Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gixer on May 11, 2005, 08:33:20 PM
-
"Four suicide bombers killed some 72 Iraqis which makes nearly 400 Iraqis killed since the new government was unveiled."
I wonder what price the majority of Iraqis are willing to pay for supporting democracy before they start to think it isn't worth it.
...-Gixer
-
Ya sure, they will be happy to invite Saddam back so he can kill a few more million of them.. Ya, your on it...
-
Actually, the more the terrorists kill innocent Iraqis, the less they will support the selfish ****ers. I hate to see innocents die, but the terrorists, besides thinnning the ranks of those stupid enough to kill themselves, are showing their true colors to the average Iraqi.
-
Also, it is a good thing that worldwide terrorists are attracted to Iraq to display their "honor" and "skill". The pool of handsomehunkes is limited, and the more we kill (or that kill themselves), the better off the world is.
The argument that killing terrorists creates more terrorists is not relevant to the situation; Iraq is ony ATTRACTING terrorists, not creating them. Sad for the Iraqi's, but I would just as soon they died over there than over here.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
....The pool of handsomehunkes is limited...
The argument that killing terrorists creates more terrorists is not relevant to the situation; Iraq is ony ATTRACTING terrorists, not creating them. Sad for the Iraqi's, but I would just as soon they died over there than over here.
Not to sound smug or anything, but I think you may be incorrect about your assumption on the size of the handsomehunk pool. Besides, becoming a suicide bomber may only be stupid from out point of view, not theirs.
Also I see no difference between ATTRACTING terrorists and CREATING - they are still being created somewhere, and our presence in Iraq is the impetus. Should we ever vacate Iraq (unlikely I think), a new impetus (maybe revulsion of deomcracy in an Islamic state?) will replace the old one, and the terrorism will probably just continue.
-
The Iraqi people are already turning over more tips then ever before.
-
in spite of the hopes and dreams of you american haters the terrorists are losing.
-
Who gave you the idea that Iraq was "Stable"? :rofl
-
Who are you calling an America hater?
-
Oboe, the actual size of the handsomehunk pool is irrelevant. The fact is that they are killing way more innocent Iraqis than they are Americans, and the Iraqis both realize this and realize that they will not be rid of the Americans until the handsomehunk pool is eliminated.
The fact remains:
handsomehunk terrorists are dying in Iraq, not the US, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the logical course of ation to take. Plus, anyway you look at it, we have more resources than the handsomehunk pool, so unless the US loses it's nerve, ala Vietnam, we, and Iraq (to say nothing of the world), win.
-
yever wonder what planet gixer is transmitting from? Im not knocking him and I respect his opinion but sometimes he seems a bit off to me.
okay, to topic: iraq isnt stable and probably wont approach stability by western standards for ten years or more.
-
I have no doubt that Gixer is from the plant Wish-in-one-hand-****-in-the-other, just like so many of his ilk.
-
And that is not personal to you, Gixer, but applies to about 10% of the world, who, unfortunately, have control of about 80% of the media.
-
I'm just not as confident of the situation as you are, Liz. We are 7.5 trillion in debt, which is increasing at a rate of 2 billion per day.
We've spent $300 billion in Iraq, (275 million per day).
I'm not sure we can say how all the Iraqis think. I'm more likely to think they don't all think the same- there are Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd and each may view the terrible situation their country is in differently. I view basically as a 3 way civil war going as the new government tries to get established.
I don't think the US will "lose its nerve" and pull out of Iraq. (Although I don't think that's an appropriate way to phrase it). Though I am starting to think of it more like a Viet Nam - it seems to be handled in the media more and more - at least it seems to me we are getting into the "body count" mentality that we had in Viet Nam. But certainly the Middle East is far more valuable to the US strategically than Viet Nam ever was.
-
It's the Oil Stupid [/b]
-
The media was wrong in the way they handled Veitnam, though I will give them the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to the newness of the media, and they are wrong in the way they handle Iraq, with no excuse.
The terrorists are killing with no discrimination, sunni, shiite, whatever, and that is what will lose the war for them. They are focused, motivated and dying at a rapid rate. It is very hard to replace persons who are willing to die for a cause when the cause is seen by the majority of their peers to be a) unjust and b) futile.
We simply need to keep killing the handsomehunkes and the pool will dry up.
-
I picture Gixer walking around with his 2 inch hardon after reading this.
-
That might be a tad optimistic.
-
Originally posted by Drunky
It's the Oil Stupid [/B]
ok anybody with a valid idea.
-
there will come a day when they have killed one too many civillians, they'll lose any remaining support and it will be open season on them. i hope we see a few public beheadings from the locals.
-
If i was in iraq & someone set off a bomb, i'd say
"who farted!?!"
then everyone would laugh & laugh
-
Originally posted by bunch
If i was in iraq & someone set off a bomb, i'd say
"who farted!?!"
then everyone would laugh & laugh
yaaaa...........ok.........su re.......
-
Originally posted by bunch
If i was in iraq & someone set off a bomb, i'd say
"who farted!?!"
then everyone would laugh & laugh
Heh....reminds me of Deep Thoughts....by Jack Handy.
:D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
yever wonder what planet gixer is transmitting from? Im not knocking him and I respect his opinion but sometimes he seems a bit off to me.
okay, to topic: iraq isnt stable and probably wont approach stability by western standards for ten years or more.
I never said it was my opinion, I just stated the question.
Putting all arguments aside as to whether the war was right or wrong.
Personally I think as long as they have support the Iraqis will tough it out for as long as it takes especially considering the alternative for now (civil war) would be alot worse.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
I picture Gixer walking around with his 2 inch hardon after reading this.
Interesting that you picture hardons. You might want to talk to someone about that.
...-Gixer
-
*rolls eyes at a rusty, dull hook with rancid bait*
-
Originally posted by oboe
Who are you calling an America hater?
Anyone that isn't looking thru his "Dubya Edition" rose colored glasses.
-
Originally posted by oboe
I'm just not as confident of the situation as you are, Liz. We are 7.5 trillion in debt, ......
You lost all credibility in the discussion with that statement. Stick to the topic at hand.
It's the Oil Stupid
I was with Drunky on the Syrian border sniping illegal Mexican immigrants sneaking over to infiltrate our ranks. He knows what he is talking about.
-
... until the handsomehunk pool is eliminated
Funnily enough I stopped reading there.
-
fact: nobody has ever changed their mind about politics or religon because of something someone else said.
fact: at least my fart joke got a laugh
-
Originally posted by bunch
fact: nobody has ever changed their mind about politics or religon because of something someone else said.
That is patently false.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Fact: The terrorists have been killing people in Iraq for more than two years now.
Much more than two years. In fact, hundreds of thousands were killed long before any American troops were in that country.
Fact: It is getting worse; more people are being killed than ever before.
Than ever before?? You need to check your facts.
Fact: It is getting worse; there are more attacks than ever before.
Ever before? How long does your knowledge of history go back? You seem to be emphatic on your data.
Fact: Morons on this BBS thinks the terrorists will lose support because they're killing Shiites and "collaborators" ... they have already done this for two years; there are more attacks and more people are getting killed now by terrorists than ever before.
"Morons on this BBS thinks the terrorists will lose support"
There are many 'morons' in this world."Norge/Norway/Norwegen/ Noruwee/Norvegia" They seem to have at least one.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Much more than two years. In fact, hundreds of thousands were killed long before any American troops were in that country.
Are you referring to the hundreds of thousands that died in the US backed Iran-Iraq war?
Perhaps you refer to the hundreds of thousands(?) that died in the post-Desert Storm rebellions that were initially encouraged by the US who then later withdrew support leaving them at the mercy of the Iraqi regime?
Either way, your mock outrage is a little late, if not slightly misplaced.
-
Originally posted by Flit
The Iraqi people are already turning over more tips then ever before.
unfort. many of you overlooked this tidbit, and what it means.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Really? Terrorists killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq before American troops were in that country?
Like I said: Morons on this bbs. Some of them can't even read.
Terrorist is a term that seems to be self defined. Obviously you don't consider the killers that were employed by the Iraqi government as terrorists.
Like I said:There's at least one. Perhaps many more (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-netherlands-srebrenica,0,7935043.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines)
Originally posted by Momus
Are you referring to the hundreds of thousands that died in the US backed Iran-Iraq war?
Perhaps you refer to the hundreds of thousands(?) that died in the post-Desert Storm rebellions that were initially encouraged by the US who then later withdrew support leaving them at the mercy of the Iraqi regime?
Either way, your mock outrage is a little late, if not slightly misplaced.
Starting at the end, I have exhibited no "mock outrage". I'm sorry you interpret that emotion in my typed response to a poster that seems unable to free himself from his self created stereotype.
You ask what deaths I was refering to? You can take your pick of the time, motivation, political backers, method, etc. You only reinforce my position by pointing them out.
The executioners have been employed by the recently deposed leader for many many years though. The recent revelations seem to show that the current violent death rate in Iraq is far less than it was before we got there. Physically at least.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
You lost all credibility in the discussion with that statement. Stick to the topic at hand.
I brought up the debt and deficit again to address Liz's statement that we have more resources than the 'handsomehunkes'.
Liz believes the handsomehunk pool to be of finite size and shrinking, if it could be measured. I believe our nation's financial resources are roughly in the same situation.
Someone one previously mentioned it will be ten years before Iraq begins to show stability in the Western sense. That sounds pretty plausible to me. At 275 million per day, 10 years and more adds up to quite a bit of borrowed money. How do you think the debt can grow?
-
You ask what deaths I was refering to? You can take your pick of the time, motivation, political backers, method, etc. You only reinforce my position by pointing them out.
I'm sorry, I thought you were pointing to the deaths resulting from the 1980's war or the post-1991 rebellions as some kind of retrospective justification for the 2003 invasion, despite the fact that your government at the time was at least tacitly supporting the Iraqi regime's behaviour and at worst actively encouraging it.
Silly me.
So hows does pointing out that you can't in any conscience use those past occurences as some kind of measure of todays mess reinforce your point?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, the famous "bait and switch". Not biting, you lose.
No bait but yours. I only answered your attempt to justify your statement. The link was something I read just before coming back to this thread. I thought it pertinent only in the context of your constant degradation of my countries motives and performance in foreign affairs. It is satisfying to see that you don't answer any of the responses, but only try to justify a single position by italicizing a word and claiming poor reading comprehension. Only to have that rebuke discounted and responding with some absurd accusation.
Originally posted by oboe
I brought up the debt and deficit again to address Liz's statement that we have more resources than the 'handsomehunkes'.
Liz believes the handsomehunk pool to be of finite size and shrinking, if it could be measured. I believe our nation's financial resources are roughly in the same situation.
Someone one previously mentioned it will be ten years before Iraq begins to show stability in the Western sense. That sounds pretty plausible to me. At 275 million per day, 10 years and more adds up to quite a bit of borrowed money. How do you think the debt can grow?
I see your point. I thought the post was an attempt to move the discussion to another area. Sorry.
I do agree that our countries debt is a problem that deserves attention. Quickly.
I don't agree that we will run out of resources before the supply of 'handsomehunkes' that are willing to blow themselves up for whatever-the-hell it is they think is worth doing that declines.
Both positions are opinions though.
Originally posted by Momus--
I'm sorry, I thought you were pointing to the deaths resulting from the 1980's war or the post-1991 rebellions as some kind of retrospective justification for the 2003 invasion, despite the fact that your government at the time was at least tacitly supporting the Iraqi regime's behaviour and at worst actively encouraging it.
Silly me.
So hows does pointing out that you can't in any conscience use those past occurences as some kind of measure of todays mess reinforce your point?
Well, how about we get down to the reason I responded to GS.
Do you believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam Hussein's reign than they are now?
Do you believe that more Iraqi's are being killed now than were under Saddam Hussein's reign?
Do you believe that more Iraqi's are happy with the current state of affairs versus the living conditions under Saddam Hussein's reign?
If so, why and from where do you get your information?
-
Originally posted by WMLute
unfort. many of you overlooked this tidbit, and what it means.
it is that they are blinded by their desire to see America and her allies fail in this historic attempt to establish peace in the middle east
History will bare it out, not the narrow minds on this board
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'd like to see the supporting evidence of this "fact". I think you're greatly mistaken. We wouldn't even have religion or politics at all if what you say were true.
Originally posted by Momus--
That is patently false.
the two of yuz is obviously very convinced your point of view is correct. i'm quite positive nothing i could write could convince yall otherwise
-
Do you believe that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam Hussein's reign than they are now?
Do you believe that more Iraqi's are being killed now than were under Saddam Hussein's reign?
Do you believe that more Iraqi's are happy with the current state of affairs versus the living conditions under Saddam Hussein's reign?
Since none of this has a bearing on why you invaded, no matter how much the neo-cons and the murdochian press desperately squawk otherwise, it is pretty irrelevant one way or the other.
But no matter.
You cited the thousands of deaths prior to 2003 as some kind of example of how the situation has improved. Now maybe it has for some, but you (the USA) had a hand in the preceding bloodshed, so it's pretty disingenous to hold them up now as some kind of favourable comparison.
Note that this is not expressing an opinion on the current intensity or otherwise of the conflict; things may well hopefully be calming down over there despite the rash of recent bombings; one can only hope.
i'm quite positive nothing i could write could convince yall otherwise
That probably says more about you than it does about me.
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Oboe, the actual size of the handsomehunk pool is irrelevant. The fact is that they are killing way more innocent Iraqis than they are Americans, and the Iraqis both realize this and realize that they will not be rid of the Americans until the handsomehunk pool is eliminated.
The fact remains:
handsomehunk terrorists are dying in Iraq, not the US, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the logical course of ation to take. Plus, anyway you look at it, we have more resources than the handsomehunk pool, so unless the US loses it's nerve, ala Vietnam, we, and Iraq (to say nothing of the world), win.
Something about your post sounds vaguely familiar....;)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=105513&referrerid=3203
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nope, no WMD, but from a tactical point of view, militaristically speaking, it was a brilliant move to take Iraq in the war against terrorism. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Block Watch" on countries like Syria, Iran, and dare I say...Saudi Arabia..
WTG Bush, brilliant stategist he is!
-
"That probably says more about you than it does about me."
Of course, you can say that about anything anyone says.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So you're back Rip, or just another "drive by"?
Btw. you were wrong about the 787 and India. ;)
I thought you were banned? Oh well.
Btw. you were wrong about the 787 and India.
I'm often wrong, Gsholtz, and I will admit when I am. Thats a key difference between you and I. But in this case I was not. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I'm afraid you were. The 787-8 is the longest ranged version of the 787, and the A340-600 has a 500 mile longer range.
How many current commercial planes do that?
And a Singapore Airlines A340-500 took the official world record for distance and duration for a commercial flight more than a year ago with its Singapore-LA non-stop daily service.
Doesn't sound "current" to me Gsholtz. Can I book a flight on that route today…currently? ;)
-
Nope, no WMD, but from a tactical point of view, militaristically speaking, it was a brilliant move to take Iraq in the war against terrorism. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Block Watch" on countries like Syria, Iran, and dare I say...Saudi Arabia..
Yes, killing tens of thousands more Iraqis and risking the further radicalisation of the current generations of arabs was a really smart move. Not to mention confirming in the eyes of practically the whole region the radical islamist's primary contention that the land of Islam and of the arabs is under attack. Add to that if you like the creation of exactly the conditions that the war was ostensibly initiated to avoid in uniting secular ba'thists and islamic terrorists where no previous union existed. Fantastic.
Good to see you back Rip, people with enough emotional capital tied up in Bush to believe his crap tastes of honey were getting a little thin on the ground, really now.
-
I see the Ameri-hater crew is hard at work here still, thought Skuzzy would have banned a few of you by now, and apparently he has, but given reprieve. Thats a shame. You ever posted anything positive about the US, Momus? Or are those grapes just too high in the Bush and too sour to reach? (Pun intended)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, so you’re saying that there are no carriers flying from India directly to the US, and not that the 787 is the only airliner that can do so?
GDoltz, read the thread again. Then read the article in that thread. Here, I will even quote it for you
With its innovations, the 787 will allow Air India to open new nonstop routes such as Delhi-New York and Mumbai – San Francisco economically, while offering passengers unprecedented comfort.
Keyword, GDoltz...E-C-O-N-O-M-I-C-A-L-L-Y.
(Shakes head) You're too easy, son.
-
hehe, been 10 min since GDoltz replied...he must be busy trying to find a non-stop flight from Singapore to LA. ;)
Or possibly doing fuel comsumption calculations with an A340 vs the projected fuel burn on the new 787. :)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You’re not very good at lying.
Practice makes perfect.
I'm sorry you feel that I am lying. I do appreciate you expressing this, but I have no need to lie to anyone in person, let alone on a message board to an individual thousands of miles away. As far as the topic, your responses are telling enough.
Originally posted by Momus--
Since none of this has a bearing on why you invaded, no matter how much the neo-cons and the murdochian press desperately squawk otherwise, it is pretty irrelevant one way or the other.
But no matter.
You are right. It doesn't matter why the international coalition invaded Iraq in this topic, but the questions have nothing to do with that.
Originally posted by Momus--
You cited the thousands of deaths prior to 2003 as some kind of example of how the situation has improved.
No, I cited them in response to a post that cited opinions as facts.
Originally posted by Momus--
but you (the USA) had a hand in the preceding bloodshed,
We did.
I still would like to know what your answers to those questions would be.
-
There are lots of postive things about the USA Rippy, your proximity to Canada for one, and the plethora of hot mexican women for another. But let's get back to the matter in hand.
One would imagine that if your contention that going into Iraq would somehow draw the terrorists away from attacking other parts of the globe was correct then we would see an attendant reduction in the number of worldwide terrorist attacks. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Linky (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html)
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week..
..Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides who were briefed on statistics covering incidents including the bloody school seizure in Russia and violence related to the disputed Indian territory of Kashmir...
.."Last year was bad. This year is worse. They are deliberately trying to withhold data because it shows that as far as the war on terrorism internationally, we're losing," said Larry C. Johnson, a former senior State Department counterterrorism official, who first revealed the decision not to publish the data...
:p
-
"Originally posted by Ripsnort
Nope, no WMD, but from a tactical point of view, militaristically speaking, it was a brilliant move to take Iraq in the war against terrorism. Think of it as a "Neighborhood Block Watch" on countries like Syria, Iran, and dare I say...Saudi Arabia..
WTG Bush, brilliant stategist he is!"
would you still think alone the same lines if your kids were there rip?
dropping the ball on finding laden and diverting the majority of resources to a war in iraq, is a slap on the face to the victims of 9/11 imo.
iraq is not about terrorism, but rather china will soon over shadow america when it comes to oil consumption, it would of been just a matter of time before china moved in, can't have that.
considering that most of the terrorists from 9/11 were saudis and that repressive regime is somewhat unstable. securing the world's two largest oil reserves from unstable or unfriendly hands is what this is all about.
i hardly think bush has the ability to decipher the intelligence briefs he receives, or let alone strategize for that matter. he was the chosen one because he is malleable. why else would they have done such a blatant hatchet job on Mccain.
-
Yes Lazerus, I think that compared to the Iran-Iraq war and post-Desert Storm eras the prospects for normal Iraqis are better than they have been for some time. That isn't saying very much though really is it?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
hehe, been 10 min since GDoltz replied...he must be busy trying to find a non-stop flight from Singapore to LA. ;)
Or possibly doing fuel comsumption calculations with an A340 vs the projected fuel burn on the new 787. :)
give him a break rip, googling the answer that suits him takes time.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
So what’s with the hostility?
No I was having dinner, but since you asked:
Singapore
(SIN - Singapore) Los Angeles
(LAX - Los Angeles) 13 May 05
16:10
Fri 13 May 05
17:30
Fri 16 hr 20 min Airbus A340-500
http://www.singaporeair.com
Took me about 2 minutes.
So … will you admit to being wrong? Or perhaps just scuttle away and hide like you usually do?
I admit to being wrong about the current non-stop flight. Now, how are you going to prove that its more economical? ..too easy. :)
Regarding the "hostility" question, you guys brought it on yourself.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
give him a break rip, googling the answer that suits him takes time.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Momus--
That isn't saying very much though really is it?
I had about 150 words in reply to that one little sentence, cursor hovoring over the 'submit reply' tab. Power to my entire street blinked out and the reply blinked with it. The short version: yes and no.
-
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
We all have blood on our hands.
Trading innocent lives so that people can drive down a strait road in there fat SUV's guzzling gallon after gallon of gas.
Shame on you and us all for becoming lazy'you' being the Fox news brainwashed mass, 'us all' being the enlightned who put human life over finacial gain, but by having that attitude can't establish the power to buy an election.
-
Originally posted by MENDEZ
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
We all have blood on our hands.
Trading innocent lives so that people can drive down a strait road in there fat SUV's guzzling gallon after gallon of gas.
Shame on you and us all for becoming lazy'you' being the Fox news brainwashed mass, 'us all' being the enlightned who put human life over finacial gain, but by having that attitude can't establish the power to buy an election.
:confused:
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Interesting that you picture hardons. You might want to talk to someone about that.
...-Gixer
Typical, You hate gays as well?
What a wonderfull guy.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I never claimed it was more economical. How could I? The B787 hasn’t even flown yet.
So the conclusion is finally ... You were wrong. Like I said.
Uhh, GDoltz, the question was "India" not Singapore. Please read the thread again.
Originally posted by mosgood
Non-stop flights from anywhere in india to anywhere in the U.S. ? Wow
How many current commercial planes do that?
Ripsnort answering the "Any airport from India to the USA (After reading the article>>>
The 777-200LR will enable Air India to provide ultra-long range, nonstop flights between any airports in India and the United States. The 777-300ER is the ideal airplane to replace the airline’s current fleet of 747-200 airplanes because it offers Air India comparable capacity with twin-engine efficiency.
The 787-8 Dreamliner is the right choice for Air India to replace its aging A310 fleet. With its innovations, the 787 will allow Air India to open new nonstop routes such as Delhi-New York and Mumbai – San Francisco economically, while offering passengers unprecedented comfort.
So, to answer Mos, No, no current airliner can go from ANYWHERE in India to ANYWHERE in the US...and cannot do it as economically as the Dreamliner will.
Gdoltz: "your wrong--Singapore Airlines A340-500 took the official world record for distance and duration for a commercial flight more than a year ago with its Singapore-LA non-stop daily service. "
When did Singapore enter the conversation?
Just admit your a dolt. Then all will be harmonic in No-way. ;)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Yes, the A340-500 can fly from anywhere in India to anywhere in the US. The A340-500 has the longest range of any airliner including the yet-to-be-flown B787. The economics is just speculation at this point.
So who (current airliner) flies from anywhere in India to anywhere in the US?
Awaiting your answer.
-
...
Not worth it, GDoltz.
So tell us, now that Skuzzy has whooped ya, you gonna be a good boy on the BBS? ;)
Its pretty obvious to me that I was speaking of active service, like the article specified, and answered mos to that, although somewhat vague in my single "no" reply..and you took it for "specific plane type".
-
Why is it that people have to split hairs in order to be right?
Why can't people say, "I thought you meant X. I was talking about Y. My mistake."
-
If it doesn't crash before it runs outta fuel:eek:
:rofl
-
I wouldn't know, I don't follow that stuff like you guys do.
I just couldn't resist the poke.
-
Naw, just puppies, sick guy.
-
Damn boeing vs airbus hijackers. :mad:
I want Rippy to tell me how he squares the huge rise in global terrorism with his pet theory on Bush's super duper secret strategy on Iraq.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Damn boeing vs airbus hijackers. :mad:
I want Rippy to tell me how he squares the huge rise in global terrorism with his pet theory on Bush's super duper secret strategy on Iraq.
There is also a direct correlation to the number of terroristic activities and the prices of oil!!!