|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 14th, 2003 09:42 AM | |
| mburbank | A US Government plane crashed in Columbian Guerilla territory yesterday. Keep an eye on the story. |
| Feb 13th, 2003 08:06 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore | What about Colombia? |
| Feb 13th, 2003 07:57 PM | |
| ranxer |
I still say gw2 aint gonna happen.. and gw1 hasnt ended.. after gw1 continuation there wont be anymore cause we're going to Impeach Bush damnit! and war is terrorism. so we're fighting terror with terror, typical third grade mentality. if we continue with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth we will all be blind and toothless -gandhi wwjd? www.votetoimpeach.org |
| Feb 13th, 2003 05:29 PM | |
| ItalianStereotype | iran ties into the actual war on terror |
| Feb 13th, 2003 03:15 PM | |
| AChimp | Iran hasn't done anything yet to warrant even considering going to war against them. |
| Feb 13th, 2003 01:45 AM | |
| ItalianStereotype |
if it happens like this: http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml but i doubt it will |
| Feb 13th, 2003 01:28 AM | |
| roonTing | Well, based on the afore mentioned defenition of war, I would say none. There was no "significant" loss of American life in Afghanistan, will be none in Iraq, and, if things move beyond Iraq, I doubt there will be a "significant" loss in any of those conflicts either. |
| Feb 13th, 2003 12:18 AM | |
| Anonymous | anyone here of the opinion all this shit could lead to a chain of events leading to wwIII? |
| Feb 12th, 2003 04:23 PM | |
| mburbank |
Naldo, so you wouldn't actively resist a draft, but you won't go without one, eh? Well, that's big. Plain ol' war on terror doesn't take into account our current stated foreign policy that we will not let anyone, friend or foe, aprroach our militray capability. |
| Feb 12th, 2003 04:10 PM | |
| Crimson Ghost | After that we go after ******s and spics. |
| Feb 11th, 2003 12:37 PM | |
| BombsBurstingInAir | Yes it is a big job. After we are finished with the towel heads, the zipper heads and slopes are next. That'll be something to behold! |
| Feb 11th, 2003 12:30 PM | |
| Ronnie Raygun |
HA! It's not at all about world domination or anything as silly as that. It's just the plain ole' war on terror. It won't take long to finish the war with Saddam. Right about the time the we finish that up North Korea will start cooperating unless they want to be next. Same goes for Iran. It won't be a four front war Maxie....but if they did draft me, I'd go in a second. |
| Feb 11th, 2003 12:15 PM | |
| mburbank | Well we better get crakin' then! World domination is a big job! |
| Feb 11th, 2003 12:15 PM | |
| BombsBurstingInAir |
I know you didn't ask me Banks, but I don't see fronts as they are typically considered. Not like Cold War standoffs or massing on the Danube. Thinking in those terms, I say we could easily handle a three "front" war. |
| Feb 11th, 2003 12:14 PM | |
| george |
from the level of readiness when i left four years ago, which has only degraded since then, i would say iraq is just about all we can really handle right now. but then i only know this because i worked 20 hours a day to keep outdated planes flying. |
| Feb 11th, 2003 12:11 PM | |
| mburbank | So what do you think? Four front war? Can we do it? How many fronts bfore we're stretched to thin? And Naldo, how many fronts before we're stretched thin enough that our armed services will 'need you' and you sign up? |
| Feb 11th, 2003 11:58 AM | |
| Ronnie Raygun |
I say 4. Afghanistan Iraq North Korea (unless they back down) Iran (unless they back down).......which is likely after they see what's going to happen to Saddam's regime. |
| Feb 11th, 2003 09:38 AM | |
| george |
cause i am wary of calling it a war. it seemed more a training exercise (no offense to the poor fuckers who had bombs dropped on them, to them i doubt there could be a distinction, pretty much if somone blows up your fucking house it is WAR) but the defenition of war i am thinking of is a massive build up, followed by a long and massive campaign, with signifigant US casualties. |
| Feb 10th, 2003 08:33 PM | |
| Anonymous | yeah wtf are we not counting afgan? |
| Feb 10th, 2003 06:42 PM | |
| george |
if afghanistan counts, then i have to say three. but i think number three is going to be a suprise war, with a country that we would never think of fighting under normal circumastances. |
| Feb 10th, 2003 01:48 PM | |
| sspadowsky |
I don't think we'll make it to four. But I'll bet we hear a lot more speeches like this: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=1444 ________ Prilosec problems |
| Feb 10th, 2003 01:20 PM | |
| BombsBurstingInAir | I'll say 3....that way I don't have to expand on my answer. |
| Feb 10th, 2003 01:05 PM | |
| mburbank |
No way, man. It's Bush the First for being a complete "Pussy" when he had the chance to smash Sadam like a bug! If he'd done that, we'd have been well on our way to taking over the world YEARS ago. Damn Other Countries. If there were no other countries, we'd never go to war. |
| Feb 10th, 2003 01:00 PM | |
| KevinTheOmnivore |
It isn't him getting us into 3+ wars, doopa, it's all of those countries.  And besides, this is all Clinton's fault, anyway.
|
| Feb 10th, 2003 01:00 PM | |
| mburbank | I'm going with four. Sure , there's the axis of evil and that's three right there, but people forget we already have military 'advisors' in Clombia, a country that threatnes to melt down at any moment. |
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |
