scrambler Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 Which country will get the treatment next?IranSyriaLiechtensteinNorth KoreaSudanPakistanNone of the aboveAny suggestions on defense stocks? Wonder if anyone's making a killing in the stock market. Quote
erik Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 hopefully we will nuke texas. should end the majority of the problem Quote
scrambler Posted October 7, 2003 Author Posted October 7, 2003 AmberBuxom said: cuba Cuba holds a special place in our administration's heart: The Bush administration says the detainees are not entitled to fundamental American legal rights, like due process, because Camp Delta is on Cuban soil. Federal courts have upheld that position, but the case has been appealed to the Supreme Court. Is this true? Don't know but I've wondered why the detainees were not brought stateside. Fear of potential retaliatory terrorist attacks or the above mentioned reason? Nevertheless, Cuba is probably useful to us in its current form. --snip-- termination of the lease requires the consent of both the U.S. and Cuba governments, or the abandonment of the base property by the U.S. --snip-- Source: Brief History of U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba Quote
Al_Pine Posted October 7, 2003 Posted October 7, 2003 We're not attacking anybody anytime soon, but only because our forces are stretched too thin. Though perhaps an "imminent threat" from Iran or Korea could give us justification for bailing on the "reconstruction" and occupation of Iraq. Another possibility is if ol' Bush gets the draft going again (shortly after Nov 2004), then we'll be good to go. In that case the obvious targets are Syria and Iran, since it will be so convenient with all our forces already over there. I mean, isn't that really the reason we invaded Iraq? We had a bunch of forces over there watching them, we didn't feel like we could call off the dogs, so we just decided to invade 'em and get it over with. I think even JayB will agree with that. Quote
Fairweather Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 (edited) Colombia Edited October 8, 2003 by Fairweather Quote
sobo Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 Would it really matter if it were either one...? Quote
allthumbs Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 Read this first, then my thoughts. Yeah - OK - this article was done in 2002 and here it is 2003. You're saying, nah, that ain't gonna happen. It's too old - it would have happened by now. Well, let me ask you - how long were the 19 folks that caused 911 here in the States? Quite a while. It takes time to get these missiles smuggled in. They aren't exactly something you can hide in your shirt. Now imagine what chaos would occur if there were a coordinated attack at major commercial airfields to shoot down jumbo jets. Either on landing or take off - and the resulting damage to surrounding areas where the wreckage fell. Stingers and SA-7s, SA-14s, and SA-16s are all relatively easy to fire and hit the target. The Stinger, SA-14, and SA-16 can do head on engagements. Gives the shooter more options. Then consider what would happen if at the same time some of our major ports had cargo containers filled with semtec (an extremely high explosive plastique) that exploded along with a persistent nerve agent. Hmmm Quote
Dru Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 If a cosmic string the length of the Earth passed through the Equator, the two poles would rush together at 50% of lightspeed. causing untold catastrophes and chaos. Quote
Formaldehead Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 trask said: Read this first, then my thoughts. Yeah - OK - this article was done in 2002 and here it is 2003. You're saying, nah, that ain't gonna happen. It's too old - it would have happened by now. Well, let me ask you - how long were the 19 folks that caused 911 here in the States? Quite a while. It takes time to get these missiles smuggled in. They aren't exactly something you can hide in your shirt. Now imagine what chaos would occur if there were a coordinated attack at major commercial airfields to shoot down jumbo jets. Either on landing or take off - and the resulting damage to surrounding areas where the wreckage fell. Stingers and SA-7s, SA-14s, and SA-16s are all relatively easy to fire and hit the target. The Stinger, SA-14, and SA-16 can do head on engagements. Gives the shooter more options. Then consider what would happen if at the same time some of our major ports had cargo containers filled with semtec (an extremely high explosive plastique) that exploded along with a persistent nerve agent. Hmmm Hmmm...you've spent a bit of time thinking about this, I see. Are you Saud? Quote
hakioawa Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 What if the Canadians and Mexicans, in a corrdinated effort, began drilling deep oil wells (with saudi equipment no doubt) near the borders, on to the San Andreas fault and the juan defuca ridge? Then they began pumping water (H2O is capable of head on flooding!!!!!) into the holes? It would cause huge earthquakes and massive descruction! What if they suceeded in putting thier climbing sleeper cells (Isn't sadams middle name Dru?) on the summits of Rainier, Hood and Shasta while the earthquakes were happening to divert the mud slides toward major population centers! UNTOLD DESTRUCTION!!! Clearly we cannot let this happen!!! Quote
AmberBuxom Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 What if the Canadians and Mexicans, in a coordinated effort, began smuggling destructive narcotic substances into the US in order to corrode our youth and undermine their ambition and eventual constructive output and value to our society? oh shit! too late! Quote
allthumbs Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 one third of the drivers tested in auto accidents test positive for marijuana Quote
erik Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 trask said: one third of the drivers tested in auto accidents test positive for marijuana thats not a real stat. link please! Quote
Mr._Natural Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 trask said: one third of the drivers tested in auto accidents test positive for marijuana meaning that they could have smoked at any time in the last three or so weeks. I saw the same psa. Quote
specialed Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 trask said: one third of the drivers tested in auto accidents test positive for marijuana You forgot to mention that those same drivers also test positive for beer Quote
allthumbs Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 erik said: trask said: one third of the drivers tested in auto accidents test positive for marijuana thats not a real stat. link please! see it all the time on a TV commercial - and you know the media would never misrepresent Quote
erik Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 okay well i dont have a tv to watch....so i guess i will never know the truth!! Quote
sk Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 trask said: erik said: trask said: one third of the drivers tested in auto accidents test positive for marijuana thats not a real stat. link please! see it all the time on a TV commercial - and you know the media would never misrepresent trask don't make me laugh so hard first thing in the morning... I spit mint infussion Quote
allthumbs Posted October 8, 2003 Posted October 8, 2003 what is it with all you hippies not having a TV? are you poor or just trying to be a dirtbag wannabe? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.