no the problem is nuts like you that are looking for fight and feel that it is necesasry to pummle the world into submission. your the ones that are in fear, that have beceome teh terrorist bitch, this is what they want..

its not about being a p*ssy its about picking your fight and knowing when to use diplomecy and when to use force..

do you try to fix everything with a hammer or do you use the right tools for the job to minimize collateral damage or side effects?

i dont think it has any thing to do with being a p*ssy, my selfish for not being a stupid blindly patriot american but not p*ssy.. personally i feel that i only have one chace in this life and i dont want it to eb wasted fighing some BS political pissing match..
[/quote]

ok so how much diplomecy should we continue to throw at iran and north korea, and how long should we continue to allow them to spit in our faces..you do realize that the long ranged weapon that north korea was testing was aimed not to far from hawaii right, then they state that they will continue to test thier ranged missles and any action taken against them will be considered as an act of war.. do you even have a clue about the fanatics we're dealing with, the word "diplomecy" must make you feel comfy at night as long and a missle hasnt landed in your backyard yet, your problem is you throw around the word diplomecy without any true convictions, we've tried diplomecy for decades with these people and it doesnt work, and now that theyre on the verge of having missles capable of reaching the states, you still feel comfterble throwing around the word diplomecy :laugh: .. i wont even return the favor by agknowledging you as a bitch but for the sake of facts,* your a clueless coward..*

you do realize that the head of pakistans<a nuclear state> nuclear program abdul qadeer khan has been supplying north korea and iran thier nuclear capabilities for the past 20 years, while the pakistani president "supposedly" had no idea that this was going on and this was left unchecked..of course you did, i'd expect someone like your self who is an expert at diplomecy to have known this :laugh: hell id be surprised if you knew what f*cking year it is...
[/quote]

dude you are a fear /war monger.. do you belive everything you see and hear on the local news or on fox?

i belive im far more informed then you considering what you belive to be appropriate action clearly does not consider the implications of those actions..
[/quote]

these are FACTS , f*ck fox, your so informed that you dont believe pakistans president himself when he admits supllying north korea and iran with nuclear technology?? and north korea testing a long ranged missle aimed near hawaii isnt something that happened or to be conserned about?? the north korean ambasidor stateing that if thier are any sanctions because of this missle testing,it will be considered as an act of war isn't an act of agression??:laugh: if your so well informed smart guy, how bout a little bit more into some detail about what kind of diplomecy that hasnt been tried that is warrented :laugh: show me how informed you are instead of out of the fear of the very thought of having to defend your own country youd rather allow north korea the time to be capable of launching several warheads at us on our own soil, with your so called diplomecy..
[/quote]

Surely Americans can spell, right????


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

I am an American and I can spell.

Tom

By the way, while we are on America-hating, anybody catch Finding Nemo? The part where theyre talking about somebody taking over something or being greedy. It was one of the sharks. Then he says "Yeah, probably an American." I was like, damn Pixar!! How you gonna hate? Anyways, Im probably about 4 years too late with this.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

liquid...you've been spoonfed the same bullshit media as everyone on these boards, the missile was aimed at hawaii? come on dude, if the N Koreans wanted to hit hawaii, would they not have hit hawaii yet? you're the one telling us how they've got all these missiles, and have been testing like crazy...well for the record, i see one test...thats it..uno...you know how many weapons tests the US does? because i dont, but i do know its a hell of a lot more than 1. seriously man, if you want to be all gungho about it, go ahead, sign up for the army and go fight...w00t...you'll 0wn when you shoot someones face off, i know you'll be like uber leet, not everyone shares your sentiment, and no, there's a difference between being a cowardice p*ssy and being stupid, drafting/invading N Korea over a missile test is stupid and will result in many many many many dead people. being smart always leads to a better outcome, rather than being all "im so tough, i'll kick everyones ass and take names and mash your face into split pea soup...blah blah blah"...that sh*t so 80's...


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

PygoFanatic said:


> I am an American and I can spell.
> 
> Tom
> 
> By the way, while we are on America-hating, anybody catch Finding Nemo? The part where theyre talking about somebody taking over something or being greedy. It was one of the sharks. Then he says "Yeah, probably an American." I was like, damn Pixar!! How you gonna hate? Anyways, Im probably about 4 years too late with this.


Yes Tom,

Thanks for being a shinning light...

Jay


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> liquid...you've been spoonfed the same bullshit media as everyone on these boards, the missile was aimed at hawaii? come on dude, if the N Koreans wanted to hit hawaii, would they not have hit hawaii yet? you're the one telling us how they've got all these missiles, and have been testing like crazy...well for the record, i see one test...thats it..uno...you know how many weapons tests the US does? because i dont, but i do know its a hell of a lot more than 1. seriously man, if you want to be all gungho about it, go ahead, sign up for the army and go fight...w00t...you'll 0wn when you shoot someones face off, i know you'll be like uber leet, not everyone shares your sentiment, and no, there's a difference between being a cowardice p*ssy and being stupid, drafting/invading N Korea over a missile test is stupid and will result in many many many many dead people. being smart always leads to a better outcome, rather than being all "im so tough, i'll kick everyones ass and take names and mash your face into split pea soup...blah blah blah"...that sh*t so 80's...


first of all, i didnt say they were aimed "at" hawaii, i said they were aimed at waters near hawaii, and thier were 7 missiles fired, not one..and i never said i'd mash anyones face here, if you feel like i would "mash you" or "kick your ass"







well i guess youll have that.. i expect the reaction i get from canadians and the french alike, because thier idea of homeland defence has basically always been never being prepared until the last minute which at that time they can always surrender







viva la french..as for the clueless back here in the states who would like to down play kim jongs past, his actions, and his intentions







well i guess youll have that also, give it a year and youll be singing a diffrent tune gaurenteed..


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> liquid...you've been spoonfed the same bullshit media as everyone on these boards, the missile was aimed at hawaii? come on dude, if the N Koreans wanted to hit hawaii, would they not have hit hawaii yet? you're the one telling us how they've got all these missiles, and have been testing like crazy...well for the record, i see one test...thats it..uno...you know how many weapons tests the US does? because i dont, but i do know its a hell of a lot more than 1. seriously man, if you want to be all gungho about it, go ahead, sign up for the army and go fight...w00t...you'll 0wn when you shoot someones face off, i know you'll be like uber leet, not everyone shares your sentiment, and no, there's a difference between being a cowardice p*ssy and being stupid, drafting/invading N Korea over a missile test is stupid and will result in many many many many dead people. being smart always leads to a better outcome, rather than being all "im so tough, i'll kick everyones ass and take names and mash your face into split pea soup...blah blah blah"...that sh*t so 80's...


first of all, i didnt say they were aimed "at" hawaii, i said they were aimed at waters near hawaii, and thier were 7 missiles fired, not one..and i never said i'd mash anyones face here, if you feel like i would "mash you" or "kick your ass"







well i guess youll have that.. i expect the reaction i get from canadians and the french alike, because thier idea of homeland defence has basically always been never being prepared until the last minute which at that time they can always surrender :laugh: viva la french..as for the clueless back here in the states who would like to down play kim jongs past, his actions, and his intentions :laugh: well i guess youll have that also, give it a year and youll be singing a diffrent tune gaurenteed..
[/quote]

kim jong is a blow hart like your self.. all this talk gets things no where.. even your retard idol has learned, bush calls out the axis of evil and it did nothign but stir the nest and provokethem you dont hear any of that tough talk coming out of his stupid yap any more..

NK has allies just as we have allies, if they wanted to provoke a war they dont have to hit any part of america all they have to do is attack japan or south korea..

if we attack irna or NK then we will have to deal with both plus the possibility of problems with russia and china, the US cannot single handedly take on the despite your roid rage patriotism. you wanna go die and waste your life have fun atleast i wont have to read your stupid retoric threads..

what do you think would have happened if bush was president back in teh cuban missle crisis? how was that resolved? did we pre-emptively attack our enimies?


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> liquid...you've been spoonfed the same bullshit media as everyone on these boards, the missile was aimed at hawaii? come on dude, if the N Koreans wanted to hit hawaii, would they not have hit hawaii yet? you're the one telling us how they've got all these missiles, and have been testing like crazy...well for the record, i see one test...thats it..uno...you know how many weapons tests the US does? because i dont, but i do know its a hell of a lot more than 1. seriously man, if you want to be all gungho about it, go ahead, sign up for the army and go fight...w00t...you'll 0wn when you shoot someones face off, i know you'll be like uber leet, not everyone shares your sentiment, and no, there's a difference between being a cowardice p*ssy and being stupid, drafting/invading N Korea over a missile test is stupid and will result in many many many many dead people. being smart always leads to a better outcome, rather than being all "im so tough, i'll kick everyones ass and take names and mash your face into split pea soup...blah blah blah"...that sh*t so 80's...


first of all, i didnt say they were aimed "at" hawaii, i said they were aimed at waters near hawaii, and thier were 7 missiles fired, not one..and i never said i'd mash anyones face here, if you feel like i would "mash you" or "kick your ass"







well i guess youll have that.. i expect the reaction i get from canadians and the french alike, because thier idea of homeland defence has basically always been never being prepared until the last minute which at that time they can always surrender :laugh: viva la french..as for the clueless back here in the states who would like to down play kim jongs past, his actions, and his intentions :laugh: well i guess youll have that also, give it a year and youll be singing a diffrent tune gaurenteed..
[/quote]

kim jong is a blow hart like your self.. all this talk gets things no where.. even your retard idol has learned, bush calls out the axis of evil and it did nothign but stir the nest and provokethem you dont hear any of that tough talk coming out of his stupid yap any more..

NK has allies just as we have allies, if they wanted to provoke a war they dont have to hit any part of america all they have to do is attack japan or south korea..

if we attack irna or NK then we will have to deal with both plus the possibility of problems with russia and china, the US cannot single handedly take on the despite your roid rage patriotism. you wanna go die and waste your life have fun atleast i wont have to read your stupid retoric threads..

what do you think would have happened if bush was president back in teh cuban missle crisis? how was that resolved? did we pre-emptively attack our enimies?
[/quote]

you want to debate your pointless opinion, feel free..but why name call on the internet of all places..stick to the debate.. but if you want to take it to the next level.. your in jersey right?? i f*cking dare you pm me a name and an address, once i confirm its you, im not too far, we can discuss my roid rage in person with out your f*cking keyboard coward







have a nice day..


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

ROFL 
hey nismo man please lettem come to the island 
i got your back man

even though i wanna nuke NK

dude nismos a smart dude 
hes not a fly off the handle kinda guy 
but hes BIG 
and would prolly give me a run for my money

hes the guy in the middle of my ava pict


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2006)

Hate America? No, I dont "hate" anyone.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Hemi said:


> hes the guy in the middle of my ava pict










sorry to hear that

p.s dont matter whos got whos back







please spare me the illusions, the only thing left to tell me is a name an address or to make it easy an ip address, if you feel you got something to tell me thats better said to me in person,







you got to really want it for me to give it..


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

Liquid said:


> hes the guy in the middle of my ava pict


:laugh: sorry to hear that

p.s dont matter whos got whos back 







please spare me the illusions, the only thing left to tell me is a name an address or to make it easy an ip address, if you feel you got something to tell me thats better said to me in person,







you got to really want it for me to give it..
[/quote]

you sound like your trying to get laid man 
keep it tuff guy or go bake me a cake


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> hes the guy in the middle of my ava pict


:laugh: sorry to hear that

p.s dont matter whos got whos back







please spare me the illusions, the only thing left to tell me is a name an address or to make it easy an ip address, if you feel you got something to tell me thats better said to me in person,







you got to really want it for me to give it..
[/quote]

oh so whos the e-thug now all im saying is you have some kind of rage problem which is much more obvious now... what is this high school? are we gonna meet at the baseball field at 4 pm?

grow up and get a clue...

this country hasnt gotten as far or as strong by showing its ass everytime some little sh*t like kim jung ill spouts out retoric..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> hes the guy in the middle of my ava pict


:laugh: sorry to hear that

p.s dont matter whos got whos back







please spare me the illusions, the only thing left to tell me is a name an address or to make it easy an ip address, if you feel you got something to tell me thats better said to me in person,







you got to really want it for me to give it..
[/quote]

oh so whos the e-thug now all im saying is you have some kind of rage problem which is much more obvious now... what is this high school? are we gonna meet at the baseball field at 4 pm?

grow up and get a clue...

this country hasnt gotten as far or as strong by showing its ass everytime some little sh*t like kim jung ill spouts out retoric..
[/quote]








ethug for life baby west siiide, kind of hard for me to keep my cool when your spitting names at me in every other sentence..yep and just like in high school or your local stop and shop or friday night at the bar you start name calling and im gonna go 12 years old on your ass.. keep it civil with me and i got no problem respecting your nonsence


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> NK has allies just as we have allies, if they wanted to provoke a war they dont have to hit any part of america all they have to do is attack japan or south korea..


btw, this would be a "preventative war" "provoked" by north korea, and it is nessecary inside of a year because i can guarentee you once they have the range on us, he will be invading south korea, do i give a f*ck about south korea?? no.. am i concerned with a man like kim jong running around asia raising hell, with his nukes pointed at us, dareing us to even fart in his general direction?? f*ck yeah, if he negates us with the threat of a nuclear war, does he have the resources and the conviction to raise hell in that hemisphere?? more then enough.. and if hes not put in check now you can count on it.. what do you think, hes just polishing up his missiles so they look all nice and pretty?? he knows were not gonna invade with boots on the ground and i know what sof and the kpa are capable of..and this is why thier would need to be a massive air raid first..
[/quote]

well i definately do not think a pre emptive strike is the proper way to handle this, currently we have china and russia who really are more of NK allies then american allies pushing NK to hold back. those test where nothing more then test..

saying the missles were aimed at hawaii is no more accurate then NK claiming that missle defense testing was just a ploy to prepare an attack against them or that our naval drills that were taking place the same times as there missle test are actaully a prep for war.. or that sanctions are an act of war..

its all posturing to save face, asain pride will not allow kim jung ill to lose face to anyone so he will continue to spout off even if his position changes and tehy back off outwardly they will never let that be seen because it shows weakness..

the fact is there missle test where not even full effective and they know they would be fools to launch an attack no matter how strong tehre army, this situation is just another stand off cold war defensive pissing match, NK feels threatened by the fact that we attacked iraq and have set a presidence of preemptively striking rouge nations, they want the world to know that they will not be taken out like iraq was.

similarly iran wants the world to know they will not allow action against them like iraq recieved and the vast difference between NK and IRAn vs iraq is that iraq's defenses where so exstensively weakened after teh first golf war and crippled by inspections and sanctions that the target was softened for years before the second invasion..

to think that china would not get involved in a pre emptive stike against NK is niave and china is a far bigger force that should be respected..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> this country hasnt gotten as far or as strong by showing its ass everytime some little sh*t like kim jung ill spouts out retoric..


Oh really, so what was Iraq?? some kind of glorius victory?? we're fuckin buck naked in baghdad..i know this isnt the extent of our military capability..but the incompetents this administration continues to show tells the world otherwise..at this point north korea is the toughest son of a bitch in the school yard, and they are definatly a threat and left unchecked will deliver severe consequences in the near future and wtf have sactions done but give jong someone to point at and blame.. most of these countries are dirt poor and suppresed anyway just waiting for the right opportunity to throw a wrench in our way of life..


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> this country hasnt gotten as far or as strong by showing its ass everytime some little sh*t like kim jung ill spouts out retoric..


1>
Oh really, so what was Iraq?? some kind of glorius victory?? we're fuckin buck naked in baghdad..i know this isnt the extent of our military capability..but the incompetents this administration continues to show tells the world otherwise..at this point north korea is the toughest son of a bitch in the school yard,

2>
and they are definatly a threat and left unchecked will deliver severe consequences in the near future and wtf have sactions done but give jong someone to point at and blame.. most of these countries are dirt poor and suppresed anyway just waiting for the right opportunity to throw a wrench in our way of life..
[/quote]

iraq is a perfect example of why going to NK would be an even bigger mistake, bush is an ass which is why he would be best off leaving his cowboy talk in the past and keep his trap shut about axis of evil..

do you under stand the asain concept of "face" they want to be recognized as a though guy, kim jung ill is a nut job, just as nutty as that screw ball running iran who thinks there is a boy in a well telling him what allah says.. they are both crazy.. but there not stupid they want the world to know they will not be bullied around..

and what about south america? we are short on friends down there, attacking NK would spark WW3 the nations would all take sides and we would be in some serious sh*t, it is not anyones best interest to further destablize things..

you talk a big game about how we should just draft an army and kick everyones ass like that would solve the world problems but its only showing a very simple minded immature out look on the world.. this isnt a frat house brawl or school yard fight..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> do you under stand the asain concept of "face" they want to be recognized as a though guy, kim jung ill is a nut job, just as nutty as that screw ball running iran who thinks there is a boy in a well telling him what allah says.. they are both crazy.. but there not stupid they want the world to know they will not be bullied around..
> 
> and what about south america? we are short on friends down there, attacking NK would spark WW3 the nations would all take sides and we would be in some serious sh*t, it is not anyones best interest to further destablize things..
> 
> you talk a big game about how we should just draft an army and kick everyones ass like that would solve the world problems but its only showing a very simple minded immature out look on the world.. this isnt a frat house brawl or school yard fight..


thier is no concept of asia, especial north korea wanting to be recognized as the tough guy iran plays those games but not north korea, the korean peoples army and sof are hardcore insane lead by a man just as insane as hitler, you think if the germans had an atomic weapon up and ready to go before we did, world war 2 would have ended in the same manner?? the man flat out threatens us with war if we even sanction him, what do you think hell do when we're within his reach?? every time this country has called a bluff we got caught hard with our pants down..our mistake on calling al quedas bluff might be somewhat understandable, but to turn our back on north korea will probably be the worst mistake we ever made..

p.s wtf does south america have to do with north korea??


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> *asian concept of "face"*


*thier is no concept of asia,* 
[/quote]

ok you apparently havent got a clue of what i was talking about..

it about honor and shame, "face" is a very old school concept in asia..

for him to back down to american or international pressure he would lose face, which is shameful, and embarassing it will make him look weak and he will never do it, he can talk a big game and never take action and save face..

face is basically strength, pride and respect, opposite of shame and weakness..

for him to back down he would look weak in the eyes of his subordanates and that can never happen..



> Face: A General Definition:
> Face is a multi-faceted term, and its meaning is inextricably linked with culture and other terms such as honor and its opposite, humiliation. Saving face or giving face has different levels of importance, depending on the culture or society with which one is dealing. Perhaps the most familiar term to many is "saving face," which we understand simply to mean not being disrespectful to others in public, or taking preventive actions so that we will not appear to lose face in the eyes of others. Some will immediately associate the term "face" with Sino-Japanese cultures, but it would be a mistake to think that those are the only cases where face issues are important. In the Cuban missile crisis, it was very important both sides not to lose face or credibility, and this need guided both sides' negotiating tactics.
> 
> Ting-Toomey defines face as "the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation."[2] Specific to face-negotiation theory, face is understood as the image one projects of oneself or one's national image in a public forum. As Brown understood the issue:
> ...





> Low-Context vs. High-Context Cultures
> To understand the relevance of face in different cultures, one must learn how to identify low-context and high-context societies and what types of characteristics they each imply, especially in negotiating behavior. It is important to note that many cultures are neither wholly low-context nor high-context, but instead combine the two, and that the context may vary depending on the situation. However, these principles are helpful as a framework for discussion and analysis.
> 
> *In general, the U.S. and other Western countries are considered low-context societies. This means that verbal communication is most often direct, and that there is very little concern or need for nonverbal cues in order for people to understand each other. Raymond Cohen, a respected researcher on culture and negotiation, explains that at the core of a low-context society is the belief in the freedom of the individual, hence the term "individualistic" societies.*
> ...


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> *asian concept of "face"*


*thier is no concept of asia,* 
[/quote]

ok you apparently havent got a clue of what i was talking about..

it about honor and shame, "face" is a very old school concept in asia..

for him to back down to american or international pressure he would lose face, which is shameful, and embarassing it will make him look weak and he will never do it, he can talk a big game and never take action and save face..

face is basically strength, pride and respect, opposite of shame and weakness..

for him to back down he would look weak in the eyes of his subordanates and that can never happen..



> Face: A General Definition:
> Face is a multi-faceted term, and its meaning is inextricably linked with culture and other terms such as honor and its opposite, humiliation. Saving face or giving face has different levels of importance, depending on the culture or society with which one is dealing. Perhaps the most familiar term to many is "saving face," which we understand simply to mean not being disrespectful to others in public, or taking preventive actions so that we will not appear to lose face in the eyes of others. Some will immediately associate the term "face" with Sino-Japanese cultures, but it would be a mistake to think that those are the only cases where face issues are important. In the Cuban missile crisis, it was very important both sides not to lose face or credibility, and this need guided both sides' negotiating tactics.
> 
> Ting-Toomey defines face as "the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation."[2] Specific to face-negotiation theory, face is understood as the image one projects of oneself or one's national image in a public forum. As Brown understood the issue:
> ...


[/quote]








im sorry but youve been watching too many old kung fu movies..


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

G23.40SW said:


> You think the earth is generating masses of new freshwater?
> 
> Ha.


Thats exactly what it does. ever heard of a little thing called rain? ever heard of a little thing called evaporation? ever heard of little things called clouds?:laugh:

Water that evaporates is relativley pure. there are no minerals or salt in it. and its the rain that repleneshis the worlds freshwater rescources.
[/quote]

Note the word "masses" if it was replenishing the freshwater resources enough, there wouldn't be a crisis.
[/quote]

sorry i was away so long... you all were so big on differentiating between mere water and fresh water that you should be the first to admit that recycling water to make it fresh would make fresh water a renewable resource


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> *asian concept of "face"*


*thier is no concept of asia,* 
[/quote]

ok you apparently havent got a clue of what i was talking about..

it about honor and shame, "face" is a very old school concept in asia..

for him to back down to american or international pressure he would lose face, which is shameful, and embarassing it will make him look weak and he will never do it, he can talk a big game and never take action and save face..

face is basically strength, pride and respect, opposite of shame and weakness..

for him to back down he would look weak in the eyes of his subordanates and that can never happen..



> Face: A General Definition:
> Face is a multi-faceted term, and its meaning is inextricably linked with culture and other terms such as honor and its opposite, humiliation. Saving face or giving face has different levels of importance, depending on the culture or society with which one is dealing. Perhaps the most familiar term to many is "saving face," which we understand simply to mean not being disrespectful to others in public, or taking preventive actions so that we will not appear to lose face in the eyes of others. Some will immediately associate the term "face" with Sino-Japanese cultures, but it would be a mistake to think that those are the only cases where face issues are important. In the Cuban missile crisis, it was very important both sides not to lose face or credibility, and this need guided both sides' negotiating tactics.
> 
> Ting-Toomey defines face as "the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation."[2] Specific to face-negotiation theory, face is understood as the image one projects of oneself or one's national image in a public forum. As Brown understood the issue:
> ...


[/quote]

:laugh: im sorry but youve been watching too many old kung fu movies..
[/quote]

im sorry but you are very simple minded and i dont mean it as an insult but your blatant refusal to understand that these concepts really are how people in other cultures operate is a perfect example of why americans are looked down upon by most of teh rest of the world you would do very poorly in an diverse corporate work enviroment dealing with international business..


----------



## PygoFanatic (May 2, 2006)

jaejae said:


> I am an American and I can spell.
> 
> Tom
> 
> By the way, while we are on America-hating, anybody catch Finding Nemo? The part where theyre talking about somebody taking over something or being greedy. It was one of the sharks. Then he says "Yeah, probably an American." I was like, damn Pixar!! How you gonna hate? Anyways, Im probably about 4 years too late with this.


Yes Tom,

Thanks for being a shinning light...

Jay
[/quote]

Ah, I gotta stop you right there Jay...its "shining".

Tom


----------



## SidewalkStalker (Oct 26, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Hate America? No, I dont "hate" anyone.


no, but you extremely dislike America and are too big of a p*ssy to say you hate it...


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

nismo driver said:


> *asian concept of "face"*


*thier is no concept of asia,* 
[/quote]

ok you apparently havent got a clue of what i was talking about..

it about honor and shame, "face" is a very old school concept in asia..

for him to back down to american or international pressure he would lose face, which is shameful, and embarassing it will make him look weak and he will never do it, he can talk a big game and never take action and save face..

face is basically strength, pride and respect, opposite of shame and weakness..

for him to back down he would look weak in the eyes of his subordanates and that can never happen..



> Face: A General Definition:
> Face is a multi-faceted term, and its meaning is inextricably linked with culture and other terms such as honor and its opposite, humiliation. Saving face or giving face has different levels of importance, depending on the culture or society with which one is dealing. Perhaps the most familiar term to many is "saving face," which we understand simply to mean not being disrespectful to others in public, or taking preventive actions so that we will not appear to lose face in the eyes of others. Some will immediately associate the term "face" with Sino-Japanese cultures, but it would be a mistake to think that those are the only cases where face issues are important. In the Cuban missile crisis, it was very important both sides not to lose face or credibility, and this need guided both sides' negotiating tactics.
> 
> Ting-Toomey defines face as "the interaction between the degree of threats or considerations one party offers to another party, and the degree of claim for a sense of self-respect (or demand for respect toward one's national image or cultural group) put forth by the other party in a given situation."[2] Specific to face-negotiation theory, face is understood as the image one projects of oneself or one's national image in a public forum. As Brown understood the issue:
> ...





> Low-Context vs. High-Context Cultures
> To understand the relevance of face in different cultures, one must learn how to identify low-context and high-context societies and what types of characteristics they each imply, especially in negotiating behavior. It is important to note that many cultures are neither wholly low-context nor high-context, but instead combine the two, and that the context may vary depending on the situation. However, these principles are helpful as a framework for discussion and analysis.
> 
> *In general, the U.S. and other Western countries are considered low-context societies. This means that verbal communication is most often direct, and that there is very little concern or need for nonverbal cues in order for people to understand each other. Raymond Cohen, a respected researcher on culture and negotiation, explains that at the core of a low-context society is the belief in the freedom of the individual, hence the term "individualistic" societies.*
> ...


[/quote]

Nismo is killin it.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: im sorry but youve been watching too many old kung fu movies..


im sorry but its not kung fu its the WU










j/k


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> im sorry but you are very simple minded and i dont mean it as an insult but your blatant refusal to understand that these concepts really are how people in other cultures operate is a perfect example of why americans are looked down upon by most of teh rest of the world you would do very poorly in an diverse corporate work enviroment dealing with international business..


im sorry but i refuse to buy into that the whole reason kim jong is developing war heads capable of reaching the west is because he wants to save face "because bush called him evil"..this goes way back to his father and the korean war both with north korea and thier butt buddies china and russia..


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> im sorry but you are very simple minded and i dont mean it as an insult but your blatant refusal to understand that these concepts really are how people in other cultures operate is a perfect example of why americans are looked down upon by most of teh rest of the world you would do very poorly in an diverse corporate work enviroment dealing with international business..


im sorry but i refuse to buy into that the whole reason kim jong is developing war heads capable of reaching the west is because he wants to save face..this goes way back to his father and the korean war both with north korea and thier butt buddies china and russia..
[/quote]

well i wouldnt expect you to show any kind of understanding of some of the deeper issues of the situation..

its ok ill let you save face you dont have to admit to being owned


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

yeah like kim jong is trying to build a missile able to hit the west because of a bad bush your momma joke..i get what your saying its just way the hell out there..



nismo driver said:


> its ok ill let you save face you dont have to admit to being owned


:laugh: impossible


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> its ok ill let you save face you dont have to admit to being owned


:laugh: impossible
[/quote]

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face/

read you might learn something..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> its ok ill let you save face you dont have to admit to being owned


:laugh: impossible
[/quote]

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face/

read you might learn something..
[/quote]








I UNDERSTAND THIS... but do you understand that you are saying that all north korea is doing is beating thier chest, and by the act of them building long range missiles, tweeking them and refusing to return to the 6 way negotiations further threaten with war if anyone interferes with thier testing is because nobody enters the 36 chambers of wu??


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Liquid said:


> its ok ill let you save face you dont have to admit to being owned


:laugh: impossible
[/quote]

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/face/

read you might learn something..
[/quote]








I UNDERSTAND THIS... but do you understand that you are saying that all north korea is doing is beating thier chest, and by the act of them building long range missiles, tweeking them and refusing to return to the 6 way negotiations further threaten with war if anyone interferes with thier testing is because nobody enters the 36 chambers of wu??
[/quote]

lol

nice

but back to the top, do you understand how we strayed from epacful negotiation in the first place?

the quick version

nk was building reactors, clintons people negotiaited to get them to stop using teh reatos they were building and we would give them light water reactors.

then a combination of things happened, they continued to pursue weapons grade nukes and we were not delivering on our end as agreed to..

then bush stepped in and procedded to use cowboy negotitions, essentially using very aggresive terms which do not go over well with asian negotiantions which shut the door all together.

NK asked ot have a non aggresion treaty with the US we refused, they backed out of the nuke non proliferation agreement and went on with war head production and here we are today..

tehy dont want six party talks they want the one on one talk we hand previously during the clinton negotiations.. bu at this point its probably beyond patching that option and new options will have to be worked out..

how ever pre emptive strike and all out war should not be an option, yes much of this is chest beating and feather ruffling, kim jung il is a delusional man he fells weak and wants to assert his strength..


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

PygoFanatic said:


> I am an American and I can spell.
> 
> Tom
> 
> By the way, while we are on America-hating, anybody catch Finding Nemo? The part where theyre talking about somebody taking over something or being greedy. It was one of the sharks. Then he says "Yeah, probably an American." I was like, damn Pixar!! How you gonna hate? Anyways, Im probably about 4 years too late with this.


Yes Tom,

Thanks for being a shinning light...

Jay
[/quote]

Ah, I gotta stop you right there Jay...its "shining".

Tom
[/quote]

Ouch Tom







,

Good point...I should check more carefully about something like this before putting my foot in it...

Faux pas of note...

Jay


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Anybody watch the simpsons treehouse of horrors? They renamed jack nicholsons moving "the shining" to "the shinning".....it was funny...that is all.


----------



## joey'd (Oct 26, 2005)

george bush has sexual realations with his mother


----------



## mass aggression (Apr 13, 2006)

jaejae said:


> I live in Seoul and I can tell you South Koreans are not stressed about this. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the "Dear Leader" for a long time. It's all about media attention. Kim Jung Il may be crazy, but he is not stupid, trust me. He has a family legacy and seat of power that is far more important to him than causing a war. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula he knows that his seat of power would be threatened and he definately doesn't want that to happen.
> 
> I think before talking so lightly of nuclear war
> 
> ...


i stopped reading this thread after this post,enough said.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

SidewalkStalker said:


> You think the earth is generating masses of new freshwater?
> 
> Ha.


Thats exactly what it does. ever heard of a little thing called rain? ever heard of a little thing called evaporation? ever heard of little things called clouds?:laugh:

Water that evaporates is relativley pure. there are no minerals or salt in it. and its the rain that repleneshis the worlds freshwater rescources.
[/quote]

Note the word "masses" if it was replenishing the freshwater resources enough, there wouldn't be a crisis.
[/quote]

sorry i was away so long... you all were so big on differentiating between mere water and fresh water that you should be the first to admit that recycling water to make it fresh would make fresh water a renewable resource
[/quote]








f*cking hysterical. I couldn't have timed it any better myself.









I hate to admit it, but I think Liquid is 50% right. He's admitted that Iraq is a strategic blunder, at least for now, and that's a big step. Nismo brought up a good point that South America hates us now, and that's a foreign policy failure on our part. As long as we push NAFTA and CAFTA and exploit the resources of our southern hemisphere, the radical Left will continue to grow. In all seriousness, it would be much easier if we had allies in Central and South America when the big war busts out. 
As far as understanding Asian cultures and all that, I think that only complicates the simple issue that the axis powers are gearing up to f*ck us up. That's like when people say we need to understand why Islamofascists hate us, and that we need to know what makes them tick. Just ask Israel what makes them tick: suicide bombs! I also think Liquid is correct that we need a military man in office right now. The problem with the Bush admin. is that most of the top guys are chickenhawks. What the hell do they know about fighting a war? Let's be honest. The guy in Iran is Hitler with a Koran, and there's no other way of putting it. If China and Russia and North Korea are his allies, then what does that say for them? Haven't we learned anything from history? I just wish someone was leading America who was a tough guy but still had the mindset to gather allies instead of enemies. Anything the Bush admin. does or says has me fearing for my life. It's like the dude in the bar that no one wants to be seen with - the guy who has no people skills and always provokes a fight in your direction.


----------



## mass aggression (Apr 13, 2006)

thats some deep shiat man, to much for me to comment correctly on.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

SidewalkStalker said:


> Hate America? No, I dont "hate" anyone.


no, but you extremely dislike America and are too big of a p*ssy to say you hate it...
[/quote]

i'd say YOU are the one who hates CANADA...just an observation...

and liquid...you ask why does N Korea want to develop nuclear bombs? dude, look at our past, how many times have we BOMBED people without being bombed ourselves? hell, we've instated dictators, just to turn around and bomb them later on...in-fact, we've waged war between two countries, and provided BOTH with WEAPONS!!! why should N Korea sit around and wait to be bombed? they have a right to protection just like we do, if they want to hit us, they'll hit us, and there'll be consequences, but you cannot just go around bombing people because they've got bombs that can hit us...thats retarded and leads to stupid ass wars...

and what kind of bullshit is this e-thug sh*t...wtf...drop the online tough guy persona...nobody gives a sh*t how big your c*ck is, and nobody cares how mad you get at your computer screen, its a goddamn online forum, chill the f*ck out, its a perfect example of how you stray to the wrong side with most of your arguments, do NOT act on emotion, emotion is bullshit, weigh the facts before you jump to conclusions, and drop the f*cking "i'll kick your ass" bit, thats like 4th grade cafeteria talk...


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

maxinout13 said:


> I live in Seoul and I can tell you South Koreans are not stressed about this. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the "Dear Leader" for a long time. It's all about media attention. Kim Jung Il may be crazy, but he is not stupid, trust me. He has a family legacy and seat of power that is far more important to him than causing a war. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula he knows that his seat of power would be threatened and he definately doesn't want that to happen.
> 
> I think before talking so lightly of nuclear war
> 
> ...


i stopped reading this thread after this post,enough said.
[/quote]

Oh...by the way you didn't stop after you read my post because you posted again....


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

jaejae said:


> I live in Seoul and I can tell you South Koreans are not stressed about this. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the "Dear Leader" for a long time. It's all about media attention. Kim Jung Il may be crazy, but he is not stupid, trust me. He has a family legacy and seat of power that is far more important to him than causing a war. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula he knows that his seat of power would be threatened and he definately doesn't want that to happen.
> 
> I think before talking so lightly of nuclear war
> 
> ...


Jay...excellent post! I had not heard this side before. Good job!


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

PastorJeff said:


> I live in Seoul and I can tell you South Koreans are not stressed about this. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the "Dear Leader" for a long time. It's all about media attention. Kim Jung Il may be crazy, but he is not stupid, trust me. He has a family legacy and seat of power that is far more important to him than causing a war. If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula he knows that his seat of power would be threatened and he definately doesn't want that to happen.
> 
> I think before talking so lightly of nuclear war
> 
> ...


Jay...excellent post! I had not heard this side before. Good job!
[/quote]

Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

jaejae said:


> Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


It is interesting to hear from someone who lives there rather than the political stuff that we get here.

So then from your standpoint, why do all this threating stuff like he is doing? For crying out loud, his greatest ally (china) is being blown off...that to me does not seem too smart.

Are you all in the southern area afraid of this guy going nuts on you? Your in easy striking range, or is there not as much tension as we are told?

Very good discussion!


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

and liquid...you ask why does N Korea want to develop nuclear bombs? dude, look at our past, how many times have we BOMBED people without being bombed ourselves? hell, we've instated dictators, just to turn around and bomb them later on...in-fact, we've waged war between two countries, and provided BOTH with WEAPONS!!! why should N Korea sit around and wait to be bombed? they have a right to protection just like we do, if they want to hit us, they'll hit us, and there'll be consequences, but you cannot just go around bombing people because they've got bombs that can hit us...thats retarded and leads to stupid ass wars...

thats like saying crack heads should be able to carry guns because they have the right to protect themselves also..

and what kind of bullshit is this e-thug sh*t...wtf...drop the online tough guy persona...nobody gives a sh*t how big your c*ck is, and nobody cares how mad you get at your computer screen, its a goddamn online forum, chill the f*ck out, its a perfect example of how you stray to the wrong side with most of your arguments, do NOT act on emotion, emotion is bullshit, weigh the facts before you jump to conclusions, and drop the f*cking "i'll kick your ass" bit, thats like 4th grade cafeteria talk...

please, it wasnt directed towards you and i dont need anouther friggin woman in my life, ive been quick from the hip all my life and thats not gonna change.. i dont think nismo is all curled up on his bed sucking his thumb crying because i hurt his feelings,nismo is doing fine.. i have come a long way, and i am very capable of defusing situations i feel fit to be defused..


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

PastorJeff said:


> Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


It is interesting to hear from someone who lives there rather than the political stuff that we get here.

So then from your standpoint, why do all this threating stuff like he is doing? For crying out loud, his greatest ally (china) is being blown off...that to me does not seem too smart.

Are you all in the southern area afraid of this guy going nuts on you? Your in easy striking range, or is there not as much tension as we are told?

Very good discussion!
[/quote]

Hi Pastor J,

I've lived in Seoul for over 4 years. My wife is Korean and I am lucky enough to be able to have an insight into the opinions of everyday people living in Seoul. Koreans here are interested but not worried to the point that the international community is esp, the USA. Koreans know Kim, Jong Ill well enough to know he is crazy...however as i mentioned before he is not dumb....

NK feels threatened by the USA, wants to win concessions, save face and also support the propaganda it has been spewing about the USA since the "end" of the Korean War. Kim cannot show weakness in this regard..he has to be in control..

If he agreed to 6 party talks it would be a concession.... if he managed to persuade the USA to come to bilateral talks.. this would be a victory...since he cannot do either at the moment he is playing the game the only way he can...

Actually, I have no love for Kim and am also appalled by the atrocities that happen in NK however you cannot argue that they do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons... Is nuclear weapon technology the sole right and property of the USA or countiries that have already developed them such as Pakistan, India, France etc....?

Who has the right to say "Yes" and "No" on this issue? Yes, it may frighten us but NK is a soverign nation with just as much right to nuclear weapons as the USA or even Iran for that matter....What they may do with it is not the issue at hand but what is the the issue at hand is legitimacy....and rights....who get's to decide the laws of a soverign country except those people....even though we may not agree with them...

Surely Americans would not be happy with another nation telling them what they can and cannot do???

Yes, I understand that there is a lot more going on then just a logical dialectic on the rights of nuclear weapon ownership however we need to begin somewhere and this is really the fundamental question here. What right has one nation (who has nuclear weapons) got to stop another nation from having them? This may lead to escalation but that is somehing that can be debated later...

Jay


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

jaejae said:


> Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


It is interesting to hear from someone who lives there rather than the political stuff that we get here.

So then from your standpoint, why do all this threating stuff like he is doing? For crying out loud, his greatest ally (china) is being blown off...that to me does not seem too smart.

Are you all in the southern area afraid of this guy going nuts on you? Your in easy striking range, or is there not as much tension as we are told?

Very good discussion!
[/quote]

Hi Pastor J,

I've lived in Seoul for over 4 years. My wife is Korean and I am lucky enough to be able to have an insight into the opinions of everyday people living in Seoul. Koreans here are interested but not worried to the point that the international community is esp, the USA. Koreans know Kim, Jong Ill well enough to know he is crazy...however as i mentioned before he is not dumb....

NK feels threatened by the USA, wants to win concessions, save face and also support the propaganda it has been spewing about the USA since the "end" of the Korean War. Kim cannot show weakness in this regard..he has to be in control..

If he agreed to 6 party talks it would be a concession.... if he managed to persuade the USA to come to bilateral talks.. this would be a victory...since he cannot do either at the moment he is playing the game the only way he can...

Actually, I have no love for Kim and am also appalled by the atrocities that happen in NK however you cannot argue that they do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons... Is nuclear weapon technology the sole right and property of the USA or countiries that have already developed them such as Pakistan, India, France etc....?

Who has the right to say "Yes" and "No" on this issue? Yes, it may frighten us but NK is a soverign nation with just as much right to nuclear weapons as the USA or even Iran for that matter....What they may do with it is not the issue at hand but what is the the issue at hand is legitimacy....and rights....who get's to decide the laws of a soverign country except those people....even though we may not agree with them...

Surely Americans would not be happy with another nation telling them what they can and cannot do???

Yes, I understand that there is a lot more going on then just a logical dialectic on the rights of nuclear weapon ownership however we need to begin somewhere and this is really the fundamental question here. What right has one nation (who has nuclear weapons) got to stop another nation from having them? This may lead to escalation but that is somehing that can be debated later...

Jay
[/quote]

you know what, for you to say that you live in south korea and that kim jong has the right to make and own nuclear weapons is beyond me..im friggin speachless right now, your not talking about denying a sane man weapons of mass destruction, your talking about allowing an insane man to have them..how can you argue that hes "smarter" then to launch on anyone when thier is no line between being dumb and insane..no not every country has the "right" to own nuclear weapons especially when theyre led by a man who has not only killed hundreds of thousands of his own people but hes put hundreds of thousands more in concentration camps to die, he has starved millions and has a record of shady military strikes against south koreans.. this guys f*cking retarded and you want to give him a loaded gun to play with..


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


It is interesting to hear from someone who lives there rather than the political stuff that we get here.

So then from your standpoint, why do all this threating stuff like he is doing? For crying out loud, his greatest ally (china) is being blown off...that to me does not seem too smart.

Are you all in the southern area afraid of this guy going nuts on you? Your in easy striking range, or is there not as much tension as we are told?

Very good discussion!
[/quote]

Hi Pastor J,

I've lived in Seoul for over 4 years. My wife is Korean and I am lucky enough to be able to have an insight into the opinions of everyday people living in Seoul. Koreans here are interested but not worried to the point that the international community is esp, the USA. Koreans know Kim, Jong Ill well enough to know he is crazy...however as i mentioned before he is not dumb....

NK feels threatened by the USA, wants to win concessions, save face and also support the propaganda it has been spewing about the USA since the "end" of the Korean War. Kim cannot show weakness in this regard..he has to be in control..

If he agreed to 6 party talks it would be a concession.... if he managed to persuade the USA to come to bilateral talks.. this would be a victory...since he cannot do either at the moment he is playing the game the only way he can...

Actually, I have no love for Kim and am also appalled by the atrocities that happen in NK however you cannot argue that they do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons... Is nuclear weapon technology the sole right and property of the USA or countiries that have already developed them such as Pakistan, India, France etc....?

Who has the right to say "Yes" and "No" on this issue? Yes, it may frighten us but NK is a soverign nation with just as much right to nuclear weapons as the USA or even Iran for that matter....What they may do with it is not the issue at hand but what is the the issue at hand is legitimacy....and rights....who get's to decide the laws of a soverign country except those people....even though we may not agree with them...

Surely Americans would not be happy with another nation telling them what they can and cannot do???

Yes, I understand that there is a lot more going on then just a logical dialectic on the rights of nuclear weapon ownership however we need to begin somewhere and this is really the fundamental question here. What right has one nation (who has nuclear weapons) got to stop another nation from having them? This may lead to escalation but that is somehing that can be debated later...

Jay
[/quote]

you know what, for you to say that you live in south korea and that kim jong has the right to make and own nuclear weapons is beyond me..im friggin speachless right now, your not talking about denying a sane man weapons of mass destruction, your talking about allowing an insane man to have them..how can you argue that hes "smarter" then to launch on anyone when thier is no line between being dumb and insane..no not every country has the "right" to own nuclear weapons especially when theyre led by a man who has not only killed hundreds of thousands of his own people but hes put hundreds of thousands more in concentration camps to die, he has starved millions and has a record of shady military strikes against south koreans.. this guys f*cking retarded and you want to give him a loaded gun to play with..
[/quote]

hey, person from another countries perspective differing from yours?!?! its profound?! its proposterous?!? i'll not stand for it!!! NUKE EM ALL!!!


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


It is interesting to hear from someone who lives there rather than the political stuff that we get here.

So then from your standpoint, why do all this threating stuff like he is doing? For crying out loud, his greatest ally (china) is being blown off...that to me does not seem too smart.

Are you all in the southern area afraid of this guy going nuts on you? Your in easy striking range, or is there not as much tension as we are told?

Very good discussion!
[/quote]

Hi Pastor J,

I've lived in Seoul for over 4 years. My wife is Korean and I am lucky enough to be able to have an insight into the opinions of everyday people living in Seoul. Koreans here are interested but not worried to the point that the international community is esp, the USA. Koreans know Kim, Jong Ill well enough to know he is crazy...however as i mentioned before he is not dumb....

NK feels threatened by the USA, wants to win concessions, save face and also support the propaganda it has been spewing about the USA since the "end" of the Korean War. Kim cannot show weakness in this regard..he has to be in control..

If he agreed to 6 party talks it would be a concession.... if he managed to persuade the USA to come to bilateral talks.. this would be a victory...since he cannot do either at the moment he is playing the game the only way he can...

Actually, I have no love for Kim and am also appalled by the atrocities that happen in NK however you cannot argue that they do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons... Is nuclear weapon technology the sole right and property of the USA or countiries that have already developed them such as Pakistan, India, France etc....?

Who has the right to say "Yes" and "No" on this issue? Yes, it may frighten us but NK is a soverign nation with just as much right to nuclear weapons as the USA or even Iran for that matter....What they may do with it is not the issue at hand but what is the the issue at hand is legitimacy....and rights....who get's to decide the laws of a soverign country except those people....even though we may not agree with them...

Surely Americans would not be happy with another nation telling them what they can and cannot do???

Yes, I understand that there is a lot more going on then just a logical dialectic on the rights of nuclear weapon ownership however we need to begin somewhere and this is really the fundamental question here. What right has one nation (who has nuclear weapons) got to stop another nation from having them? This may lead to escalation but that is somehing that can be debated later...

Jay
[/quote]

you know what, for you to say that you live in south korea and that kim jong has the right to make and own nuclear weapons is beyond me..im friggin speachless right now, your not talking about denying a sane man weapons of mass destruction, your talking about allowing an insane man to have them..how can you argue that hes "smarter" then to launch on anyone when thier is no line between being dumb and insane..no not every country has the "right" to own nuclear weapons especially when theyre led by a man who has not only killed hundreds of thousands of his own people but hes put hundreds of thousands more in concentration camps to die, he has starved millions and has a record of shady military strikes against south koreans.. this guys f*cking retarded and you want to give him a loaded gun to play with..
[/quote]

hey, person from another countries perspective differing from yours?!?! its profound?! its proposterous?!? i'll not stand for it!!! NUKE EM ALL!!!
[/quote]

so im guessing you agree with him


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Thanks Pastor J....although not everyone thought so....


It is interesting to hear from someone who lives there rather than the political stuff that we get here.

So then from your standpoint, why do all this threating stuff like he is doing? For crying out loud, his greatest ally (china) is being blown off...that to me does not seem too smart.

Are you all in the southern area afraid of this guy going nuts on you? Your in easy striking range, or is there not as much tension as we are told?

Very good discussion!
[/quote]

Hi Pastor J,

I've lived in Seoul for over 4 years. My wife is Korean and I am lucky enough to be able to have an insight into the opinions of everyday people living in Seoul. Koreans here are interested but not worried to the point that the international community is esp, the USA. Koreans know Kim, Jong Ill well enough to know he is crazy...however as i mentioned before he is not dumb....

NK feels threatened by the USA, wants to win concessions, save face and also support the propaganda it has been spewing about the USA since the "end" of the Korean War. Kim cannot show weakness in this regard..he has to be in control..

If he agreed to 6 party talks it would be a concession.... if he managed to persuade the USA to come to bilateral talks.. this would be a victory...since he cannot do either at the moment he is playing the game the only way he can...

Actually, I have no love for Kim and am also appalled by the atrocities that happen in NK however you cannot argue that they do not have the right to develop nuclear weapons... Is nuclear weapon technology the sole right and property of the USA or countiries that have already developed them such as Pakistan, India, France etc....?

Who has the right to say "Yes" and "No" on this issue? Yes, it may frighten us but NK is a soverign nation with just as much right to nuclear weapons as the USA or even Iran for that matter....What they may do with it is not the issue at hand but what is the the issue at hand is legitimacy....and rights....who get's to decide the laws of a soverign country except those people....even though we may not agree with them...

Surely Americans would not be happy with another nation telling them what they can and cannot do???

Yes, I understand that there is a lot more going on then just a logical dialectic on the rights of nuclear weapon ownership however we need to begin somewhere and this is really the fundamental question here. What right has one nation (who has nuclear weapons) got to stop another nation from having them? This may lead to escalation but that is somehing that can be debated later...

Jay
[/quote]

you know what, for you to say that you live in south korea and that kim jong has the right to make and own nuclear weapons is beyond me..im friggin speachless right now, your not talking about denying a sane man weapons of mass destruction, your talking about allowing an insane man to have them..how can you argue that hes "smarter" then to launch on anyone when thier is no line between being dumb and insane..no not every country has the "right" to own nuclear weapons especially when theyre led by a man who has not only killed hundreds of thousands of his own people but hes put hundreds of thousands more in concentration camps to die, he has starved millions and has a record of shady military strikes against south koreans.. this guys f*cking retarded and you want to give him a loaded gun to play with..
[/quote]

hey, person from another countries perspective differing from yours?!?! its profound?! its proposterous?!? i'll not stand for it!!! NUKE EM ALL!!!
[/quote]

so im guessing you agree with him








[/quote]

The point Iwas trying to make is not whether Kim Jong Il is crazy but rather that one country has no right to deny another sovereign country the right to develop nuclear weapons...that IS the point....

Now talking of "nuking the lot of the them".....that to me sounds like crazy talk...no wonder the North Koreans are scared of the USA when war mongers such as yourself advocate the annihilation and genocide of the North Koreans and the muslim world....

THAT IS crazy.....


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

What worries me is that he is mincing no words about what he wants to do...build nukes. Would he actually be nuts enough to use them? Is he all hot air, or is there actual threat to what he says?

From what we hear in the US, he is flat out going to use the dang things...no concern for anyone? Any truth to this in your mind?

I appreciate your responses! Very good conversation!


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

PastorJeff said:


> What worries me is that he is mincing no words about what he wants to do...build nukes. Would he actually be nuts enough to use them? Is he all hot air, or is there actual threat to what he says?
> 
> From what we hear in the US, he is flat out going to use the dang things...no concern for anyone? Any truth to this in your mind?
> 
> I appreciate your responses! Very good conversation!


Was the last govt. to use concentration camps full of hot air?


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

PastorJeff said:


> What worries me is that he is mincing no words about what he wants to do...build nukes. Would he actually be nuts enough to use them? Is he all hot air, or is there actual threat to what he says?
> 
> From what we hear in the US, he is flat out going to use the dang things...no concern for anyone? Any truth to this in your mind?
> 
> I appreciate your responses! Very good conversation!


PJ,

Yes, I believe he is building nukes...probably as he says, he already does have them...

I don't think he will use them unless provoked however.. he is just flexing his muscles...

Seriously. he has had ample time to nuke Seoul...but has he....???? I don't think he is as stupid as people think ...He is probably not half as crazy as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, although I don't know if this makes him more or less scary....

Jay


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Fargo said:


> What worries me is that he is mincing no words about what he wants to do...build nukes. Would he actually be nuts enough to use them? Is he all hot air, or is there actual threat to what he says?
> 
> From what we hear in the US, he is flat out going to use the dang things...no concern for anyone? Any truth to this in your mind?
> 
> I appreciate your responses! Very good conversation!


Was the last govt. to use concentration camps full of hot air?
[/quote]

the only country in history to have ever nuked anyone for any reason in any part of the world...who was it...

and PJ, honestly, with the amount of scare tactics we're fed by the media, the entire world should've been anhialated by now. i mean, bombs in port bouies, now they're listing zoo's and golf courses as high risk terror targets...what the hell...pretty soon my bathroom is going to be on a national watch list for terrorism, just in-case right?


----------



## Blacksheep (Dec 11, 2003)

Fargo said:


> and PJ, honestly, with the amount of scare tactics we're fed by the media, the entire world should've been anhialated by now. i mean, bombs in port bouies, now they're listing zoo's and golf courses as high risk terror targets...what the hell...pretty soon my bathroom is going to be on a national watch list for terrorism, just in-case right?


That is the core of what I am asking...how much of this is total scare tactics and how much is reality. No doubt this guy (and others) are nuts. But how much of a threat is there? For us or others around him. The nukes cannot reach us at this time (nor anyone else after his first round of tests with the rockets)...but could it be only a matter of time?

I really don't think that anyone will shoot off a nuke (other than Jihadists) as it would bring total wrath down on whoever did it by the rest of the world. It would end in total destruction...at least in my mind as I see it.

But then again...that is not saying much.


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

PastorJeff said:


> and PJ, honestly, with the amount of scare tactics we're fed by the media, the entire world should've been anhialated by now. i mean, bombs in port bouies, now they're listing zoo's and golf courses as high risk terror targets...what the hell...pretty soon my bathroom is going to be on a national watch list for terrorism, just in-case right?


That is the core of what I am asking...how much of this is total scare tactics and how much is reality. No doubt this guy (and others) are nuts. But how much of a threat is there? For us or others around him. The nukes cannot reach us at this time (nor anyone else after his first round of tests with the rockets)...but could it be only a matter of time?

I really don't think that anyone will shoot off a nuke (other than Jihadists) as it would bring total wrath down on whoever did it by the rest of the world. It would end in total destruction...at least in my mind as I see it.

But then again...that is not saying much.








[/quote]

PJ,

Unless the USA or another country actually use pre-emptive strikes against the regime I don't think there is too much to worry about...

Jay


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> What worries me is that he is mincing no words about what he wants to do...build nukes. Would he actually be nuts enough to use them? Is he all hot air, or is there actual threat to what he says?
> 
> From what we hear in the US, he is flat out going to use the dang things...no concern for anyone? Any truth to this in your mind?
> 
> I appreciate your responses! Very good conversation!


Was the last govt. to use concentration camps full of hot air?
[/quote]
Easy there Fargo...I am so ignorant to this stuff. I have little to NO knowledge of North Korea and the antics of their leader...or any other political stuff. I am new to this, so my comments are not ment to be sarcastic or idiotic...they are truly unknowledgeable.

Hence my questions...

[[/quote]

I know you weren't being sarcastic. I was just posing a simple question. I always think it's wiser to mistrust any repressive regime and assume the worst of them. The verse, "By their fruits you shall know them," is appropriate in this context, even if the quote is taken out of context.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

jaejae said:


> and PJ, honestly, with the amount of scare tactics we're fed by the media, the entire world should've been anhialated by now. i mean, bombs in port bouies, now they're listing zoo's and golf courses as high risk terror targets...what the hell...pretty soon my bathroom is going to be on a national watch list for terrorism, just in-case right?


yeah because obviously al queda was never a threat, hezbollah isnt a threat and 911 didnt happen..


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Liquid said:


> and PJ, honestly, with the amount of scare tactics we're fed by the media, the entire world should've been anhialated by now. i mean, bombs in port bouies, now they're listing zoo's and golf courses as high risk terror targets...what the hell...pretty soon my bathroom is going to be on a national watch list for terrorism, just in-case right?


yeah because obviously al queda was never a threat, hezbollah isnt a threat and 911 didnt happen..
[/quote]

Liquid, how do you suggest the US deal with "a large chunk of african american youth" that idolize these extremists?


----------



## ChilDawg (Apr 30, 2006)

Liquid: 99%? Unless you show me an accurate, scientifically-taken poll with a small confidence interval (none of this +/- 10% garbage...) that says that 99% of Arab-Americans support such ideals, I will be forced to believe that you're very far from correct. Also, you'll have to prove that 99% of all Arabic countries endorse this...and, watch out, that means that one country cannot deviate from this supposed normal as there are fewer than 100 Arabic nations!


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

jaejae said:


> Liquid, how do you suggest the US deal with "a large chunk of african american youth" that idolize these extremists?










you really want me to answer that?? well lets see, i think it should be required for people to have a license to breed in this country along with mental and competence testings and violations would require immediate removal of the babies to competent/wanting homes with a repecution of serious jail time and a huge fine..you need a license to drive no reason why you shouldnt need one to breed especially with the amount of brain farts walking the streets..


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

ChilDawg said:


> Liquid: 99%? Unless you show me an accurate, scientifically-taken poll with a small confidence interval (none of this +/- 10% garbage...) that says that 99% of Arab-Americans support such ideals, I will be forced to believe that you're very far from correct. Also, you'll have to prove that 99% of all Arabic countries endorse this...and, watch out, that means that one country cannot deviate from this supposed normal as there are fewer than 100 Arabic nations!


:laugh: im sorry i was wrong, the middle east adores us, theres no such thing as sleeper cells al queda or hezbollah..walk down the street and ask any arab muslim what thier views are on jihad, arabic and jewish factions, and americas involvment and im sure theyll woop out thier american flag and pour you some cool aid..tell me which arabic country doesnt endorse this?? pakistans president?? saudies royal family??


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Liquid said:


> Liquid, how do you suggest the US deal with "a large chunk of african american youth" that idolize these extremists?


:laugh: you really want me to answer that?? well lets see, i think it should be required for people to have a license to breed in this country along with mental and competence testings and violations would require immediate removal of the babies to competent/wanting homes with a repecution of serious jail time and a huge fine..you need a license to drive no reason why you shouldnt need one to breed especially with the amount of brain farts walking the streets..
[/quote]

I honestly wish you are joking....please tell me you're joking....


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Liquid said:


> Now talking of "nuking the lot of the them".....that to me sounds like crazy talk...no wonder the North Koreans are scared of the USA when war mongers such as yourself advocate the annihilation and genocide of the North Koreans and the muslim world....
> 
> THAT IS crazy.....


when i say arabs i mean extremists, kind of hard to differentiate the two when 99 percent of arab countries consist of and support extremists and *99 percent of the arab american population also support extremists ideals, and with the threat of sleeper cells..no offence but first and formost we'd be better off deporting all of them, im not blind a large chunk of african american youth idolize these extremists and thier ideals, especially war with america.*..it was minor back in the 90s now every other street gang proclaim to be arab nazis..i know what statement of mine offended you and yes ive asked my self several times,what would the world be like without extremist muslims which pretty much consists of 99 percent of the middle east.. i also had to answer honestly..

p.s stop generalising what i say, ive never advocated a korean genocide, but i do advocate military action and what ever it takes to put jong in check before hes got the range on us, its not about a sovern nation being able to defend its self, its about jong himself which i still dont understand how you could be south korean and not comprehend.. you dont need me to tell you he's a threat, because hes got no problem telling the world this himself..
[/quote]

Man it's getting more and more difficult to argue for a strong military presence with help like this. It's true that most Islamic theocracies consist of and support extremists, but it's not true that 99% of the people do. 99% of the Germans didn't support the Nazis, and 99% of Islam does not support Wahabi/Nazi Islamofascism. The problem is that extremism has infected the political body of most Islamic theocracies, which obviously filters unto the rogue elements of the people. When we see them going nuts in the streets on television, we're never told that for every sick bitch in the streets, there are 5 other people sitting quietly at home wishing they could be somewhere else.

And what's up with bringing African-American gangs into it? Even a smaller number of them support radical Islam. Most of them come from Christian families.


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Fargo said:


> Now talking of "nuking the lot of the them".....that to me sounds like crazy talk...no wonder the North Koreans are scared of the USA when war mongers such as yourself advocate the annihilation and genocide of the North Koreans and the muslim world....
> 
> THAT IS crazy.....


when i say arabs i mean extremists, kind of hard to differentiate the two when 99 percent of arab countries consist of and support extremists and *99 percent of the arab american population also support extremists ideals, and with the threat of sleeper cells..no offence but first and formost we'd be better off deporting all of them, im not blind a large chunk of african american youth idolize these extremists and thier ideals, especially war with america.*..it was minor back in the 90s now every other street gang proclaim to be arab nazis..i know what statement of mine offended you and yes ive asked my self several times,what would the world be like without extremist muslims which pretty much consists of 99 percent of the middle east.. i also had to answer honestly..

p.s stop generalising what i say, ive never advocated a korean genocide, but i do advocate military action and what ever it takes to put jong in check before hes got the range on us, its not about a sovern nation being able to defend its self, its about jong himself which i still dont understand how you could be south korean and not comprehend.. you dont need me to tell you he's a threat, because hes got no problem telling the world this himself..
[/quote]

Man it's getting more and more difficult to argue for a strong military presence with help like this. It's true that most Islamic theocracies consist of and support extremists, but it's not true that 99% of the people do. 99% of the Germans didn't support the Nazis, and 99% of Islam does not support Wahabi/Nazi Islamofascism. The problem is that extremism has infected the political body of most Islamic theocracies, which obviously filters unto the rogue elements of the people. When we see them going nuts in the streets on television, we're never told that for every sick bitch in the streets, there are 5 other people sitting quietly at home wishing they could be somewhere else.

And what's up with bringing African-American gangs into it? Even a smaller number of them support radical Islam. Most of them come from Christian families.
[/quote]

Thanks for an intelligent response Fargo....I may not agree with your politics sometimes but I sure as hell don't mind reading your threads and replies....

Don't even ask me where the hell he was going with the african-american "thing"....frankly his xenophobic, racist, prejudiced outlook is very disconcerting....

People with such hate end up doing crazy things like the Oklahoma City bombing or 9/11 etc...









Jay


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Fargo said:


> Man it's getting more and more difficult to argue for a strong military presence with help like this. It's true that most Islamic theocracies consist of and support extremists, but it's not true that 99% of the people do. 99% of the Germans didn't support the Nazis, and 99% of Islam does not support Wahabi/Nazi Islamofascism. The problem is that extremism has infected the political body of most Islamic theocracies, which obviously filters unto the rogue elements of the people. When we see them going nuts in the streets on television, we're never told that for every sick bitch in the streets, there are 5 other people sitting quietly at home wishing they could be somewhere else.
> 
> And what's up with bringing African-American gangs into it? Even a smaller number of them support radical Islam. Most of them come from Christian families.


ive been to lybia, kuwait, croatia, bosnia, syria, pakistan, egypt and other locations through out northern africa so please dont tell me that these people are not hostile towards us..

and im sorry but your wrong a large number of gangs here in new york support radical islam, i got 3 people in my family that are nypd, hell im about an hour and a half out side of nyc in the sub urbs and right after 911 a woman about 20 minutes away from me had ":towns name: is at war with america" spray painted on her car.. you take that gang down in miami with brother brainfart swearing a blood oath with al queda asking for the funding to blow up the sears tower into consideration and you have to asume every major city has this problem..


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Liquid said:


> Man it's getting more and more difficult to argue for a strong military presence with help like this. It's true that most Islamic theocracies consist of and support extremists, but it's not true that 99% of the people do. 99% of the Germans didn't support the Nazis, and 99% of Islam does not support Wahabi/Nazi Islamofascism. The problem is that extremism has infected the political body of most Islamic theocracies, which obviously filters unto the rogue elements of the people. When we see them going nuts in the streets on television, we're never told that for every sick bitch in the streets, there are 5 other people sitting quietly at home wishing they could be somewhere else.
> 
> And what's up with bringing African-American gangs into it? Even a smaller number of them support radical Islam. Most of them come from Christian families.


*ive been to lybia, kuwait, croatia, bosnia, syria, pakistan, egypt and other locations through out northern africa so please dont tell me that these people are not hostile towards us..*and im sorry but your wrong a large number of gangs here in new york support radical islam, i got 3 people in my family that are nypd, hell im about an hour and a half out side of nyc in the sub urbs and right after 911 a woman about 20 minutes away from me had ":towns name: is at war with america" spray painted on her car.. you take that gang down in miami with brother brainfart swearing a blood oath with al queda asking for the funding to blow up the sears tower into consideration and you have to asume every major city has this problem..
[/quote]

Of course they're hostile, no one is doubting that. It's the 99% that I don't agree with. Public opinion is different in authoritarian countries, where many people form opinions out of fear, and they can be just as easily swayed in a different direction with the right incentives. Where I do agree with you is in the magnitude of the problem. If only 10% of Islam possessed extreme violent hatred toward the West, well that would amount to about 600 million bloodthirsty terrorists roaming the world. The number may well be above 10%. That would make a good research projuct, finding out what percentage of international Islam supports a World Islamic theocracy complete with conversions and beheadings.

As far as the gangs in America, most of those that support or interact with Jihadists are either prison based or consist mostly of illegal immigrants, such as MS-13(Central American). But it's ludicrous to extend this generalization to the African American Community at large. If we would enforce more closely both the borders and Islamic immigrant traffic, that probelm could be far better contained.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Fargo said:


> As far as the gangs in America, most of those that support or interact with Jihadists are either prison based or consist mostly of illegal immigrants, such as MS-13(Central American). But it's ludicrous to extend this generalization to the African American Community at large. If we would enforce more closely both the borders and Islamic immigrant traffic, that probelm could be far better contained.


ill buy that especially here in new york where thier is a large chunk of the african american youth the thugs, bloods, all out war<a new one i just heard about>, "5 percenters" ect. im talking about, that co habitat with a more populated by the day arab youth/community, that have been seduced with this "death to america" ideology, and the sad part is i dont believe this motivation comes from really believing any of this extreme ideology, its probably a direct result of lack of parenting, education, and discipline..when i acknowledge this and call it for what it is, some how im being racist and it infuriates me that if they took that same energy it takes to point the finger and wave thier fists and put it into a book, thier grades or educating themselves they might get somewhere..and it does disgust me with a passion when anyone of any race pitys themselves, victomise themselves, point the finger or refuse to take any kind of responsibilty..


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Hemi started one of the most intellectual threads on p-fury.

now that's bananas









j/k Hemi


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Its totally pointless to argue with some of you people here. Your hatred for America shows and it saddens me









Is Kim Jong-il a threat? Your damn right he is. Jae-jae.... may many weapons/troops does he had so close to the DMZ? Is he a horrible dictator? Hell yes he is. Is he stupid enough to drop a nuke on someone. Prob not, he wants to remain in power for years to come. While he may not drop a bomb tho, he will imo supply people with the information and technology needed to build their own WMDs. <-- such is the case already... So is he a threat to the US way of life? Your damn right he is.


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> Its totally pointless to argue with some of you people here. Your hatred for America shows and it saddens me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ExOdus, I hope you don't mean me when you talk about hatred of the USA. I don't hate the USA and that was not my point mate...I mean come on...

I also never said Kim wasn't a threat...he probably is....however I still maintain that he will not attack South Korea unless provoked by military aggression..

Is he a terrible man??..Yes...Is he crazy?...Probably....Is he stupid?....No....

The other point I was trying to make was that if one country has the right to develop nuclear weapons, then who gives another country the right to stop any other country from having them..

You can debate all you want but at the end of the day it's about a sovereign country having a legitimate right to develop weapons it feels it needs to protect itself. Are nuclear weapons the sole and exclusive right of the USA??? This further propagates the American "world police" image...

Also, America cannot go out and exterminate everyone who they feel threaten their "way of life" as you say. A widow spider in the garden is a threat but that doesn't mean you need to go out and kill it. Leave it be until it wanders into your home....if that's the case then go ahead and kill it. Look my logic here is not perfect but I just wanted to make a point...the reason why the average person doesn't go around and f*ck with snakes is because of the fear of being bitten. NK needs its weapons to, at least in their opinion, keep the USA away....

Threats are there precisely to keep people from doing things in light of consequences. If you do this then I will do that....if you come into my home I will shoot you.. etc...

At the end of the day as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, every other nation will feel it's imperative to have one just to feel safe from a perceived threat.

Jay


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

jaejae said:


> Its totally pointless to argue with some of you people here. Your hatred for America shows and it saddens me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ExOdus, I hope you don't mean me when you talk about hatred of the USA. I don't hate the USA and that was not my point mate...I mean come on...

I also never said Kim wasn't a threat...he probably is....however I still maintain that he will not attack South Korea unless provoked by military aggression..

Is he a terrible man??..Yes...Is he crazy?...Probably....Is he stupid?....No....

The other point I was trying to make was that if one country has the right to develop nuclear weapons, then who gives another country the right to stop any other country from having them..

You can debate all you want but at the end of the day it's about a sovereign country having a legitimate right to develop weapons it feels it needs to protect itself. Are nuclear weapons the sole and exclusive right of the USA??? This further propagates the American "world police" image...

Also, America cannot go out and exterminate everyone who they feel threaten their "way of life" as you say. A widow spider in the garden is a threat but that doesn't mean you need to go out and kill it. Leave it be until it wanders into your home....if that's the case then go ahead and kill it. Look my logic here is not perfect but I just wanted to make a point...the reason why the average person doesn't go around and f*ck with snakes is because of the fear of being bitten. NK needs its weapons to, at least in their opinion, keep the USA away....

Threats are there precisely to keep people from doing things in light of consequences. If you do this then I will do that....if you come into my home I will shoot you.. etc...

At the end of the day as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, every other nation will feel it's imperative to have one just to feel safe from a perceived threat.

Jay
[/quote]

Jay,
It wasnt directed to you at all.









We (the USA) have the right to protect our interest. IMO its in our interest that countries such a N Korea do NOT have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan with in the past few years became nuiclear countries, I didnt hear to much protesting from the USA about Indias nuclear ambitions. Your spider story is flawed. A spider in the house isnt a big deal, a taepodong II w/ a nuclear payload aimed at the USA is... The real threat from N Korea isnt them attacking us or our allies, its them supplying the technology or hardware to our enemies to deliever such weapons.


----------



## jaejae (Apr 16, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> Its totally pointless to argue with some of you people here. Your hatred for America shows and it saddens me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ExOdus, I hope you don't mean me when you talk about hatred of the USA. I don't hate the USA and that was not my point mate...I mean come on...

I also never said Kim wasn't a threat...he probably is....however I still maintain that he will not attack South Korea unless provoked by military aggression..

Is he a terrible man??..Yes...Is he crazy?...Probably....Is he stupid?....No....

The other point I was trying to make was that if one country has the right to develop nuclear weapons, then who gives another country the right to stop any other country from having them..

You can debate all you want but at the end of the day it's about a sovereign country having a legitimate right to develop weapons it feels it needs to protect itself. Are nuclear weapons the sole and exclusive right of the USA??? This further propagates the American "world police" image...

Also, America cannot go out and exterminate everyone who they feel threaten their "way of life" as you say. A widow spider in the garden is a threat but that doesn't mean you need to go out and kill it. Leave it be until it wanders into your home....if that's the case then go ahead and kill it. Look my logic here is not perfect but I just wanted to make a point...the reason why the average person doesn't go around and f*ck with snakes is because of the fear of being bitten. NK needs its weapons to, at least in their opinion, keep the USA away....

Threats are there precisely to keep people from doing things in light of consequences. If you do this then I will do that....if you come into my home I will shoot you.. etc...

At the end of the day as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, every other nation will feel it's imperative to have one just to feel safe from a perceived threat.

Jay
[/quote]

Jay,
It wasnt directed to you at all.









We (the USA) have the right to protect our interest. IMO its in our interest that countries such a N Korea do NOT have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan with in the past few years became nuiclear countries, I didnt hear to much protesting from the USA about Indias nuclear ambitions. Your spider story is flawed. A spider in the house isnt a big deal, a taepodong II w/ a nuclear payload aimed at the USA is... The real threat from N Korea isnt them attacking us or our allies, its them supplying the technology or hardware to our enemies to deliever such weapons.
[/quote]

Exodus, I know the spider analogy was flawed I was only trying to make a point about threats...in this case I think I made a good one although I know very well that you cannot compare a spider to Kim, Jong Il. Also with supplying the tech to rogue states, groups etc... I see your point however I still maintain that that is secondary and needs to be dealt with as and when it arises as opposed to the question of the legitimate right to devevlop nuclear weapons by any sovereign country.

The reason why the US didn't fret about India is because India is a democracy that is friendly with the USA while Pakistan is one of the few Arab nations that have sided with the USA, at least in terms of policy that it.... Neither are a threat...however when an unfriendly country develops nuclear weapons the US is up in arms whether or not the country actually intend to use it on the US.

The world does not revolve around the USA..countries don't have to agree to the US or its policy and countries have the right to tell the US to f*ck off should they choose to. Countries also have the right to develop nuclear weapons.. even totalitarion dictatorships. I may not like it and you may not like it and we may very well fight a war over it however it is still the right of a country to use nuclear technology to develop nuclear weapons...what happens after that is another story.....

Jay


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> The reason why the US didn't fret about India is because India is a democracy that is friendly with the USA while Pakistan is one of the few Arab nations that have sided with the USA, at least in terms of policy that it.... Neither are a threat...however when an unfriendly country develops nuclear weapons the US is up in arms whether or not the country actually intend to use it on the US.


Pakistan could prove to be a hotbed of trouble if the extremists there ever rise to power. That is one country I would want to preserve as an ally.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Fargo said:


> The reason why the US didn't fret about India is because India is a democracy that is friendly with the USA while Pakistan is one of the few Arab nations that have sided with the USA, at least in terms of policy that it.... Neither are a threat...however when an unfriendly country develops nuclear weapons the US is up in arms whether or not the country actually intend to use it on the US.


Pakistan could prove to be a hotbed of trouble if the extremists there ever rise to power. That is one country I would want to preserve as an ally.
[/quote]










Let me ask you Fargo... In your opinion, does N Korea pose a threat to the US and or its allies?


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Let me ask you Fargo... In your opinion, does N Korea pose a threat to the US and or its allies?


 N Korea and Iran were among the two main reasons I argued against going into Iraq from the beginning. I perceived these countries as imminent threats to both Israel and the West and thought Saddam for the time being could be played off against them. Now we're weighed down. This is why I've been arguing for a president with long-term military experience and expert diplomats behind him. The Kerrys and Clintons of the world will never appreciate how great the axis threat truly is, while the Bush team is far too incompitent in foreign policy to preserve national security. So yes, N Korea is a threat of the kind that only understands strength. Where the Bush team screws up is by not adapting the Reagan model in diplomacy. Strength must be balanced by direct negotiations. For all the fuckers Reagan had around him, they dealt with the Soviet Union quite masterfully.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

i thought for sure this thread woulda ended long ago

but i do believe we need to do something about this cupcake kim 
hes a certifide banana
hes gonna be more trouble down the road
nipping things in the bud now will make it easier later

like if we woulda finished desert storm in the late 80s 
maybe none of this crap would be going on now 
it is the perfect example of why we should nuke them all

desert storm we went over 
did what we had to do 
and payed them for what we did

oh im sure none of the middle east was satisfied with the pay out 
so the sat a simmered till they figured out terrorisim 
now they can attack and we will walk an even thinner line 
of not nuken them all

but what if we leveled the desert in the 80s

no one to pay back
no one left to terrorise anyone 10 years later

now look 
50 years later NK is still pissed 
and since the middle east can come back at us 
why cant the big banana do it

its all really a joke 
i mean dam 
if we woulda pussed out like this in WWII
nobody woulda died on the beaches of normandy

but all in all my personal theory about technology is right 
technology is gonna kill us all

it will thanks to nukes
anyways thought i would chime in on the few things you guys havent mentioned much


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> Its totally pointless to argue with some of you people here. Your hatred for America shows and it saddens me
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ExOdus, I hope you don't mean me when you talk about hatred of the USA. I don't hate the USA and that was not my point mate...I mean come on...

I also never said Kim wasn't a threat...he probably is....however I still maintain that he will not attack South Korea unless provoked by military aggression..

Is he a terrible man??..Yes...Is he crazy?...Probably....Is he stupid?....No....

The other point I was trying to make was that if one country has the right to develop nuclear weapons, then who gives another country the right to stop any other country from having them..

You can debate all you want but at the end of the day it's about a sovereign country having a legitimate right to develop weapons it feels it needs to protect itself. Are nuclear weapons the sole and exclusive right of the USA??? This further propagates the American "world police" image...

Also, America cannot go out and exterminate everyone who they feel threaten their "way of life" as you say. A widow spider in the garden is a threat but that doesn't mean you need to go out and kill it. Leave it be until it wanders into your home....if that's the case then go ahead and kill it. Look my logic here is not perfect but I just wanted to make a point...the reason why the average person doesn't go around and f*ck with snakes is because of the fear of being bitten. NK needs its weapons to, at least in their opinion, keep the USA away....

Threats are there precisely to keep people from doing things in light of consequences. If you do this then I will do that....if you come into my home I will shoot you.. etc...

At the end of the day as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, every other nation will feel it's imperative to have one just to feel safe from a perceived threat.

Jay
[/quote]

Jay,
It wasnt directed to you at all.









We (the USA) have the right to protect our interest. IMO its in our interest that countries such a N Korea do NOT have nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan with in the past few years became nuiclear countries, I didnt hear to much protesting from the USA about Indias nuclear ambitions. Your spider story is flawed. A spider in the house isnt a big deal, a taepodong II w/ a nuclear payload aimed at the USA is... The real threat from N Korea isnt them attacking us or our allies, its them supplying the technology or hardware to our enemies to deliever such weapons.
[/quote]

dude, why would we have any beef with india having nukes? if we shut them off, we're shutting off the nasdaq basically...


----------

