# Blair Wins Support



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Two votes were held, the first drawn up by the "rebels" who are against the governments stance of war against Iraq. The second was was a vote supporting the government's position. Blair won both votes, the second by a substancial margin.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politic...ics/2862325.stm


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

well hopefully we can help the yanks kick saddam's pile ridden ass now


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Tony Blair has some balls man.....


----------



## Poseidon X (Jan 31, 2003)

those who have faith will always triumph, well except for saddam


----------



## cfr3 (Feb 20, 2003)

Mad respect for Blair.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I have to agree, it takes a lot of guts to push forward something you deeply feel is right in the face of huge opposition. But in the end I think the numbers speak for themselves, most do believe in Blair and what he is doing. Kudos.


----------



## RhomZilla (Feb 12, 2003)

Yepps.. Blair got balls of an elephant. He's in the only other country who truely got our back. Not to mention he's even closer to where the war is.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

You guys seen the list of 30 that are currently backing the US? It's quite an interesting list.


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

just imagine those that arent on the list that will back us,isreal,kuwait ,jordan,and many other middle east countries. i think now that fidel would try to get on that list just to be cool,lol


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Well there is reportedly another 15 sitting on the fence.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Yeah I heard 15 are not prepared to say publicly they will back us.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

hey can we trade bush for blair?







...got mad respect for mr. blair....i'll take a bullet for him anytime, anywhere!


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Xenon said:


> Yeah I heard 15 are not prepared to say publicly they will back us.


 Why wouldnt they be prepared? I dont see why its so wrong for them to publically announce it...they swear as if something bad is going to happen to them.









John- Id say Bush is doing pretty damn good thus far...I mean if it were any other president...I dont think we'd be going through this...


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

How about Cretien for Blair? No, I wouldn't do that to the Brits.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Why wouldnt they be prepared? I dont see why its so wrong for them to publically announce it...they swear as if something bad is going to happen to them.


 .....other countries fear that the war might have a giant backlash in the future....ie: more lethal terrorist attacks on their country, and possible anti-american hatred might fall upon them


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Ms_Nattereri said:
> 
> 
> > Why wouldnt they be prepared? I dont see why its so wrong for them to publically announce it...they swear as if something bad is going to happen to them.
> ...


 If the terrorist hate Americans, theyll attack America, not one of its allies, usually. And IF they do attack one of them, we'll have their [our allies'] back. Were not like the French and turn our backs on countries that have supported us in the past.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> If the terrorist hate Americans, theyll attack America, not one of its allies, usually. And IF they do attack one of them, we'll have their [our allies'] back. Were not like the French and turn our backs on countries that have supported us in the past.


 again the keyword phrase here is *"And IF they do attack one of them,"*..........most of the countries do not want to be attacked just because they sided with the US, most countries want to go on about their daily lives without worrying about a stupid plane crashing into their buildings, a packaged full of bio/chem weapons, or etc


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> again the keyword phrase here is *"And IF they do attack one of them,"*..........most of the countries do not want to be attacked just because they sided with the US, most countries want to go on about their daily lives without worrying about a stupid plane crashing into their buildings, a packaged full of bio/chem weapons, or etc


 Cowards! We're not affraid to say who we support. Our supporters know damn well that if anything were to happen to them that we'd go in and protect them...like we do with any other country that calls on us for help when they're in need of it.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Cowards! We're not affraid to say who we support. Our supporters know damn well that if anything were to happen to them that we'd go in and protect them...like we do with any other country that calls on us for help when they're in need of it.


 because we have all the resources to defend ourselves as well as the other country....most countries don't have the luxury of having all the resources that the US has to defend itself.....so they aren't cowards, they're thinkin about their citizens


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

In some cases I can see where that is plausible...but in all other cases...I just dont see it


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> In some cases I can see where that is plausible...but in all other cases...I just dont see it


 how is that plausible in some cases? i'll give an example........the dutch.........the dutch does not have many military resources to defend themselves....so if they were to side with the US, and then be threatened by attacks from terrorist organizations, they wouldn't have much to defend themselves with except their flashing bikes and glowsticks


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

Again IN SOME cases I can see where is plausible/understandable why they would want to keep quiet.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> Again IN SOME cases I can see where is plausible/understandable why they would want to keep quiet.


 no, its perfectly understandable that some countries are still on the fence.....because of fear


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

blair is getting loads of crap from the press and a some cabinet ministers are resigning ,a load of protests going on led by celebs over here but the majority of people in the uk do support the war
lets kick ass
dixon


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Ms_Nattereri said:


> John- Id say Bush is doing pretty damn good thus far...I mean if it were any other president...I dont think we'd be going through this...


 Yeah, If Bush haden't bought himself the presidancy, this war would not be happening - Well done Bush









Also, although I quite like Blair, this is one of those major issues where I do not back him, I am anti-war, and so is much of the UK.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

You think Al Gore would have handled this any better? That's a laugh. Bush didn't create the situation, Saddam Hussein did and this has been a very long time coming.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I doubt that if Al Gore was president you would be about to attack Iraq.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Probably not, he would probably not try to pre-empt terrorists and terrorist states. We all know how well containment has worked, or rather hasn't worked.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

has saddam been fireing nuclear weapons anywere already?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

You would rather wait for him to use his weapons first and sacrifice thousands of innocent lives? We already know he almost had a crude nuclear device ready for the last Gulf War that he fully intended to use against the allies. Who's to say they didn't start that program up again after 1998? It was hidden from UNSCOM until a high ranking official defected.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I can't see what use an attack on the USA would have, the way I see it, is that if you attack Iraq it will not only give them more reason than ever before to use whatever weapons they might have since they are going to die anyway.
also if you blow up nuclear weapons in these attacks what would happen?
I doubt it would be very good.
Also the reason for invasion seems to be Kill Saddam - that is not really why, it is ment to be to make the world a safer place - how by starting a war?
and as if Saddam is going to be standing around in Iraq waiting to be killed - did you find Bin Laiden when you invaded Afghanistan?

and what happens when Iraq is in pieces, 30% of the population is left, and they need help?

Is the USA going to help them back to economic independance?

And also as unlikely as it sounds, Saddam might win, after all at one point it looked like Hitler was going to win


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Um firstly, what's this "you" talk? I'm not American (notice the flag under my name). Secondly, Hitler had a well trained, well equiped, high moral army. Saddam Hussein has conscripts that are poorly trained, poorly equiped and with very low moral. The only "elite" troops Iraq has is Saddam's personal troops, most are recruited from his home town.

If a nuclear device is pre-emptly blown up it does not cause a nuclear explosion, the only way for that to happen is for the actual mechanism to be used. Blowing one up, say in mid-flight, will not cause a nuclear explosion.

Saddam Hussein has every intention of acquiring and using WOMD against the US, the Kurds and neighboring states. Again I ask, should he be allowed to do so at his will or should we finally use the only means that can truly disarm him and do a pre-emptive strike? It has been made painfully clear that sanctions and diplomacy do not work with Saddam Hussein, only the threat of war and it's actual implementation work. Saddam Hussein has a one in a billion chance of winning this war, I saw one in a billion because there are no certanties (except that I guess lol).

Killing him will help to stabalize the region. He has actively engaged in genocide campaigns that were made quite public after the Gulf War.

The US will help Iraq in post-Saddam, they have already starting working on plans to do so.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

> also if you blow up nuclear weapons in these attacks what would happen?


a super-giant mushroom cloud over iraq



> and as if Saddam is going to be standing around in Iraq waiting to be killed - did you find Bin Laiden when you invaded Afghanistan?


but the man said that he wouldn't leave iraq and thought that bush should leave the us



> and what happens when Iraq is in pieces, 30% of the population is left, and they need help?


can't happen, cuz if it did happen then the US would be tried for every war crimes in the book


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I still don't agree with the attack


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

I respect that. The thing I don't understand is all these people who are anti-war, what tangeable method do they propose? Remember that Saddam Hussein does not think the same way as the Western world and the tactics and predictions we use, for instance back in the Cold War, cannot be trusted to give accurate results. George Bush sr. made that mistake by assuming Saddam would simply vacate the country when all the sanctions were imposed.

Here's the thing: the Gulf War proved that action gave tangeable results, so much so that Saddam Hussein was within days (maybe as few as one or two) of total surrender or overthrow. When the US stopped the attack Saddam viewed it as a victory for himself and then sanctions were used with few results. Just curious that if we know diplomacy doesn't work with Saddam and military action does, is it not then logical to conclude the same would be true today?

FWIW I personally would rather see a non-military solution, unfortunately I cannot think of anything else that would really work.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I believe their is always another way, and I also feel that the USA is being hypicritical by saying that Iraq poses a threat to them, when it is plain to see that the USA poses a much greater threat to Iraq - I can understand why Saddam wants to keep hold of his weapons.

I often see an american opinion of "we think this, and we are Americans who are reasonable people - therefore we must be right and everyone else is wrong and should change to be like us"

and I don't like it.

one idea for a better solution would be to go into Iraq peacefully and educate the Iraq population, and set them up with a good standard of living - this way in the next election they might vote someone else in who is more pro-USA.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

If you look on the new topic I posted - political and funny - it is a TV show here in the UK, and it is very political, and clever, take a look and see what you think.
It outlines many of the reasons why I am against war.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

There are some problems with that. The regime will not permit any form of Western education in Iraq. Secondly, there are no other candidates to vote for. The last election there were two boxes to check on the ballot, one was Saddam Hussein the other was blank. Couple that with the fear of being tortured and/or killed for voting against Saddam Hussein (a very real threat) you can see why 97%+ of the population continue to vote for him. Then of course there is the 24 years he has had to brainwash the population during his stay in power.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

yeah those are problems, but surely the rashional answer is not to go in and kill the lot of them?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Innes said:


> yeah those are problems, but surely the rashional answer is not to go in and kill the lot of them?


 Only the regime. As Bush and Blair have stated, the problem isn't with the people but the regime.


----------



## Bcollins111900 (Feb 3, 2003)

all i have to say is BUNKER BUSTER SADAM BUDDY YOU ARE GOING DOWN


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Innes said:
> 
> 
> > yeah those are problems, but surely the rashional answer is not to go in and kill the lot of them?
> ...


 its still a bit much, here in England you can't be put to death for being a serial killer - look at Dr H Shipman, who was believed to have killed over 300 of his patients.

But Mr Blair has the authority to launch an attack on Iraq which will undoubtly kill many innocent Iraq civilians and also shatter the lives of many more.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

That doesn't compare to the untold thousands Saddam Hussein himself has destroyed. To obtain and maintain peace sometimes means lives will be lots. The number of innocent civilians killed will probably ultimately be decided by Saddam, collateral damage should be minimal due to the advance in technologies over the past decade.

It's not really fair comparing domestic crimes to war. If that were the case then there was no justification for going after the Taliban and al Qaeda. I'm sure everyone would agree that the world is a better place now without them as a dominant entity in the Middle East.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

But you can't tell me that the reason why Bush wants to "sort out" Iraq is for the Iraq people?

He could have picked any LEDC and given them aid and save just as many lives without having a war.

Yes it might have some good things that result from it, but that is like saying "great my is wife dead, now I have her money" it is totally ignoring the price that was paid to achieve it


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

No of course the main reason is not for the Iraqi people. Nevertheless that is part of it for many people. I'm sure oil is another, but not a main issue since the US has no lack of oil sources without Iraq. Freedom is a much more important commodity than money, countless people have risked their lives fleeing places like Iraq for minor gains of freedom. Europeans of all people should understand the high cost of freedom.


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

iraq is about to be liberated!


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

as I say, their may be some good things in the outcome, but is war really the best method to achieve this?
Their must be better ways.


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

f*ck saddam !!!!!!!!!!!!!usa will kiilllllllllllll


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

That's what the world thought 12 years ago and look where it's gotten us. Nowhere. War is an extension of diplomacy, diplomacy by other means. People like Saddam do not respond to any other forms, in my mind he has made that abundantly clear


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Fair enough, but I am still anti-war.


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Innes said:


> Fair enough, but I am still anti-war.


 And that is a good thing, admirable when people stand by their convictions. I am not pro-war per se, but rather more in the middle. I'd love to see a peaceful resolution (including Saddam's ousting and subsequent prosecution), but I have no problems blowing the crap out of this madman.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

red devils red said:


> iraq is about to be liberated!










<---- that guy reminds me of judazzz


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

glad im in your thoughts!


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

isnt it true?an opresssed people will be free,dont you think it will start tonight?


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

yo man saddam loves all you


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

red devils red said:


> isnt it true?an opresssed people will be free,dont you think it will start tonight?


 tonight, this is what i'll be doing to the anti-war people in DC --------->


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

luck were in america cause we have freedom of speech! just dont hurt them hippie protesters! before any hippies start bashing me "dont take it personal"


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

lets feed saddam to all our pitbull !!!


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

red devils red said:


> glad im in your thoughts!


 Do you really want to know what kind of thoughts those are?











> isnt it true?an opresssed people will be free,dont you think it will start tonight?


More likely the night in Iraq following the deadline. Night time is a favored starting point for the US. Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, B1 bombers etc.


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

is that the name of your fish?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Only a few more hours left now. I would be surprised if soemthing didnt happen tonight.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

red devils red said:


> luck were in america cause we have freedom of speech! just dont hurt them hippie protesters! before any hippies start bashing me "dont take it personal"


 if i wanted to hurt them, i'd have already shot them with my m16....but thats bad because i can get court martialed for 1st degree murder, and i wouldn't want that....so







them i will


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

yo saddam aint got sh*t on the u.s.a. he will pay yanks huh you fucken idot canadian we dont need your help we can handle our own sh*t


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

not really! thats gonna be one crazy place tonight. if i could picture a minature armagedeon,this is what i would picture. tonight i will be glad im here with my family and freinds. i wish all of our soilders good luck and skill!


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

dabadaba quit dabaling !!! canadian fucks mess with us amrecans and you will see no mercy!!!


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

nieveoner said:


> yo saddam aint got sh*t on the u.s.a. he will pay yanks huh you fucken idot canadian we dont need your help we can handle our own sh*t



Huh? Me no understand this.

Too bad the treehuggers of today aren't like the ones from the 60's-70's who were happy to sit around and smoke a joint all day. That's a much better form of protest.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Too bad the treehuggers of today aren't like the ones from the 60's-70's who were happy to sit around and smoke a joint all day. That's a much better form of protest.


 wasn't their form of protest sex in public?


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

i see no friends allys to us all you will pay


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

wow im lossing it


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

That too, reminds me of the Australian women who stripped down and made a huge heart a while back. :smile:


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

sex in public,those were the days huh guys?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

nieveoner said:


> i see no friends allys to us all you will pay


 You aren't making any sense at all. Can you please try proper english so I know what you're saying? Thanks.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> nieveoner said:
> 
> 
> > i see no friends allys to us all you will pay
> ...


 i think he's trying to say that the US has no real allys, that everyone will pay for their insubordination to the US







.....in that case, i always thought the UK was a great ally


----------



## nieveoner (Mar 19, 2003)

hey i feel sorry for iraq tonigth







they will see americans up they ass


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

nieveoner said:


> hey i feel sorry for iraq tonigth
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 i wouldn't want to be up an iraqi ass...too sandy and rough


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

HEY NIEVERONER YOU WILL HAVE TWO SKULLS BY THE END OF THE DAY!GOOD LUCK!







I CAN SEE YOU REALLY HATE iraq WHAT MAKES YOU HATE THEM SO MUCH?


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Oooooh is that what he's saying? Glad to have an interpreter in here. :biggrin:


----------



## red devils red (Mar 12, 2003)

ITS JUST LIKE AT THE BEACH,SAND DOESNT HELP,IT ONLY HURTS THE LOVE -MAKIN!


----------



## Ms_Nattereri (Jan 11, 2003)

And the 48 hours are up


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

It's eight o'clock PM, do you know where your fascist dictator is?


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> It's eight o'clock PM, do you know where your fascist dictator is?


 probably running around in circles in his presidential palace saying in arabic "oh $#!t, what the f*ck have i just done...oh $#!t, oh $#!t, oh $#!t...i hope my republican guard can handle those big mean marines!......SON....we're gonna start packin...lets go chill with osama for a couple years"


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

Then maybe Osama can kill him for us!


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Neoplasia said:


> Then maybe Osama can kill him for us!

















....i doubt it....they'll probably end up gay and become butt buddies


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> probably running around in circles in his presidential palace saying in arabic "oh $#!t, what the f*ck have i just done...oh $#!t, oh $#!t, oh $#!t...i hope my republican guard can handle those big mean marines!......SON....we're gonna start packin...lets go chill with osama for a couple years"


 ROFL


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> red devils red said:
> 
> 
> > iraq is about to be liberated!
> ...


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Why's that? :sad: 
I think it looks like a muppet (like Animal), and when I look in the mirror, I don't see a muppet


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I guess it might not be based on your looks, but more on the reaction you instill in us as we read your posts------>









and also yaya could be a Dutch word


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Innes said:


> I guess it might not be based on your looks, but more on the reaction you instill in us as we read your posts------>


Is that a good or a bad thing?

And I never heard people saying "yaya" in our streets, so I doubt it's a Dutch word: maybe it's Jamaican, ya


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Is that a good or a bad thing?


Ah, Jonas,
You know we all love you, why would it be a bad thing?
after all, does he look upset?----->









And it could be worse, this one reminds me of Karen------->








and this one of John------->








and this one of Marco------->








and this one of Xenon----->








and this one of piranha13------->








and this one of razorlips----->








and this one of pcrose--------->








and this one I like to think of as me----->


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Innes said:


> after all, does he look upset?----->
> 
> 
> 
> ...










ROFL!!!
















Dude, you have wwwaaaaayyyyyyy too much time on hand, but I'm glad to see you use it wisely


----------



## Neoplasia (Feb 16, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Neoplasia said:
> 
> 
> > Then maybe Osama can kill him for us!
> ...


 Actually Saddam Hussein is on Osama's "Infidel List" and wants him dead.


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Innes said:


> and this one of John------->


 so are you calling me an asshole?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Innes said:
> 
> 
> > and this one of John------->
> ...


 No, someone who invites completely random people to enter his pooper


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > Innes said:
> ...


 you're one to talk


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> ...










GRRRRRRR!!!!!


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > Innes said:
> ...


 not all of them are random, just around 75%

he does have some repeat business from the blind club


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 uh O







....i touched a nerve







......im sorry fasher....next time, i won't tell the world about your kinky fetishes


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> ...


U better








Or you'll crawl around in the desert with one arm and one leg







Now, what fun would that be


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 i still have my m16 with me right?.....cuz without my m16, i would be left for dead


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> ...


 Even with no arms and legs?


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Even with no arms and legs?


 you said i had one arm and one leg left


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

But you said this:

Quote:


> i still have my m16 with me right?.....cuz without my m16, i would be left for dead


Unquote

So limbs don't matter, only your rifle does ("_this is your rifle, this one is yours, there are many like that but this one is yours, without you, your rifle is useless, without your rifle, you are useless_")


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> _this is your rifle, this one is yours, there are many like that but this one is yours, without you, your rifle is useless, without your rifle, you are useless_")


 ah, the riflemen's prayer....well at least part of it







.....makes me sleep better at night


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > _this is your rifle, this one is yours, there are many like that but this one is yours, without you, your rifle is useless, without your rifle, you are useless_")
> ...


 Sure it's only part of it: I got it from a movie


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > Judazzz said:
> ...


 gee, i wonder which one?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> gee, i wonder which one?


 Easy rider


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> USMC*sPiKeY* said:
> 
> 
> > gee, i wonder which one?
> ...


 really? i thought it would've been 'Debbie does the Armed Forces'


----------



## piranha 13 (Feb 16, 2003)

Debbie did the Armed Froces?


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

piranha 13 said:


> Debbie did the Armed Froces?


























ALL OFF 'EM?!?!?!?!?

Hey, pssst! You got her number by any chance


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> piranha 13 said:
> 
> 
> > Debbie did the Armed Froces?
> ...


 no







......but i have her business card.....it just has no numbers


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

USMC*sPiKeY* said:


> Judazzz said:
> 
> 
> > piranha 13 said:
> ...


 Not even a 6 and a 9?


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Not even a 6 and a 9?


 no but i got these numbers:

OO


----------



## WebHostExpert (Jan 16, 2003)

In your mouth. 
LOL
MAD


----------



## ProdigalMarine (Jan 31, 2003)

> no but i got these numbers:
> 
> OO





> In your mouth.
> LOL
> MAD










...got milk?


----------



## WebHostExpert (Jan 16, 2003)

No but I got something close
MAD


----------

