Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/18/2004 8:08:49 PM EST
Not sure if its on internet yet just heard on radio they are considering attacking U.S forces in the area to prevent an attack on their nuclear facilities.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:10:15 PM EST
Hehehehe.

I doubt that. That wouldn't be a very wise move.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:11:13 PM EST
please do, it's the excuse we need.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:12:13 PM EST
Are Muslims known for commo sense? So ya they would be retarded enough to do it.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:12:27 PM EST
with what are they going to attack with?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:13:52 PM EST
If they ever were, they won't now.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:14:33 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:17:42 PM EST
I'd like to see them try that.

Besides, even if they could take out our military (which would be impossible with what they have), they'd still have to deal with Israel. As of right now, I'm just waiting to see who strikes that plant first, us or the Israelis.

Oh, and if they are trying so desperately to protect that nuke plant as to consider a pre-emptive strike against us, then that would only confirm they have bigger intentions that just a power plant. You don't launch a war with the US over a damn power plant.

Take that sumbitch out before the damn sun comes up!
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:27:32 PM EST
What a pathetic attempt at saber rattling. Shit, Fidel Castro does better than that on a montly basis!
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:36:49 PM EST
Reminds me of the proverbial 10yo boy who sticks a fishing pole up the bottom of a hornet's nest...

Say what you want aboit Iran, they are not THAT stupid...

Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:38:14 PM EST
rofl! that would go down as the dumbest move in military history.....ever.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:42:17 PM EST
That would have to be the stupidest thing they can do, what could they really gain out of it.

It would make a plain case for us to go right after them.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 8:51:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 8:53:12 PM EST by M4-CQBR]
Channel News Asia - 8 hours ago


Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites



DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.

Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its plant being built at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

The latest comments mark an escalation in an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks, leading to speculation that there may be a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.

Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.

Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera it was not possible "from a practical standpoint" to destroy Iran's nuclear programs because they are the product of national skills "which cannot be eliminated by military means."

He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.

"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.

Diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday that the IAEA would not say in a report next month whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council.

The IAEA board is due to deliver the report on Iran's nuclear activities during a meeting at the organization's headquarters in Vienna from September 13 after the last of a group of IAEA inspectors returned from Iran last week.

The UN's nuclear agency is conducting a major probe into Iran's bid to generate electricity through nuclear power.

The Islamic republic has agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment pending the completion of the IAEA probe, but is working on other parts of the fuel cycle and has recently resumed making centrifuges used for enrichment.

- AFP


www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/101754/1/.html

Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:12:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 9:23:05 PM EST by Rand]
Thanks for the post M4 i have been looking for this all over cnn guess they just want to cuddle the muslims.
What could they use to hold are troops hostage other than threatning us with nuking are troops? Clearly this shows they are indeed make highly enriched Uranium. LETS BLOW THESE DUMB ASSES BACK TO THE STONE AGE
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:28:54 PM EST
Sounds like a typical Muslim scolar is making military decisions in Iran.

Oh Boy are they in for a serious ass wooping!
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:30:12 PM EST
Preemptive stike on who, US forces in general? In reality, the bombers would be on their way back to Missouri and the U.N. would come out in favor of the bombing before any "leader" in Iran would have time to change his shit stained pants.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:32:29 PM EST
Joy.......
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:35:10 PM EST

Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:
Channel News Asia - 8 hours ago


Iran warns of preemptive strike to prevent attack on nuclear sites



DOHA : Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran might launch a preemptive strike against US forces in the region to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us. Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV when asked if Iran would respond to an American attack on its nuclear facilities.

"America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq," said Shamkhani, speaking in Farsi to the Arabic-language news channel through an interpreter.

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Shamkhani, who was asked about the possibility of an American or Israeli strike against Iran's atomic power plant in Bushehr, added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two."

A commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the Iranian press earlier Wednesday as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic's own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

"If Israel fires one missile at Bushehr atomic power plant, it should permanently forget about Dimona nuclear center, where it produces and keeps its nuclear weapons, and Israel would be responsible for the terrifying consequence of this move," General Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr warned.

Iran's controversial bid to generate nuclear power at its plant being built at Bushehr is seen by arch-enemies Israel and the United States as a cover for nuclear weapons development.

The latest comments mark an escalation in an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks, leading to speculation that there may be a repeat of Israel's strike against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981.

Iran insists that its nuclear intentions are peaceful, while pointing at its enemy's alleged nuclear arsenal, which Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing.

Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera it was not possible "from a practical standpoint" to destroy Iran's nuclear programs because they are the product of national skills "which cannot be eliminated by military means."

He also warned that Iran would consider itself no longer bound by its commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in the event of an attack.

"The execution of such threats (to attack Iran's nuclear installations) would mean that our cooperation with the IAEA led to feeding information about our nuclear facilities to the attacking side, which (in turn) means that we would no longer be bound by any of our obligations" to the nuclear watchdog, he said.

Diplomats said in Vienna Tuesday that the IAEA would not say in a report next month whether Iran's nuclear activities are of a military nature, nor will it recommend bringing the case before the UN Security Council.

The IAEA board is due to deliver the report on Iran's nuclear activities during a meeting at the organization's headquarters in Vienna from September 13 after the last of a group of IAEA inspectors returned from Iran last week.

The UN's nuclear agency is conducting a major probe into Iran's bid to generate electricity through nuclear power.

The Islamic republic has agreed to temporarily suspend uranium enrichment pending the completion of the IAEA probe, but is working on other parts of the fuel cycle and has recently resumed making centrifuges used for enrichment.

- AFP


www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/101754/1/.html




Sounds like blathering for domestic consumption. At least I don't think they could be that stupid. [%|
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 9:37:20 PM EST
The thought of those camel fuckers launching any type of attack against the US or Israel when US and Israeli military pilots are keeping the skies clean is laughable. They would die so fast it would not even get breaking news coverage.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:42:44 PM EST
The new missile Iran tested can hit Isreal and our troops in Iraq no doubt it would also be decided for a nuclear payload(though they promise they dont have them ya bullshit) thats how they would hit our forces not to mention they have troops building up on the border of Iraq so air power will help un less of course these missiles take out our air bases and hit carriers then blitz into Iraq hit our spread out forces so not only will our forces be fighting rebels they will be fighting Iran(this is probably why troops are being realigned from around the world) this is the only possible way they could win they have to destroy air bases ,air craft carriers than attack with all the ground forces they have on the border.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:44:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:52:17 PM EST
Do you think its not possible lumpy?
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:52:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:
The new missile Iran tested can hit Isreal and our troops in Iraq no doubt it would also be decided for a nuclear payload(though they promise they dont have them ya bullshit) thats how they would hit our forces not to mention they have troops building up on the border of Iraq so air power will help un less of course these missiles take out our air bases and hit carriers then blitz into Iraq hit our spread out forces so not only will our forces be fighting rebels they will be fighting Iran(this is probably why troops are being realigned from around the world) this is the only possible way they could win they have to destroy air bases ,air craft carriers than attack with all the ground forces they have on the border.



I don't mean to nitpick but, well.....nevermind.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 10:55:41 PM EST
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:09:45 PM EST
Of course we would still knock it out doubt about that but if they already have nukes which they probably do it wont matter to them they would just take the loss trying to take Iraq and force us out of the middle east. I stiill doubt they could ever beat us in a conventional war but if they fight a guerilla war we lose hands down america wont fight a guerilla war for to long most americans dont have the stomache for it.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:12:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 11:14:28 PM EST by vito113]
The Iranian Military would have a short but VERY exciting war!

………however,

They could start some serious trouble in the region by hitting out at Israel. My opinion is that would be their moxt likely move. Israel has a policy of nuclear retaliation if attached with WMD's… and I don't doubt for one second they would not keep their promise. Iran has Gas and could launch a couple of missiles into Israel and kick off WWIII in the region.

Now, as to attacking the US forces… the BIG coup would be to hit a carrier, and Iranian P3's have been busy keeping tabs on our ships in the Gulf. It is possible to hit a ship with an IRBM, it would need a very lucky shot, however Diego Garcia is withing range of their missiles.

I'm sure the Military is taking all the neccessary steps to ruin their day if they make a move.

This reaction from them strongly suggests to me we that Iran could be in a 'Use them or Lose them' endgame with it's nuclear program. Have they got 'live' weapons? Almost certainly not, however they 'may' have 1 small weapon nearing completion using material they could have aquired from either Pakistan, (unlikely) or North Korea (very likely). Have they got a finished and working warheads? Yes, they will have the proven designs that Dr Kahn from Pakistan sold to them and North Korea and will be waiting for the fuel rods to start producing the material for the weapons.

ANdy
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:24:58 PM EST
Russia and Iran are very close i wouldnt be suprised if Iran got weapons from them. After all Iran probably gets fuel from them anyway so even we couldnt really prove that the weapons were assembled and made in russia just that the fuel came from russia. Russia doesnt like being the underdog to us and would be glad to see us get knocked off the top.Do we really know what Iran has? No? is it possible they already have missiles and have just tested the missile to caryy these theoratical missles?yes. Can we view this warning as a threat?yes. Could these make Isreal or us destroy there nuclear facilities sooner?yes. If we or isreal attacked them we would lose alot of support throughout Nato and our aliies most likely and leave our forces very vulnerable and exposed to attack. They would than feel free to use what ever means they have to attack us(WMD) this is why i think they have said this they are trying to make us shoot first so they can respond back with full force.
Link Posted: 8/18/2004 11:38:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 8/18/2004 11:42:22 PM EST by PaDanby]
Probably for internal consumption. Remember the very conservative Mullah led portions of the population need to be fed a constant diet of diatribe to keep them motivated and waatching the more liberal and/or younger portions of the population. The Mullahs are facing some major internal opposition that is increasing as the younger population gets more and more Western exposure from the media and personl trips, etc.

The Mullahs want to maintain a Shiite based fundamentalist theocracy. More and more of the people don't want to see that continue. Ergo, create or enlarge an enemy for the people. (See Adolf Hitler 101)

As to whether or not they are that stupid. Ask anybody who took classes with Iranian students. Or tried to teach them military subjects in the 70's. Yep, some are and some may just believe that attacking the Great Satan is the route to the virgins. And not unlike the Japanese leadership in WWII they may just decide their religion demands they take the people and country with them.

Is it a good idea? NO but bad ideas have never seemed to stop people from starting wars in the past that they were destined to lose.

(As far as being close, they may have bought a scientist or two, but the Soviet client state was Iraq not Iran. The Ayatollah hated the Communists more than the US, any cooperation from a theocracy like that and a government that is anti-religion and especially anti-Muslim is hardly very likely.)
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 12:02:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 12:09:26 AM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By PaDanby:

(As far as being close, they may have bought a scientist or two, but the Soviet client state was Iraq not Iran. The Ayatollah hated the Communists more than the US, any cooperation from a theocracy like that and a government that is anti-religion and especially anti-Muslim is hardly very likely.)



Unfortunately they had much help from their Brother Muslims in Pakistan……

"A.Q. Khan & Iran Nuclear Facilities

Khan's proliferation activities help explain the close resemblance borne by Iran's nuclear centrifuge techonology to that of Pakistan.

Following Iran's disclosure of uranium enrichment research and subsequent inspections, the central role of Pakistan in Iran's nuclear programme was unearthed. This was compounded by Iran turning over to the IAEA a complete history of its nuclear program including a listing of middlemen and scientists linked to Pakistan and A.Q. Khan.

Evidence uncovered by inspectors showed that Pakistan and Iran agreed around 1987 to a deal whereby a Pakistani centrifuge design was provided to Iran to resolve the latter's previous unsuccessful attempts to master uranium enrichment technology. The transfer of nuclear technology began in 1989, though Khan is said to have claimed to have discontinued the sale two years later. The IAEA, though, reportedly has evidence that Pakistani assistance continued as late as 1996. At that time, the countries' differing policies in dealing with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan soured their relations, though it has been claimed the Pakistanin assistance continued nonetheless.

According to confessions by A.Q. Khan and aides of his to Pakistani invesitgators reportedly implicated among others, Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, the commander of Pakistan's army from 1988-1991, and that any nuclear technology shared with Iran had been approved by him. These charges were denied by him. Pakistani did discover evidence that Beg had been informed by Khan of the transfer to Iran in early 1991 of outdated hardware, though it has been claimed that A.Q. Khan had led him to believe that the material would not allow Iran to prdocuede enriched uranium. Conflicting this assertion is Kahn who is said to have admitted that Gen. Beg had approved the technology transfer.

A.Q. Khan has claimed that equipment and drawing shipped to Iran were supplied as a result of pressure from the late Gen. Imtiaz during his tenure as defense advisor to Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto from December 1988 to August 1990 . Khan has also admitted to meeting Iranian scientists in Karachi at the request of Dr. Niazi, a close Bhutto aide. In return for the help, Iran transferred millions of dollars to foreign bank accounts, with some money funnelled through the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. That bank collapsed in 1991.

Some of the centrifuges examined also appeared to have been used outside Iran to enrich uranium, while components of some centrifuges appeared to have come directly from Pakistan. Though some of the machines Iran had bought did not work properly, Iran reportedly still managed to effect significant improvements on Pakistani equipment designs. Despite the design similarities, Iran has nonetheless denied having received them from Pakistan.

Faced with disclosure, Khan reportedly contacted Iranian officials to not only urge them to destroy some of their facilities but also to pretend that the Pakistanis who had assisted them had died."


www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/khan-iran.htm

For a good rundown of Irans WMD programs and capabilities see…

www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/index.html
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 4:46:57 AM EST
If the Iranians launched a limited missile strike against U.S. forces, what do you think our response would be? Everybody is talking about how we are already overextended in Iraq. Would we do airstrikes? If so, what type of targets? Would we invade? If so, with what units? It seems like a tough problem to me, given our current force structure.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 4:52:06 AM EST
Carpet bomb them with MOAB's. End of discussion.


Link Posted: 8/19/2004 4:52:19 AM EST
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 5:23:35 AM EST
1) Didn't Iran lose a war with Saddam back in the 80's?

2) Didn't we take Iraq in less than a week?

3 Iran is fuked.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 5:32:29 AM EST
Carefully timed release of hot air to ensure the Shi'ite's holed up with Sadr don't lose faith.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 5:35:30 AM EST
If Iran preemptively struck at us or Israel I am sure Israel would be the first ones there to watch our "six".

I do not doubt we'd have no problem drumming up international support to invade Iran if they struck us first. It wouldn't just be the US that would respond- it would be Israel, the UK, Australia and others.

There will be people that say we caused it by invading Iraq and further destabilizing the region, but the Middle East has never been the paradigm of stability is it is. I don't listen to those people.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:05:25 AM EST
Is Iran ready to commit suicide? ... Or are they just nuts?

I'll bet that their Nuclear Facility will be the first to go ...KKKKaaabooom.

Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:05:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:
"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Hmm, now where have I heard this kind of talk before. Let's see..... hmm, yes. I believe that Sadam used this exact same terminology.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 6:07:09 AM EST
Oh, I say they should go for it, allah will protect them <snort, chortle, gasp>.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:25:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:
Not sure if its on internet yet just heard on radio they are considering attacking U.S forces in the area to prevent an attack on their nuclear facilities.






Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:36:16 AM EST



Do middle eastern "scholars" have to take "Worthless Windbag and Hilarious Dialogue 101 & 102" before they come to power?

The absolute shit that spews from their cockholsters is flat out comedic to me.

Let's remember "Baghdad Bob".
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:40:07 AM EST
Am I the only one here that thinks Iran probably has Nuclear Weapons?

I'm not saying that we should let that intimidate us. If anything, we should probably be planning for an immedate coordinated series of air strikes and missle attacks to decimate their nuclear, air and missle capabilities in one fell swoop.

This should not be considered to be "hot air"!
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:43:40 AM EST
Please God, Let them make a pre-emptive strike against the US.
(And let it be unsuccsessful, too please. No unnecessary deaths. Oh yeah, if it could be before the election, that would be great, too.)
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:45:39 AM EST
I read that this morning in the Washinton Times.

Bring it on assholes!
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:45:53 AM EST
Wouldn't that be the Islamic Redneck equivalent of "Hey Abdul, hold my camel, and watch this!"
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:46:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/19/2004 8:47:08 AM EST by NewbHunter]
No way, not gonna happen. We couldn't possibly be THAT lucky to have Iran attempt to attack our forces in Iraq. That would be an open invitation for Bush to go ahead and kick some major ass and the democraps wouldn't have anything to hold against him....

....uh, wait a minute. Of course they'd find something to hold against him. What was I thinking? According to them the right course of action would be to go the UN first to ask permission to defend ourselves. Then appoint a commitee to investigate the nature of the attacks and to determine what sort of nice things we can say to the Iran goverment so that they won't be so mad at us anymore. That way we can all hug and be friends and everyone will be happy!



Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:47:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sierra_Hombre:
please do, it's the excuse we need.



Yep, we can only hope.

Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:48:02 AM EST

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.


Does anyone bother to look at a map. Clearly he is talking about the Straits of Hormuz. They only way we can support that number of troops is by sea and the Straits are very narrow.

Could they shut them down? Maybe, but only for a short time. Short term it might look good, but long term it's stupid for them.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:52:55 AM EST
We could just send in SF_Chris is to take care them.


If they did hit us I don't think the going to UN to "permission" would even happen. Bush's words
off mike would be "Its just sand over there right?" Yes Sir with a few buildings,,, "k well all I want to see is sand, I don't care how you do it just do it" YES SIR.

10 mins later BOOOOOOOOm

Wolf
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 8:56:26 AM EST
IIRC, our stated position was similar to israel's as far as WMDs go.....

since all we have left in our inventory is nukes, ANY WMD attack will be answered by nukes.

However, for all the "nuke 'em all" posted here, I kinda doubt it would get to that point because the sheeple wouldn't allow it, even if it is in response to our troops being nuked/gassed/whatever.


Remember, there are a lot of very whiney bitches democrats who think that we shouldn't be in iraq.
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:01:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By FanoftheBlackRifle:
IIRC, our stated position was similar to israel's as far as WMDs go.....

since all we have left in our inventory is nukes, ANY WMD attack will be answered by nukes.

However, for all the "nuke 'em all" posted here, I kinda doubt it would get to that point because the sheeple wouldn't allow it, even if it is in response to our troops being nuked/gassed/whatever.


Remember, there are a lot of very whiney bitches democrats who think that we shouldn't be in iraq.



Huh? We have a lot more than nukes in our inventory
Link Posted: 8/19/2004 9:09:06 AM EST
This is from the same county that couldn't win a war against Iraq.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top