At 3/21/06 04:09 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Afghanistan, however, is where we SHOULD be. And should have stayed until that mess was straightened out.
You guys ran away. Canada is leading the force right now. :)
Flag stolen content, don't be a dingus.
At 3/21/06 04:09 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:At 3/21/06 12:38 PM, Peregrinus wrote:At 3/21/06 12:21 PM, rayzerblayze wrote:
Lesson: Military intelligence is an oxymoron.
No.. I think you mean "Bush" intelligence. :)
:that guy IS a real idiot though....
At 3/21/06 04:41 PM, Peregrinus wrote:At 3/21/06 04:09 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Afghanistan, however, is where we SHOULD be. And should have stayed until that mess was straightened out.You guys ran away. Canada is leading the force right now. :)
You crazy Canadians, what with pouring maple syrup into caves...I knew it had to be you guys!
At 3/21/06 06:07 PM, -Crux- wrote:At 3/21/06 04:09 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:At 3/21/06 12:38 PM, Peregrinus wrote:At 3/21/06 12:21 PM, rayzerblayze wrote:Lesson: Military intelligence is an oxymoron.No.. I think you mean "Bush" intelligence. :)
that guy IS a real idiot though....
Yeah he is an asshole. Good thing he gots only 2 more years in the White House. I'm going for Bill Clinton's wife to be the next president. Which brings me to this next question: Who is going to be the next US president in 2008?
Not Hillary. I would like for Barak Obama to run, but he's too inexperience and is inelectable. McCain could win the republican ticket, but he's a bit old.
At 3/21/06 06:17 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: You crazy Canadians, what with pouring maple syrup into caves...I knew it had to be you guys!
Beaver tails, maple syrup, and Timbits together make a great explosive. Try it sometime.
At 3/21/06 07:30 PM, GeneralMBison wrote: Who is going to be the next US president in 2008?
Prediction for 2008: George Bush will start another war, and pass a bill allowing him to stay on for a third term.
Flag stolen content, don't be a dingus.
At 3/21/06 12:16 PM, wastedwizard wrote:At 3/21/06 12:12 PM, rayzerblayze wrote: i think iraq was a bad idea.was it really worh it to invade.Its all well and good saying that now but if he had, had weapons of mass destruction we could not take a chance and also he was commiting crimes against his own people.
Can i just point out that Saddam only had weapons of mass destruction because the West sold them to him and during the Iraq Iran war the west urged him to use them as that was the main reason they sold them to him.
And this is going to sound cruel its true, the fact he commited crimes against his own people is irelevent there are hundreds of regimes that do that most supported and controlled by the west. Look at 80's south america every country nearly was corrupt and ruled with terror whose governments were supported by America.
In fact most of the time America demanded they killed dissidents and torture them. The ruler of Nicaraqua was Mussolineas best friend (thats right over Hitler) and his luxorious palace had 3 levels.
The top was his living qaurters with 2 cages for his pets one a panther and the other a dissident(political prisoner).
Below him was his garrison of mercernaires armed and trained by the U.S.
And underground was a prison with hundreds of dissidents. (it was more like a hole with a gate ontop).
In fact if Saddam had kept his hands of Kuwait he would have still been a loyal puppet of the west.(though with the sophisticated media of today he properbly would have been distanced from us).
At 3/22/06 02:05 PM, RedGlare wrote:
In fact if Saddam had kept his hands of Kuwait he would have still been a loyal puppet of the west.(though with the sophisticated media of today he properbly would have been distanced from us).
That is the reason, he went round invading a country for now reason so why would he not do the same with the weapons he was believed to have had?
At 3/22/06 02:08 PM, wastedwizard wrote:At 3/22/06 02:05 PM, RedGlare wrote:That is the reason, he went round invading a country for now reason so why would he not do the same with the weapons he was believed to have had?
In fact if Saddam had kept his hands of Kuwait he would have still been a loyal puppet of the west.(though with the sophisticated media of today he properbly would have been distanced from us).
Well one thing there Kuwait was an American ally thats why the Gulf war happened and as ive explained we gave him those weapons and if America cared so much about that country invaded others why did the help wage war on others.
And why Iraq there are plenty of war mongoring regimes with no western influence many with similar weaponry he was believed he had.
plus if America believed he still had these then why didn't they let the inspectors do there job. If they believed it then they could sit back and wait to be provn right.
At 3/22/06 02:26 PM, RedGlare wrote:
plus if America believed he still had these then why didn't they let the inspectors do there job. If they believed it then they could sit back and wait to be provn right.
They could have smuggled them out, their is evidence that Iraqi ships being loaded with nuke sized crates that then decided to circle that pacific a couple of times before going back to Iraq empty. America thought that if the inspectors said there was none they would not have been able to find out for sure so took the risk.
At 3/22/06 02:30 PM, wastedwizard wrote: They could have smuggled them out, their is evidence that Iraqi ships being loaded with nuke sized crates that then decided to circle that pacific a couple of times before going back to Iraq empty. America thought that if the inspectors said there was none they would not have been able to find out for sure so took the risk.
That was only a rumor and was never proven. You can never trust CNN during a war, as CNN is America's largest propaganda tool, as is the BBC in the UK. Mainly because these two stations are broadcasted around the world.
Flag stolen content, don't be a dingus.
At 3/22/06 02:41 PM, Peregrinus wrote:
That was only a rumor and was never proven. You can never trust CNN during a war, as CNN is America's largest propaganda tool, as is the BBC in the UK. Mainly because these two stations are broadcasted around the world.
yes of course and i understand but the main leaders knew more than us so maybe there was one that they believed to be true
At 3/22/06 02:30 PM, wastedwizard wrote:At 3/22/06 02:26 PM, RedGlare wrote:they would not have been able to find out for sure so took the risk.
Iraq never had nuclear weapons ok they don't have the technology we didn't sell him any plus do you have any idea how much complex machinery and scientists it takes to move chemical weaponry?
The only factor that made Iraq different then the other murdering regimes is oil!
do you think there will be a world war 3 or wil everyone have nukes flying at each other.
i dont know what world war three will be fought with but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones.
-albert einstein
do you agree with einstein.i do
At 3/22/06 02:44 PM, RedGlare wrote:
Iraq never had nuclear weapons ok they don't have the technology we didn't sell him any plus do you have any idea how much complex machinery and scientists it takes to move chemical weaponry?
Hello this was Iraq they would not have cared they could have brought the technology from other countries
The only factor that made Iraq different then the other murdering regimes is oil!
No America never needed the money
At 3/21/06 11:15 PM, Peregrinus wrote: Prediction for 2008: George Bush will start another war, and pass a bill allowing him to stay on for a third term.
Can't happen. They won't override the constitution OR pass an amendment to supercede it.
At 3/22/06 02:44 PM, RedGlare wrote:
Iraq never had nuclear weapons ok they don't have the technology we didn't sell him any plus do you have any idea how much complex machinery and scientists it takes to move chemical weaponry?
The french certainly gave Iraq the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons...and Iraq USED chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians.
At 3/22/06 02:53 PM, wastedwizard wrote:At 3/22/06 02:44 PM, RedGlare wrote:Hello this was Iraq they would not have cared they could have brought the technology from other countries
The only countries that sell nukes were alienated by Iraq years ago.
The only factor that made Iraq different then the other murdering regimes is oil!No America never needed the money
A capitalists greed is not defined only by money but all things matieral. America uses more oil then anyone so it needs more its securing resources for the future like in the soviet break away republics.
And America is in debt. Its always been in debt but this time its going to far. And need? are actually suggesting people only take what they need? Rubbish take yourself for example did you need those new trainers? did you need althose toys? did you need to keep with the latest fads?
No you wanted those things you didn't need it you wanted theres a big difference.
At 3/22/06 03:14 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:At 3/22/06 02:44 PM, RedGlare wrote:The french certainly gave Iraq the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons...and Iraq USED chemical weapons on the Kurds and Iranians.
I know its nuclear weapons project never reached final stages and weGAVE Saddam those weapons so he COULD use them on the Iranians it was the main reason we sold and gave him the stuff.
The Kurds were a tragedy but no one cared until he became a liability.
At 3/22/06 02:52 PM, rayzerblayze wrote: do you think there will be a world war 3 or wil everyone have nukes flying at each other.
i dont know what world war three will be fought with but world war four will be fought with sticks and stones.
-albert einstein
do you agree with einstein.i do
This was talked about a long time ago. Somewhere in page 5 to 10. Everyone guessed that the Cold War was World War 3 because it was the two powerful supernations: USSR and the USA. The only battles they were in was in the Korean and the Vietnam War. They also had other battles that didn't use weapons like the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Berlin Wall.
Today we have four soldiers that are going to be promoted to their ranks. Here are their newest ranks: wastedwizard is now known as Staff Sergeant wastedwizard, rayzerblayze is now known as Staff Sergeant rayzerblayze, Gunnery_Sergeant is now known as First Sergeant Gunnery_Sergeant, Peregrinus is now known as Lieutenant Peregrinus. Congats to the newly promoted soldiers.
The War Crew
Officers-
Supreme Commander: GeneralMBison
Generals: RedGlare, Nomader, ChurroNG
Lieutenant General: seventy-one
Major General: marchingtyrants
Brigadier General: brandon_ross
Colonel: <none>
Lieutenant Colonel: <none>
Major: <none>
Captain: falcon trigger
Lieutenant: canada_rocker, CrimsonRocker, Peregrinus
Second Lieutenant: <none>
Staff Noncommissioned Officers (SNCO)-
Sergeant Major: <none>
Master Sergeant: <none>
First Sergeant: Gunnery_Sergeant
Staff Sergeant: -Jag-, wastedwizard, rayzerblayze
Noncommissioned Officers (NCO)-
Sergeant: <none>
Corporal: <none>
Non-Rate Soldiers-
Private First Class: <none>
Private: <none>
Under Radar: <none>
At 3/22/06 07:07 PM, GeneralMBison wrote: Peregrinus is now known as Lieutenant Peregrinus.
Much appreciated sir! And congrats to the others as well.
Flag stolen content, don't be a dingus.
Ok, right now I have made a new rule about the ranks. This rule is called 6, 6, and a kick. This term is used by the U.S. Marines.
6, 6, and a kick:
This rule will be in effect on March 23, 2006. This rule will be use to kick out any soldiers that have not been here for more than 4 months. Also they will lose their rank to be use by others that are being promoted to the next rank.
So here is the first members to be used under the 6, 6, and a kick:
canada_rocker, CrimsonRocker, falcon trigger
And now here is the updated ranks:
The War Crew
Officers-
Supreme Commander: GeneralMBison
Generals: RedGlare, Nomader, ChurroNG
Lieutenant General: seventy-one
Major General: marchingtyrants
Brigadier General: brandon_ross
Colonel: <none>
Lieutenant Colonel: <none>
Major: <none>
Captain: <none>
Lieutenant: Peregrinus
Second Lieutenant: <none>
Staff Noncommissioned Officers (SNCO)-
Sergeant Major: <none>
Master Sergeant: <none>
First Sergeant: Gunnery_Sergeant
Staff Sergeant: -Jag-, wastedwizard, rayzerblayze
Noncommissioned Officers (NCO)-
Sergeant: <none>
Corporal: <none>
Non-Rate Soldiers-
Private First Class: <none>
Private: <none>
Under Radar: <none>
Today at 10 AM (Los Angeles Time)/ 1 PM (New York Time), your commander (I) will be in downtown Los Angeles. The reason is for what's going on with some bill that has to do with many immigants mostly from Mexico. The bill (HR4437) is about making people coming in to the US a crime (which is just fucking stupid). There is going to be a huge rally that will shut down and pack three major streets right by Staples Center and the famous LA towers. I'm going there to support my people and my pride for Mexico. So I'm going to be gone all day until night.
It sounds like a racist bill that they're trying to pass.
At 3/25/06 09:12 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: It sounds like a racist bill that they're trying to pass.
The irony is if the bill did get passed the economy would be devastated most western nations don't produce enough workers and need immigrant labour.
At 3/25/06 09:12 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: It sounds like a racist bill that they're trying to pass.
No It is not in my opinion as people come from many backgrounds to the US these include Eastern Europe, China and Japan .
At 3/25/06 03:35 PM, wastedwizard wrote:At 3/25/06 09:12 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: It sounds like a racist bill that they're trying to pass.No It is not in my opinion as people come from many backgrounds to the US these include Eastern Europe, China and Japan .
I'm back. The bill will not only make illegal people criminals, but many of the companies that hire illegal workers will be given a fine just for hiring the workers. If it does passes the senate, then the United States will begin to go out of control. Mostly in the West Coast.
