Printable View
They won't be launching nukes, that's reassuring...Quote:
The country's Chief of Staff General
Yuri Baluevsky said the military would
liquidate bases used by terrorists even
if they were outside Russia.
He added this did not mean his country
would launch nuclear strikes.
Hold on why did he even feel the need to qualify his statement? That means they've thought of it!
Wow!
If you have ever seen any of those "Scariest Police Videos" shows, then you know the Russians can be brutal!
I don't think the terrorists are going to like what happens now!
It won't be like the U.S., no red tape, etc... They'll just find them and kill them!
I'm not so sure about that, the Russians don't have the best track record of success lately.
It's true the Ruskies have a poor recent history, but those terrorists were so desperate, I can't see how even the best special forces in the world could get a better result.
Unfortunately. :cry:
All those kids on their first day of school ...
And does anyone know how many "coppers" were killed? CNN reports it as each officer went in knowing of the bombs and expect to not make it out.
They each deserve medals IMO.
yeah all we need is another one party dictatorship running around the world on a killingspree.
Of course they have thought of it, i'm thinking of launching nukes right now, at north korea.Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
They won't be launching nukes, that's reassuring...
Hold on why did he even feel the need to qualify his statement? That means they've thought of it!
yes but you can't do it, they can.Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Of course they have thought of it, i'm thinking of launching nukes right now, at north korea.
well if they do, i'll be sure to load my glock and pray like a mother****erQuote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
yes but you can't do it, they can.
they can´t they sold all there nukes to Iran, north korea and Texas.
The Russians really did embrace capitalism
but they obviously have their own version.Quote:
Originally posted by DeadEyes
The Russians really did embrace capitalism
Everyone has their own version. We simply think that any country that doesn't follow our way is flaunting rules or doing things the wrong way.
No country ever follows the theoretical description of their version of government. Name one true democracy and I'll buy you a six-pack of Budweisers.
Cuba
Please allow 6 to 8 weeks for the beer to reach you.
Medals? Hmmm.....Quote:
Originally posted by Gary Campbell
It's true the Ruskies have a poor recent history, but those terrorists were so desperate, I can't see how even the best special forces in the world could get a better result.
Unfortunately. :cry:
All those kids on their first day of school ...
And does anyone know how many "coppers" were killed? CNN reports it as each officer went in knowing of the bombs and expect to not make it out.
They each deserve medals IMO.
How about Putin decided to show how firm he was in dealing with terrorists at the cost of hundreds of dead and missing kids? Immediately after the special forces invaded the school, till now, there's been no comment from Putin about the whole massacre. Surely it was better to allow medical and food supplies to reach the kids first, negotiate and then try the last route? And the statement quoted above that Russia will destroy terrorist bases, even outside Russia, just echoes what Israel has been doing all the while, what Bush is doing now. Increase violence to dominate more and more territory and resources.
.
.
Vote for Bush
Bush would be wise not to get too chummy with Putin. Putin is a putrid human being. He might wind up killing more moderate chechnyans. We already have enough eggs on our face looking like hypocrites.
If Putin had a pair he would have fired a nuke right down the chimney of that school and said fook em and then turned chechniahomeoftheimbrednutcasestan into a crater. Of course his generals would have to remember where they burried their nukes in the first place.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Medals? Hmmm.....
How about Putin decided to show how firm he was in dealing with terrorists at the cost of hundreds of dead and missing kids? Immediately after the special forces invaded the school, till now, there's been no comment from Putin about the whole massacre. Surely it was better to allow medical and food supplies to reach the kids first, negotiate and then try the last route? And the statement quoted above that Russia will destroy terrorist bases, even outside Russia, just echoes what Israel has been doing all the while, what Bush is doing now. Increase violence to dominate more and more territory and resources.
.
.
So now we have a race between America and Russia to prove who can deal more effectively with terrorism. Of course Sharon is a close contender too :p Let's see who gets wiped out first, now. US, Russia or Israel?Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
If Putin had a pair he would have fired a nuke right down the chimney of that school and said fook em and then turned chechniahomeoftheimbrednutcasestan into a crater. Of course his generals would have to remember where they burried their nukes in the first place.
.
Not really.. It takes nations working together to deal more effectively with terrorism. it is a worldwide problem.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
So now we have a race between America and Russia to prove who can deal more effectively with terrorism. Of course Sharon is a close contender too :p Let's see who gets wiped out first, now. US, Russia or Israel?
.
"more effectively"? Means how? And don't cite Afghanistan or Iraq, both are complete failures as far as the so called "war on terrorism" is concerned. Iraq is not even related to the war on terrorism, unless you are GWB.Quote:
Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Not really.. It takes nations working together to deal more effectively with terrorism. it is a worldwide problem.
Afghanistan: Except in and around Kabul, there are tribals and warlords trying to rule the region. All the world attention is focussed on Iraq and everybody seems to have forgotten Afghanistan. It's almost back to the state in which it was before the invasion, which raises the question: What did the invasion achieve?
Look at the picture in Iraq: Car bombs, armed resistance to the occupying forces. Complete failure of the US government to think and plan the post-war scenario. While Bush will still enjoy frequent visits to his ranch though he has proved disastrous in planning the foreign policy and its execution, thousands of Iraqis will have paid the price for his mistakes. No end in sight to the violence and infighting, and the sole reason for this mess is the US invasion of Iraq.
Add to this Guantanamo Bay, the Chechenya conflict, Israel-Palestine war, threats from and against Syria, North Korea and you can get a fair idea as to what the "nations" are doing to "more effectively" tackle terrorism.
.
Yawn.... why do you twist everything said on world events into an anti bush rant. what Corona beer said made perfect sense.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
"more effectively"? Means how? And don't cite Afghanistan or Iraq, both are complete failures as far as the so called "war on terrorism" is concerned. Iraq is not even related to the war on terrorism, unless you are GWB.
Afghanistan: Except in and around Kabul, there are tribals and warlords trying to rule the region. All the world attention is focussed on Iraq and everybody seems to have forgotten Afghanistan. It's almost back to the state in which it was before the invasion, which raises the question: What did the invasion achieve?
Look at the picture in Iraq: Car bombs, armed resistance to the occupying forces. Complete failure of the US government to think and plan the post-war scenario. While Bush will still enjoy frequent visits to his ranch though he has proved disastrous in planning the foreign policy and its execution, thousands of Iraqis will have paid the price for his mistakes. No end in sight to the violence and infighting, and the sole reason for this mess is the US invasion of Iraq.
Add to this Guantanamo Bay, the Chechenya conflict, Israel-Palestine war, threats from and against Syria, North Korea and you can get a fair idea as to what the "nations" are doing to "more effectively" tackle terrorism.
.
Yes Honeybee... the US is evil.
Sorry, but your world views are sad. who said anything about Bush or Iraq or even Afghanistan? sharing intelligence is what I was getting at, but it seems that your so used to sharing ignorance that you didn't understand :)Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
"more effectively"? Means how? And don't cite Afghanistan or Iraq, both are complete failures as far as the so called "war on terrorism" is concerned. Iraq is not even related to the war on terrorism, unless you are GWB.
Afghanistan: Except in and around Kabul, there are tribals and warlords trying to rule the region. All the world attention is focussed on Iraq and everybody seems to have forgotten Afghanistan. It's almost back to the state in which it was before the invasion, which raises the question: What did the invasion achieve?
Look at the picture in Iraq: Car bombs, armed resistance to the occupying forces. Complete failure of the US government to think and plan the post-war scenario. While Bush will still enjoy frequent visits to his ranch though he has proved disastrous in planning the foreign policy and its execution, thousands of Iraqis will have paid the price for his mistakes. No end in sight to the violence and infighting, and the sole reason for this mess is the US invasion of Iraq.
Add to this Guantanamo Bay, the Chechenya conflict, Israel-Palestine war, threats from and against Syria, North Korea and you can get a fair idea as to what the "nations" are doing to "more effectively" tackle terrorism.
.
dont cry to me, call the white house.
I'd have to say the US is doing the best job for themselvs. They're fighting terrorists in someone elses country(Iraq and Afgan), not their own. They've also found a way to fight a war against Syria and Iran without actually being deployed in Syria or Iran. Yea It sucks bigtime for Iraq who are caught in the middle of someone elses war but hey, Pretty good strategy by Bush to move the fighting from NYC and the capital to some sheithole that no one in the US could give two buckets of crap about. Putin and Sharon are fighting in their own back yard. Maby they should send troops to france so the terrorists attack them there instead.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
So now we have a race between America and Russia to prove who can deal more effectively with terrorism. Of course Sharon is a close contender too :p Let's see who gets wiped out first, now. US, Russia or Israel?
.
Not true, they are totally related to the war on terrorism. Iraq especially. We are not fighting (for the most part) Iraqi's any more. we are fighting Iranian, syrian and saudi terrorists, In Iraq. Why go looking for them when they will come to you. Brilliant strategy. Bait them with democracy. when they get there to destroy it, blow the basterds up. We're at a 20+ to 1 kill ratio right now so we've already taken out over 20,000 of them in Iraq alone. The ratio in Afgan Is even higher.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
"more effectively"? Means how? And don't cite Afghanistan or Iraq, both are complete failures as far as the so called "war on terrorism" is concerned. Iraq is not even related to the war on terrorism, unless you are GWB.
.
Yes, but the problem is, how many of them were terrorists before the invasion of Iraq..... I think we just provided Al-Queida with the greatest recruiting drive on the planet and validated their sick justifications for 9/11.Quote:
Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Not true, they are totally related to the war on terrorism. Iraq especially. We are not fighting (for the most part) Iraqi's any more. we are fighting Iranian, syrian and saudi terrorists, In Iraq. Why go looking for them when they will come to you. Brilliant strategy. Bait them with democracy. when they get there to destroy it, blow the basterds up. We're at a 20+ to 1 kill ratio right now so we've already taken out over 20,000 of them in Iraq alone. The ratio in Afgan Is even higher.
Join Al-Qaeida today! Die tomorrow!Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
Yes, but the problem is, how many of them were terrorists before the invasion of Iraq..... I think we just provided Al-Queida with the greatest recruiting drive on the planet and validated their sick justifications for 9/11.
We certainly didn't create these terrorists by invading Iraq. We just provided a field for them to show themselves on.
Right, like the *******s said, today i want to be a terrorist.. haha they were born terrorists. get your flamethrowers.Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
Join Al-Qaeida today! Die tomorrow!
We certainly didn't create these terrorists by invading Iraq. We just provided a field for them to show themselves on.
I must re-read this thread from the top and se how we got from Russia to Bush bashing again....... :confused:
Happens in every forum I visit now when there is any world or politcal post.
At 3dbuzz.com, a post about the Korth Korea mushroom cloud incident turned into a Bush bash-a-thon as expected.
Yes. All Americans eat babies. We are all just evil.
I think that's just the general theme of this forum. No matter what happens in the world, somehow it's Bushs fault. Maybe Kerry is reading this and getting his campaign advice?Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
I must re-read this thread from the top and se how we got from Russia to Bush bashing again....... :confused:
Quote:
Originally posted by Cander
Happens in every forum I visit now when there is any world or politcal post.
At 3dbuzz.com, a post about the Korth Korea mushroom cloud incident turned into a Bush bash-a-thon as expected.
Yes. All Americans eat babies. We are all just evil.
mmmm.....babies
Europeans have never started a war, only Bush.Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
I think that's just the general theme of this forum. No matter what happens in the world, somehow it's Bushs fault.
Bush destroyed the ozone layer
Nah - I think it's just certain members who like to turn it that way.Quote:
Originally posted by demotivater
I think that's just the general theme of this forum. No matter what happens in the world, somehow it's Bushs fault. Maybe Kerry is reading this and getting his campaign advice?
Much as I think Bush is an idiot, he's not responsible for 90% of the screwed up things in this world.
What sort of sauce is on the babies?
Lemon butter and goat cheese.Quote:
What sort of sauce is on the babies?
Id use Cheddar but Bush ate the entire worlds supply of cheddar. Thats why he invaded Iraq. For the cheddar.
You are probably right but who cares. The morons strapping on the TNT filled underpants are blowing up stuff in their own back yard now, not in The US or GB. The Coallitions are dividing the terrorist hotbeds middle east. Pakistan is contained by Coallition occupied Afganastan in the west and contained by India to the east. Iran is contained to the east by Coallition occupied afgan and to the west by US occupied Iraq. the rest of the middle east is pinned between Israel and Iraq. Perfect strategy. Fight them there in their own back yard. It the terrorists want to move around they have to go through allied troops in Democratic countries. Brilliant!Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
Yes, but the problem is, how many of them were terrorists before the invasion of Iraq..... I think we just provided Al-Queida with the greatest recruiting drive on the planet and validated their sick justifications for 9/11.
The only problem is Russia. They need to grow a pair and start doing the same. China as well, Korea should be a parking lot by now.
I don't know if that comment was directed against me and I don't much care if it was.Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
Nah - I think it's just certain members who like to turn it that way.
Much as I think Bush is an idiot, he's not responsible for 90% of the screwed up things in this world.
What sort of sauce is on the babies?
Here's something to think about: Imagine there'd been no 9/11, and you have this school massacre in Russia. Do you think Putin would make the same comments now, without any 9/11 and without the US actively preaching and practising the doctrine of preemptive strikes (without reliable intelligence) ? What are the chances US would start taking up a human rights cause against the atrocities committed by Russian forces in Chechnya? What are the chances the US would try to destabilise the region further by providing aid to the Chechen rebels, directly or indirectly, politically, financially and militarily?
I firmly believe that before 9/11, only Israel was the country which resorted to such invasion into foreign territory. After 9/11, get yourself on buddy terms with the US and you can do it whenever and wherever you can. Leaders who have more military might than their counterparts are getting more violent and aggressive in talk and action. The doctrine of preemptive strike permits them that, whether it is justified or not.
Sharing of intelligence? I guess we all know what intelligence the US president relied upon when invading Iraq. There was no reliable intelligence at all. When you compare the actions of the US in Iraq and the aftermath, that kind of intelligence could compare well to the voices in one's head.
.
Why do you only ever mention the US when you talk about the invasion of Iraq?
Because we eat babies.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Why do you only ever mention the US when you talk about the invasion of Iraq?
It is, I think, fair to mention the last large nation's attempt at supressing terrorism when Putin describes exactly how he wants to do the same.
This will, of course, lead to the last allied coalition's collective foreign policy; which includes the America as well as Britain, Spain, Italy and others. I suppose that Bush is mentioned as he voluntarily 'lead' the coalition.
If you are in government you should be expected to be criticised. I wonder if GWB reads this web-site?
(I liked the 70's and 80's when we just sent special force troops in and supressed the press - no-one complained then)
It was the only nation actively interested in invading Iraq. I can't understand why Blair joined in but the reasons obviously are other than the intelligence. Therefore the US is the only major factor in the Iraq invasion. Even though you may call it a coalition of forces, practically all the decisions seem to be taken only by the US authorities, while the rest of the countries, including Britain, are only obeying orders. You may try to justify it, but whatever the reason, the fact remains that unless the US were there, none of the others would be there.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Why do you only ever mention the US when you talk about the invasion of Iraq?
And if you guys are so pissed because I keep blaming the US, can any one of you tell me what happened to the WMDs in Iraq? Before the invasion existence of WMDs was one of the major reasons (the other being the Al Qaeda link) for justifying the war. After the war, both the WMDs and the Al Qaeda link have taken a backseat and other issues are being presented as the justification for the war. Doesn't any one of you feel the need to find out why? Maybe the simple answer being the war was never based on any of these reasons.
24/7 electricity and water supply and easy availability of fuel were some characteristics of the Saddam regime which are notably absent from the post-Saddam era. Surely a common Iraqi needs these things more than a democratic (read: US stooge) government. Or maybe because you people take them for granted because you never have to suffer without them, so you think there are some things more important than the basic amenities, or the life itself.
.
Blair wants the u.s. as an ally, so does Spain.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I can't understand why Blair joined in but the reasons obviously are other than the intelligence.
Who knows,we didnt know where saddom was until we found him in a hole in the ground.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
And if you guys are so pissed because I keep blaming the US, can any one of you tell me what happened to the WMDs in Iraq?
Where were you during the Iraq - Iran war?
http://img48.exs.cx/img48/6572/scud6.jpg
Orders, we dont take orders from America? Please state your sources as I'm very interested to read about this.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
Even though you may call it a coalition of forces, practically all the decisions seem to be taken only by the US authorities, while the rest of the countries, including Britain, are only obeying orders.
Sources? You don't need sources to conclude that. All over the news about Iraq it's the US officials everywhere. I think there was a British official in Iraq in a similar capacity as Paul Bremmer, but since nothing has been heard of it for many weeks, I guess he has left too. From all the news about Iraq, I can only conclude the US and not the coalition is running the show there. Nowhere do you see Tony Blair or John Howard suggesting or initiating any measures in Iraq. It's a US show and the other nations are just following the US. Whether they can or not, they don't have any role to play in it. Whatever role they have is limited to increasing the number of troops and making minor decisions within areas of their actual work. I don't see anyone other than the US influencing the strategy and plan for Iraq.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Orders, we dont take orders from America? Please state your sources as I'm very interested to read about this.
Corona Beer, doesn't your post simply reiterate my point? None of the coalition joined in because they knew Iraq had WMDs or had links with Al Qaeda. They joined in simply because they wanted to side with the US.
You found Saddam, but you haven't still found WMDs. There have been investigations into the Iraq-Al Qaeda link and it has been proved that they don't exist. Which undermines the whole basis of the war. Which also means the purpose for war was anything other than what's being told.
.
Here's something:Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Orders, we dont take orders from America? Please state your sources as I'm very interested to read about this.
I am quoting off the BBC, but if you want you can check any other major news agency:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3655622.stm
This article discusses two reports within the US government and ministry which paint a grim picture of Iraq. While discussing the problems and suggested measures, you will notice the word "US" has been used where it should have been "Coalition".
There are numerous other examples of it. In fact I doubt if there are any official reports or news articles where the right word "Coalition" has been used. Even if there are such reports, they will be so rare they will just form an exception, which proves the rule.
If you think it was a real coalition, why do you think the word US has been used instead of coalition? Why is it that only the US officials and representatives get to say everything on Iraq and not others?
If you think it's just the numbers, I guess every time there has been a difference in the views between Blair and Bush, Blair has fast made reconciliatory remarks or clarified that he will always stand by the US, which means the US will have its way in Iraq.
.
My dispute isn't that the US isnt the major force. Its that we dont take orders from the USA. The british forces in Iraq are under british control.
I dont care what you guess as you are not in a position to.
They indeed are under British control. But who decides where they will go, which areas they will patrol and police? In the whole plan about the so-called reconstruction and the security arrengements and the counter-insurgency operations, do you really think the British get to decide their own priorities of work in terms of strategy?Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
My dispute isn't that the US isnt the major force. Its that we dont take orders from the USA. The british forces in Iraq are under british control.
I dont care what you guess as you are not in a position to.
Let's take an example. The US is going to divert a major amount of funds from the reconstruction to the security. I don't believe the British would be in a position to differ. Take another example: It may or may not be practical to hold elections in Iraq in January. Again I don't think Blair's opinion counts.
You may not be taking orders directly from a US commander, but the British commander in Iraq must be taking orders from the US authority there, or if from Blair, then Blair is following in Bush's footsteps so my point is still valid.
.
We all know Blair and Bush are cuddly poodles sharing the basket.Quote:
Blair is following in Bush's footsteps
. . . green peas in a pod
. . . cheese sandwiches in a picnic
. . . apples on an appletree
. . . rhythm and melody on a love song
. . .
these are American funds granted from the 2003 emergency supplemental appropriations, as the american taxpayer has provided them it is up to them to decide how to pay spend them.
If Bush decides to divert his own funds Blair cant really argue.
I suggest you re-read your post where you whine about people googling their opinions as you havent a clue what you are talking about.
see the details of the appropriations here:
http://www.************.com/p/articl...7/ai_104438394
Reporter: "President Bush, what was your justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Was it based on Oil?
Was it based on a belief of WMD's?
Was it based on a belief of a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda?
Was it based on the desire to liberate Iraqi's from the brutal Saddam Regime?"
Bush: "Um...No, No, No, No and No"
Reporter: "Well then, President Bush, why did you invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Bush: "Well,...[chuckles]...I...I mean we, you know the people of the U.S., you know...God's country...[giggles]...Well, hell, we did it to piss of that Honeybee fella! There's nothin' funnier than seein' that fella get his panties in a bunch!"
Reporter: "And there you have it ladies and gentleman...The true reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq!"
LOLOL :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Memnoch1207
Reporter: "President Bush, what was your justification for the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein?
Was it based on Oil?
Was it based on a belief of WMD's?
Was it based on a belief of a link between Saddam's regime and Al-Qaeda?
Was it based on the desire to liberate Iraqi's from the brutal Saddam Regime?"
Bush: "Um...No, No, No, No and No"
Reporter: "Well then, President Bush, why did you invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power?"
Bush: "Well,...[chuckles]...I...I mean we, you know the people of the U.S., you know...God's country...[giggles]...Well, hell, we did it to piss of that Honeybee fella! There's nothin' funnier than seein' that fella get his panties in a bunch!"
Reporter: "And there you have it ladies and gentleman...The true reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq!"
Honeybee - I think that's why it's called the "US Led Coalition", but it is a coalition nonetheless. Some of our troops in Afghanistan are actually under the command of a Pakistani general. Does that mean Pakistan is calling the shots there?
Now that honeybee has been proved wrong again she will not reply and so this thread will dissapear faster than honeybees credibility
Bush gave me herpies!
Dubya gave me the clap
That was Clinton.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Dubya gave me the clap
No!
Clinton gave me an odd tropical disease that remains as yet undiagnosed.
Makes for a sore bum, though.
HE reminds me of J4U.Quote:
Originally posted by davebat
Now that honeybee has been proved wrong again she will not reply and so this thread will dissapear faster than honeybees credibility