Close

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 66
  1. #21
    Top Member N3R0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun!
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    312

    Default

    Originally posted by ABCMan
    The world got a wake up call on 11th sept 2001, isnt it time we got out of bed?
    I totally agree 100%.

    Unfortunately we're just passengers,there's very little we can do but sit back and watch the action when and if it begins..

    You know, the indigenous British peolple must love taking it up the arse. The Muslim demo in london the other day was banned, but it still went ahead, where they arrested,NO.
    Instead we're subjected to Muslim bullshit propaganda, and you know what, i'm worried that before long some of us feeble minded fools may start to believe some of it.The British people will never rise against it, they're to happy living out their mundane lifes.The big picture just never seems big enough for some people, and when the moment arrives..............it will be too late!

  2. #22
    DF VIP Member 2old4this's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Buckinghamshire
    Posts
    253
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    279

    Default

    IT worrying times could happen here to

    found this
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2202781.stm
    "YoU CAnNoT sEParATe PeaCE fROm FrEeDoM CaUSE NO-onE cAn BEcoMe At PeAcE, UnleSS He HaS FReeDoM", Malcom X.

  3. #23
    DF MaSter Zydig0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by N3R0
    errr.... are you thick or something m8,the uk hasn't threatened war,i never said they did........numb nuts,

    whats wrong ,can't you understand english m8.

    I said "will the uk follow as usuall",if you get "threat" from that m8.Time to pack up..........you could be mistaken for being muslim m8.................being in the habbit of trying to twist words.........................hehehe:signs: :signs: :signs: :signs: :signs:
    A good try N3RO,but for someone contemplating further education at 29 Iwould have expected some thing a bit more structured.Try and make your point in coherent sentences rather than little outbursts.

    "could be mistaken for being muslim" could I ? Perhaps your avatar sums it up "I want to believe", stick to what you know.

    Insults and the over emphasis on smilies don't carry your arguement they just give an appearance of being inadequate.

  4. #24
    Top Member N3R0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun!
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    312

    Default

    lol

  5. #25
    DF MaSter Zydig0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    0

    Default

    You're learning LOL

  6. #26
    Top Member N3R0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun!
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    312

    Default

    Originally posted by Zydig0


    If you dont think Blair is thinking about threatening going to war N3RO why did you post-



    ..........der:bleh:

    So what is your stand, make your point.Did i say Blair is threatening to go to war, or that we may follow the U.S as usual.It may be a fine line, but far from cry's of war in a literary sense.
    Please state your views, read the thread, you don't seem to have given an opinion yet, just picked fault with others.

    thankyou.

  7. #27
    ABCMan
    Guest ABCMan's Avatar

    Default

    Err n3ro where the fcuk did you get your status from? i mean, "knowns cat" does that mean you are some kind of pussy

  8. #28
    Top Member N3R0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun!
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    312

    Default

    Bottom of the thread

  9. #29
    ABCMan
    Guest ABCMan's Avatar

    Default

    Ahhh the plot thikens, i wondered what happened, oh and dont worry, my post from that thread dissapeared altogether just cos i mentioned that the pic didnt show the trailer unit which was a must have accessory

    LOL


    OK, BACK TO THE REAL THREAD

  10. #30
    DF VIP Member
    Robbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    3,635
    Thanks
    317
    Thanked:        279
    Karma Level
    495
    So it seems everyone is all for turning the middle east into a great big nuclear desert. Beats watching big brother and at least it should stop the bloody spongers comming over here!

    Well when antichrist Bush attacks Iraq, whats the odds on Israel being well and truly wiped off the planet?

    Weapons inspectors in Iraq?? What about weapons inspectors being allowed access to America's weapons?? NO CHANCE cos they are ther good guys remmember ER YEAH RIGHT!

    You have to remember the US armed most of the Muslims years ago in their own greedy interests. Its no different now, It's all about oil which the Bush family know a thing or two about! They still have big money in several pipeline developments in the region

    Why did the Saudi's pull billions of dollars out of the US?
    Whats gong down over there really?
    Read behind the news and keep an open mind


    :rolls:

  11. #31
    Top Member N3R0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    3rd rock from the sun!
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    312

    Default

    @Robbo

    I agree m8, there is so much to take into consideration,years of U.S manipulation and hidden agenda gives a somewhat distorted view on the facts.

    The latest news is that the U.K are considering supporting a deadline on a re-admitance of weapons inspectors. I think we've been there before.

  12. #32
    DF MaSter Zydig0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by N3R0



    So what is your stand, make your point.Did i say Blair is threatening to go to war, or that we may follow the U.S as usual.It may be a fine line, but far from cry's of war in a literary sense.
    Please state your views, read the thread, you don't seem to have given an opinion yet, just picked fault with others.

    thankyou.
    O.K. To try and clarify this - You did NOT say Blair is threatening to go to war (right ?)
    You did say "Will the U.K follow as usuall, i expect we will despite the opposition."(right ?)from this statement I assume the US will be at war with Iraq and the UK will follow this stance (to also be at war with Iraq)
    To comment to your statement I added that the prime minister did not need parliaments approval to go to war.....which you latter agreed on.(As in the Gulf war when the P.M. used the royal perogotive to go to war with Iraq and then went to parliament four days latter for approval)

    I don't see how this appears to be so contraversial ?

    My views on the subject have broadly been expressed in a previous thread

    To add a few notes to your thread "US Ivasion of Iraq"-

    Yes I believe it will happen although IMHO it won't be the same kind of war like the previous Gulf war where the Iraqi forces were caught in open country between Kuwait and Iraq.
    The inferiour force of the Iraqis (in terms of capability)was never going to stop the coalition.All the coalition advantages could be brought to bear,satelite reconasance,comms,air power,carrier fleet,forward bases in neighbouring countries,awac's ,arms and armour,cruise missiles etc etc.

    This time assuming we have allready gone through the sharade of weapons inspection reinstatement,and should we go back to the UN for another mandate the mission is alot different.Rather than expelling an enemy from a occupied friendly country Bush and Blair have stated they are after a "regime change"(Crawford Texas)

    I doubt Saddam will be overthrown from within as during the last G.W. the internal uprising was left to flounder by the US with no support what so ever.And no matter what could be promised this time from Washington I dont think any faction inside Iraq would risk it.

    This only leaves the option for the US to go and get him.But not with a coalition this time,although Britain at the least (IMO) will sucumb from pressure from the US to at least show a token force.
    Probably combat aircraft,special forces and some logistical support.

    S.H's forces comprise about 400,000 mostly conscripted ,but about 50-60,000 Republican guard who will put up a fight.With no affective navy and a much depleted airforce that will be no match for the US.Most of the T72 tanks and armour were lost in the last GW.

    S.H.'s best defence is just to defend Baghdad and to call Bushs' bluff with the choice of carpet bomb the capital city to try and destroy and wear down resistance, knowing tens of thousands of civillians will probably be killed, risking US condemnation by the rest of the world.Or for the US to try and take Baghdad street by street with hardly any high tech advantage and massive US casualties.

    The US has allready had a bitter taste of this in Somalia where they tried to go in on the streets to capture warlords and came unstuck and shortly after withdrew.

    Another worry for the US is the threat of while this is going on
    Iraq will break up as the Kurds, and Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims struggle for power in a near post-Saddam state and the conflict might spread throughout the Middle East.

    The Arab world will want to distance itself from the US for fear of internal decent and the US will want Israel to keep clear in fear of provoking things up a level.

    As I 've said before I can't see how Bush can back down now he's got to go through with it,he has allready lost face with the shambles in Afghanistan and the so far unsucsessfull capture of Bin Laden.

    I expect we will all have to wait untill the history books have been written to find out what really is happening behind the scenes and what the outcome of this all will mean for the world in general.(can't help thinking an oil supply for the US independant from Saudi Arabia will come into it somewhere though!)

    These are my views and opinions (for what they are worth)

    Zydig0
    Last edited by Zydig0; 30th August 2002 at 12:26 AM.

  13. #33
    R.I.P. the_wizzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    in the outside
    Posts
    5,297
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        2
    Karma Level
    608

    Default just a thought

    what do ya think?(anyone) if a nuke was set off in israel,(and it wouldnt need to be that big,to cause a lot of death)would they pull there nukes out? and let fly?would america nuke the culprits? would this scenario really be the begining of the end?and also dose chechnya have some of russias nukes like the ukraine? cos if a arab state gets em i think it may come from this route. thoughts thats all


    booboo

  14. #34
    ABCMan
    Guest ABCMan's Avatar

    Default

    i think that facts need to be faced, if a moslem state nukes almost anywhere i think it will be the last time we get asylum seekers from that country.

    as far as iraq, i would reckon a small lull followed by selective bombing of every military target in Baghdad simultaneous special forces attacks on any building in or outside Baghdad that sat survailence shows has had suspicous movements of people. and a quick pickup and out of there.

    dictators dont want to trus others, so they centralise their power (sounds a bit like the eu realy) in iraq's case however if the head is cut off the body will not bother doing anything so if Baghdad can be isolated then deposing sadam is a posibility, if iraq throws anything too nasty at isreal i think isreal will make sure that iraq glows in the dark for the next 10,000 years, even some dumb monkey like sadam knows you cant rule ashes so he probably will lay off that and just posture and use a few scuds as before.

  15. #35
    R.I.P. the_wizzard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    in the outside
    Posts
    5,297
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        2
    Karma Level
    608

    Default

    you know what really scares me?(for our kids future that is) is the fact that we learn as we grow, off each generation,for the better we hope? so, eventually! the arab states are gonna go nuclear? if, they live that long. or are we gonna try to keep em in the dark ages? i cant see a end to this even if!! the israelis packed up and moved to usa.(lets face it they use that exuse(islamics) for everything wrong in there lives) but the way some islamic, moslem,whatever loonys,behave we have to belive they would kill us all for there cause??. im bein silly now but i think the only reason the west hasnt invaded iraq took it over an renamed it iraqlahoma,or iraqshire is cos of china/russia and that goes for all eastern arab places


    booboo

  16. #36
    Sergeant-Major
    Guest Sergeant-Major's Avatar

    Default

    Originally posted by booboo
    you know what really scares me?(for our kids future that is) is i cant see a end to this even if!! the israelis packed up and moved to usa.(lets face it they use that exuse(islamics) for everything wrong in there lives) but the way some islamic, moslem,whatever loonys,behave we have to belive they would kill us all for there cause??.

    booboo


    you are sooo damn right, thats there main idea, & if you'll read the "KORAN" you'll find that this shit is not going to end , not until they'll take over what they call "the Pig's & dog's" (none moslim)
    country's , & hither convert the people to islam, or kill them as it is written in the "KORAN" it's hither your a moslim or a DOG/PIG,

    no uther choice.

    now go try to live whit that truth .... ****ing sceary shit....
    yesterday ISRAEL, today UK, tomorrow THE WORLD,
    (we know they have started already to rattle the cage in the UK)

    well.. that should be a bloody worning to all of us & a call for action , becuase we live on the same planet , & the trubles we see in the middle east today , would sooner or later would come knocking on your doors wharever you live, enough said. i think...

    oh.. yes... one last thing. : I'M A RACIST TOO..
    i belive that england should be only english
    france should be fransh , germany german, ect,
    & let everyone else f_uck back off to the hole they came out from
    becuase it's the only way to keep our country safe.

    & RACISEM GOT NOTHING TO BLOODY DO WHIT IT.

    ISN'T IT ???




    Sergeant-Major Williams .

  17. #37
    DF VIP Member
    Robbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    3,635
    Thanks
    317
    Thanked:        279
    Karma Level
    495
    IRAQ: THE LYING GAME
    Written by John Pilger. Foreign correspondent

    THE Blair government was told in January by the Americans that there was no justification for attacking Iraq in the "war on terrorism" and that their main aim was getting rid of Saddam Hussein who stood in the way of the West's control of Middle Eastern oil wealth. :shock:

    This partly explains why Blair abandoned presenting to Parliament a famous "dossier" in which "the evidence of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction is simply vast".

    The dossier is no more than a stream of warmed-over assertions and deceptions, supplied by Washington. According to reliable intelligence sources in another Western country, who were privy to the same communications, the Central Intelligence Agency has made clear that there is "no credible evidence" justifying an attack in Iraq.

    While Blair has continued to repeat propaganda that Iraq is a threat to the region and to what he calls "civilisation", the truth has long been an open secret. On February 5 last, the New York Times reported: "The Central Intelligence Agency has no evidence that Iraq has engaged in terrorist operations against the United States in nearly a decade, and the agency is also convinced that President Saddam Hussein has not provided chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda.

    While Blair has claimed that Iraq has rebuilt its arsenal of "weapons of mass destruction", those who advise him know full well this is nonsense. And if Blair himself is not aware of this, this begs the question: what kind of prime minister is he?

    They have read the evidence of Scott Ritter, who as senior United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq for seven years, is uniquely placed to assess how much of a danger the Iraqi regime represents.

    RITTER, an American and international authority on weapons disarmament, personally led the inspections, investigations and destruction of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes.

    On July 23, he said: "There is no case for war. I say that, not as a pacifist, or someone who is afraid of war. I've been to war with the US Marine Corps. Moreover, I'm a card-carrying Republican, who voted for George W. Bush for president. More important, I believe in truth.

    "The UN weapons inspectors enjoyed tremendous success in Iraq. By the end of our job, we ascertained a 90-95 per cent level of disarmament. Not because we took at face value what the Iraqis said. We went to Europe and scoured the countries that sold technology to Iraq until we found the company that had an invoice signed by an Iraqi official. We cross-checked every piece of equipment with serial numbers. That's why I can say that Iraq was 90-95 per cent disarmed. We confirmed that 96 per cent of Iraq's 98 missiles were destroyed.

    "As for chemical weapons, even if Iraq had succeeded in hiding stocks of sarin and tabun nerve agents, these chemicals have a shelf life of five years; after that they deteriorate and become useless gunk."

    Ritter does not deny that Iraq could have begun to reconstitute its weapons programmes. "But they would have to start from scratch because they don't have the factories any more, because we destroyed them (including the research and development plant). If they tried that, the evidence is readily detectable. The technology is available; if Iraq was producing chemical weapons today on any meaningful scale, we would have definitive proof to show, plain and simple; and there is none."

    Blair must also be aware of the fact that the international Atomic Energy Agency reported that it had eliminated Iraq's nuclear weapons programme "efficiently and effectively". When he and Bush "demand" the return of the UN inspectors to Iraq, what they they omit to say is that the inspectors were never thrown out by Iraq, but ordered out by the UN after it was discovered they were being used as a cover for American spying.

    Absurdity is never far away in Bush's world. His Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argues that the absence of evidence simply confirms that the nefarious Saddam has cleverly hidden his arsenal in caves and on the backs of lorries. "The absence of evidence," says Rumsfeld, "is not evidence of absence."

    The second biggest lie is Iraq's "threat to the region". Blair and Bush repeatedly claim this as if they are echoing the fears of regional leaders. The opposite is true.

    In March, the Beirut summit of the Arab League sent a clear message that all 22 governments wanted to see an end to the conflict with Iraq, which they no longer regarded as a threat. Saudi Arabia and Iraq have since re-opened their common border. Iraq has agreed to return Kuwait's national archives and to discuss the issue of missing people. Syria and Lebanon have re-established full relations with Iraq. Jordan's national airline flies five times a week between Amman and Baghdad."

    THE unmentionable truth is that the entire Gulf and Middle East is being turned upside down, not by any perceived threat from Iraq, but by American obsessions with replacing Saddam Hussein.

    He was their man, a thug whose Ba'athist Party was brought to power by the CIA in what the CIA official responsible described as "our favourite coup". Moreover, he was sustained in power during the 1980s by Ronald Reagan, George Bush Senior and Margaret Thatcher, who gave him all the weapons he wanted, often clandestinely and illegally; in Washington, the relationship was known as "the love affair".

    When I was in Iraq in 1999, I met an assistant hotel manager whose sardonic sense of western double standards was a treat.

    "Ah, a journalist from Britain!" he said. "Would you like to see where Mr Douglas Hurd stayed, and Mr David Melon - (he meant Mellor) - and Mr Tony Newton, and all the other members of Mrs Thatcher's government... These gentleman were our friends, our benefactors."

    This man has a collection of the Iraqi English-language newspaper, the Baghdad Observer, from the "good old days". Saddam Hussein is on the front page, where he always is. The only change in each photograph is that he is sitting on his white presidential couch with a different British government minister, who is smiling a smile uncannily similar to that of his murderous host.

    There, in yellowing print, is Douglas Hurd twice - on the couch and on page two, bowing before the tyrant. And there is the corpulent David Mellor, also a Foreign Minister, on the same white couch in 1988. While Mellor, or "Mr Melon" as the assistant manager preferred, was being entertained by Saddam Hussein, his host ordered the gassing of 5,000 Kurds in the town of Halabja. News of this atrocity the Foreign Office tried to suppress and the US State Department tried to blame on Iran. "Please give Mr Melon my greetings," said the assistant manager.

    The 1994 Scott Inquiry into Britain's illegal supply of arms to Saddam Hussein found that deception was widespread among senior British officials and diplomats. One of those commended by Sir Richard Scott for the honesty of his evidence was the former head of the Iraq Desk in Whitehall, Mark Higson, who described "a culture of lying" in the Foreign Office.

    Nothing has changed under Tony Blair. The Foreign Office has consistently lied about the inhuman effects of the American-driven embargo on the Iraqi civilian population. It has lied about the rise in the number of cancers in southern Iraq, the "Hiroshima effect" of depleted uranium, a weapon of mass destruction used by British and American forces during the Gulf War. It has lied about the vast amounts of humanitarian goods denied to Iraq, even though the UN Security Council has approved them. These include cancer assessment and treatment, medical equipment, and equipment that would allow Iraq to clean up its contaminated battlefields.

    ON the issue of Iraq, the likeness between Thatcher's Tories and Blair's New Labour is remarkable. In 2000, Peter Hain, a Foreign Office minister and a zealous supporter of the embargo on the civilian population, blocked a parliamentary request to publish the full list of the British companies that had helped to sustain Saddam Hussein in power.

    Just as the Foreign Office under the Tories tried to hinder reports of Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds from getting into the media (Foreign Office officials even questioned the "authenticity" of news photos), their successors under New Labour have questioned the veracity of United Nations studies reporting the death of children as a result of the American-driven embargo; and they play down the prospect of the new humanitarian disaster awaiting the Iraqi people when the Americans invade. Four years ago, the Pentagon told President Clinton that, if he invaded Iraq, he should expect "collateral damage" (civilian deaths) of up to 10,000 innocent people.

    These days, various Saddam Hussein look-alikes are to be seen being greeted at the Foreign Office. Several are generals who served under the tyrant and would, if there was international justice for the West's friends as well as its enemies, be convicted of war crimes. A new, obedient thug is being groomed to rule Iraq, the world's second greatest source of oil - the "prize" on which the insatiable economies of the developed world, especially the United Sates, rely.

    Why is there an urgency about this attack? Is it true that the Bush administration needs something to go right with its rampage against "terror". There is another reason, which is seldom reported. This is the dire state of the world's number one source of oil, Iraq's neighbour, Saudi Arabia. This medieval throwback is America's most important client in the region, almost as important Israel; and Washington is losing control.

    SAUDI Arabia is also the home of al-Qaeda, most of the September 11 hijackers and Osama bin Laden. Its importance to the US is demonstrated in the close ties of many in the Bush administration with "big oil" and the Saudi sheikhs. George Bush Senior, a consultant for the giant oil industry Carlyle Group, has met the bin Laden family on several occasions.

    Not surprisingly, no American bombs fell on Saudi Arabia; impoverished Afghanistan was the easy option that America prefers.

    Because of the American connection with Saudi Arabia, the reaction and opposition within the deeply fundamentalist kingdom has been growing. Al-Qaeda probably enjoys support or influence among a majority of the ruling families. The Americans are desperately urging the caretaker ruler, Prince Abdullah, to "modernise" - at present, women are not allowed to drive and you can lose your head for apostasy. But the American pressure is having the opposite effect; popular support for al-Qaeda is unabated.

    George W Bush and his own unelected, Christian fundamentalist regime face a dilemma. An attack on Iraq and conflict in the Middle East would provide a timely boost for American's military-industry-complex, for which the Senate has voted an historic increase in expenditure of £24billion. It would also divert attention from a sick economy and the corporate corruption scandals in which Bush and his vice-president are immersed up to their necks.

    However, an attack on neighbouring Iraq could also give al-Qaeda the moment they have been waiting for and allow it to take over Saudi Arabia through proxies and control the most important oil fields on Earth. It goes almost without saying that Bush's dilemma does not include consideration for the thousands of Iraqis who will die under the American cluster bombs and depleted uranium tipped explosives.

    It is naive to expect Tony Blair to say anything about this: to tell us the truth. However, people all over the world are stirring. A clear majority of the British people oppose the latest proposed homicidal adventure by the United States, and the complicity of their own government. Silence is no longer an option. "Our lives begin to end," said Martin Luther King, "the day we become silent about things that matter."


    :rolls:

  18. #38
    DF VIP Member 2old4this's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Buckinghamshire
    Posts
    253
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    279

    Default

    Originally posted by Sergeant-Major




    you are sooo damn right, thats there main idea, & if you'll read the "KORAN" you'll find that this shit is not going to end , not until they'll take over what they call "the Pig's & dog's" (none moslim)
    country's , & hither convert the people to islam, or kill them as it is written in the "KORAN" it's hither your a moslim or a DOG/PIG,

    no uther choice.

    now go try to live whit that truth .... ****ing sceary shit....
    yesterday ISRAEL, today UK, tomorrow THE WORLD,
    (we know they have started already to rattle the cage in the UK)

    well.. that should be a bloody worning to all of us & a call for action , becuase we live on the same planet , & the trubles we see in the middle east today , would sooner or later would come knocking on your doors wharever you live, enough said. i think...

    oh.. yes... one last thing. : I'M A RACIST TOO..
    i belive that england should be only english
    france should be fransh , germany german, ect,
    & let everyone else f_uck back off to the hole they came out from
    becuase it's the only way to keep our country safe.

    & RACISEM GOT NOTHING TO BLOODY DO WHIT IT.

    ISN'T IT ???




    Sergeant-Major Williams .
    Does it say in the Koran who will win War between Islam & the west

    Looking forward to your reply
    "YoU CAnNoT sEParATe PeaCE fROm FrEeDoM CaUSE NO-onE cAn BEcoMe At PeAcE, UnleSS He HaS FReeDoM", Malcom X.

  19. #39
    Sergeant-Major
    Guest Sergeant-Major's Avatar

    Default

    Originally posted by 2old4this


    Does it say in the Koran who will win War between Islam & the west

    Looking forward to your reply


    worry not my funney frind.. you'll get a chance to find that out for yourself soon. enough... (by the rate the thing's are rolling
    you wouldnt have to wait that long for an answer)

    "& YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK"

    p.s.
    by the tune of your sarcastic question i can sance fear & tanse. wich is good... that way you'll stay alert.


    Sergeant-Major Williams.

  20. #40
    DF VIP Member
    Robbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Worcester
    Posts
    3,635
    Thanks
    317
    Thanked:        279
    Karma Level
    495
    George Bush + Tony Blair are deep in conversation at a white house dinner one night.

    One of the guests walks over to them + asks what they are discussing.

    We are making up plans for World War III says Bush

    Wow says the guest. What are your plans?

    We're gonna kill 16 million Muslims - and one dentist answers bush

    The guest looks confused and asks Why kill a dentist?

    BUsh pats blair on the shoulder and says, What did I tell you Tony?

    Nobody is gonna give a Fcuk about the muslims!!!

    :signs: :signs: :signs: :signs:

    Thought that was very appropriate!!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Iraq Dossier - where?
    By ZX7R in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24th September 2002, 02:57 PM
  2. The real reason of the war with Iraq (No offense meant)
    By Epiphany in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 16th September 2002, 11:54 PM
  3. Battle plan for Iraq ?
    By 4me2 in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 15th September 2002, 09:30 AM
  4. Bush issues ultimatum to Iraq
    By 4me2 in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12th September 2002, 10:37 PM
  5. Should we start a war with Iraq ?
    By colinjohn1 in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 5th September 2002, 02:14 AM

Social Networking Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •