This Day in History

Daily Cartoon provided by Bravenet

  #21  
Old 10-11-2006
JCoyote JCoyote is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Choctaw, OK
Posts: 615
Send a message via AIM to JCoyote
Default

It's possible that NK tried to fake a test. They've had problems with tests lately... And honestly, the yield is suspiciously low, seeming almost too low to be a real fission device, especially from a country new to the nuclear game.
__________________
propa·gandist n.

A person convinced that the ends justify the memes.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-16-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
And besides, is that just the Italian TV broadcasting? Okay, then, that's what they say: appearently, some US Intelligence sources state that there might have been NO North-Korean nuclear test AT ALL. They state, the US Intelligence reports that the seismic shockwave, allegedly due to the underground test, was simply too weak to have been caused by a nuclear explosion of the power declared by North-Koreans. It might all have been a hoax by DPRK, detonating some thousands of tons of conventional explosives underground to simulate a nuclear test, so to try higher on the negotiations table.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_nkorea_test

So much for that theory. Kim has nukes, but being the leader of a communist shithole, they don't work so well... What else is new?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
It's possible that NK tried to fake a test. They've had problems with tests lately... And honestly, the yield is suspiciously low, seeming almost too low to be a real fission device, especially from a country new to the nuclear game.

The United States built fission warheads in the 10 ton range, so I don't have a hard time doubting this was a real test. If you suck at designing implosion bombs, tests results in this range would be expected.

Besides, the recent trend for all the new members of the nuclear club have been small underground tests. Granted, North Korea's test is especially small, but still, when tied with their pathetic engineering abilities, not all that suprising.


Let Japan arm up. They aren't a serious threat to the United States anymore, they've seen what happens when you anger a sleeping giant, they have no wish to relive that. They try to forget what happened simply because it was so shattering to them.

A well armed Japan is needed for the balance of power in Asia, as a counterweight to the heavily militarized and totalitarian People's Republican of China. Worst comes to worst, they wipe each other out. How is this bad for the United States again?

I also expect South Korea to go nuclear now. More power to them, they have every right to them when they look across the DMZ at a madman backed by a Chinese superpower.

In fact, here's my simple solution to this whole mess: The United States starts a Pacific military alliance between the United States, Japan, South Korea, an officially recognized Taiwan and Australia. Mutual Defence Treaties all around.

Then we sell new and surplus conventional weapon systems to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Australia at cost. This is to include F-35s and whatever ships/subs these nations can afford. The United States then reshifts and builds up its military presence in these four nations, mainly consisting of USAF tactical air wing deployment and ports of call for USN warships [yes, USAF fighters and warships in Taiwan]. United States ground force deployment in these nations would be kept minimal, that's the job of the armies of the nations in question.

Lastly, we implement the same Wartime Nuclear Weapon Sharing program we had with NATO during the Cold War. Meaning large numbers of nuclear warheads would be deployed with the USAF fighter wings in these nations, kept under United States control. However, in the event of war against either North Korea or the PRC, some of those warheads would be turned over to the local airforces.


I call this the Eisenhower plan.



And before PT has a seizure, let me ask: Which nation was it that gave Pakistan nuclear warheads, missing only plutonium, which Pakistan was easily able to supply at the time? Which nation is it that has backed North Korea in its nuclear weapons program?

Fair is fair, if China is going to arm half of Asia with nuclear weapons, we'll just return the favor. You don't bluff unless you're willing to risk being called on it.


I find it ironic the PT rants and raves about America and Israel being 'imperialist', while at the same time backing the most imperialist nation on Earth.
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!

Last edited by UZI4U : 10-16-2006 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-16-2006
JCoyote JCoyote is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Choctaw, OK
Posts: 615
Send a message via AIM to JCoyote
Default

Oddly enough, I think one of our more likely allies if there are problems in Asia is Vietnam. Vietnam does not like China at all. In point of fact, their own status as a nation is directly threatened by the PRC. While US relations with Vietnam aren't perfect, they are fairly positive in the last decade. But I doubt an alliance would formalize until there is a war both have an interest in.
__________________
propa·gandist n.

A person convinced that the ends justify the memes.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-16-2006
Bacon Guy's Avatar
Bacon Guy Bacon Guy is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: i pwn n00bs
Posts: 309
Default Ironic?

The guy is a fucking RETARD!

Of course the spoiled little university brats that support communism keep insisting that their actions (and we are called "reactionary" by them- Irony, thy name is "Commie"!) are merely a reactive defense against our hegemonistic nature. Oddly enough, not a single "prole" among them.

The Big Lie is all they have, and it's the biggest export of any communist shithole.

Look at the Fwench, for god's sake- the most mealy-mouthed cowards on the face of the earth have finally found something they're willing to fight for:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/775387.html

After deliberately inserting themselves into the conflict by making all sorts of promises they clearly had zero intention of keeping, they realized who the enemy is- Israel!
__________________
"Conservative, n, A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."- Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary (1911)"



If you can't beat them, join them. Then beat them. Barring that, arrange to have them beaten.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-16-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCoyote
Oddly enough, I think one of our more likely allies if there are problems in Asia is Vietnam. Vietnam does not like China at all. In point of fact, their own status as a nation is directly threatened by the PRC. While US relations with Vietnam aren't perfect, they are fairly positive in the last decade. But I doubt an alliance would formalize until there is a war both have an interest in.

China already started one imperialist war against Vietnam, with the full intent of annexing Vietnam into the Sino Hegemony. It was only due to Red Army blunders, superior Soviet-Vietnamese weapons and United States intelligence assistance that the Socialist Republic of Vietnam survived. The amount of distrust and strain between Vietnam and China should not be underestimated.

Even in light of the grudge I hold against Vietnam, I could easily see allying with them against the PRC. With sufficient democratic reforms, in about fifty years they might even be able to join the Democratic Transpacific Alliance.
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-16-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon Guy
After deliberately inserting themselves into the conflict by making all sorts of promises they clearly had zero intention of keeping, they realized who the enemy is- Israel!

Does the French army honestly think it is capable of shooting down Israeli Air Superiority Fighters with a peacekeeping force? They do understand that those F-16I's are the second most advanced fighters on earth, right?

Even the United States Army would need a boatload of dedicated anti-aircraft systems to down an IAF jet, the Avenger and I-HAWK don't cut it, MIM-104 would be needed. Even then, if you down one, that just means his buddies are going to bomb the living shit out of your SAM site.

Last I checked, France, which is decades behind the US Army on SAM tech, doesn't even have any medium or heavy SAM assets in Lebanon, what exactly do they plan on shooting at the IAF with? Stingers?


Let me explain, for the assistance of some obviously retarded French general, just what this means:

#1: French army fires on Israeli F-16.
#2: Israeli F-16 evades outclassed French missile(s).
#3: Same Israeli F-16 flight AGM-88s or JDAMs said SAM site.
#4: Defacto state of war between France and Israel. France firing the first shot.
#5: We get to see what happens when, for the first time in history, two nuclear powers go into a conventional war.

There are some things you do not do unless you want to start a war, one of those is you do not attack another nations warplanes. That is not an 'incident' 'accident', 'mistake' or 'incursion', that is an act of war, once it occurs, nothing can stop a conflict.

Remember the Maine, anyone?
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!

Last edited by UZI4U : 10-16-2006 at 08:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-18-2006
PT-The Italian Commie's Avatar
PT-The Italian Commie PT-The Italian Commie is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sardinia, Italy
Posts: 2,611
Smile Dear UZI...

I will NOT reply to most of your post, knowing how your vision of the world is distorted by the typically American conservative-chauvinist-reactionarian political views. Just let me tell you that you, and your fellow Countrymen (both in USA and Israel), would better start feeling the "Surrounding Syndrome" and do something about. 'Cause when you will eventually realize that your foreign policy is upsetting (very moderate euphemism) the entire world, that your allies are quitting you one by one and passing to the side of your enemies, and thay you can't go on consuming only by yourselves 25% of the world resources without pissing off more and more people, well, it will be WAY too late.

But let's stick to the DPRK nuclear issue, OK? That's what I started this thread for.

Actually, many great experts here in Europe still stick with the ipothesis that North Korea has faked the test. Remember that DPRK is the most highly-surveilled Country in the world; it's unlikely that they have developed anything like a nuclear technology without being noticed by their neighbours AND by your great American intelligence services. For the same reason, it's highly unprobable that they might have smuggled into the Country anything similar. They are in the same situation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as for WMDs: none in their hands, no possibility to develop or import them otherwise.

Okay, there was radio-activity in the proximities of the test area, and then? What they could have done is possibly to have detonated some tons of old ordnance, maybe Korean War trash, with some sprinkles of uranium or plutonium here and there. They don't have enough to build a fission bomb, so they tried to make their bluff be more effective by using this trick. It's not hard to find on the black market the very small quantities of radio-active materials used for such an operation: hell, one can even steal the radio-active wastes of hospitals for that (hospital uses radionuclides in machineries such Tomographes, X-Ray apparatus, NMR, etc.). Packing a bomb with conventional explosive and some radio-active materials to have a radio-active dispertion at the moment of the explosion is NOT like having a nuclear bomb. It's much more a radiological device ("Dirt Bomb"); an object that has no usefulness at all in conventional warfare, it is much more probable top turn handy for terrorist purposes. The use of such a weapon would require DPRK to ship it clandestinely out of the Country and then blow it up in the center of Seoul, Taiwan, Tokyo or Beijing (yes, even Beijing has now quitted North Korea and is applicating sanctions against it, so it has become an ENEMY too). And this is HIGHLY improbable, seen the status of high vigilance of the North-Korean borders.
But let's just suppose that they have the bomb, okay? Let's say one or two. I don't think they can have much more. DPRK lacks the possibility of successful nuclear delivery. Their "long range missiles" are on prototype stage, and are very unlikely to pass unobserved to Russian, Chinese, South-Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and American radar systems. So do their aircrafts, should they try an airborne nuclear delivery. And besides, what they can do with their nuclear devices (IF they have any) has very little to do with offensive purposes. Them will surely turn handy for defensive purpose, in the case of an attack (I think they are desperately trying to have the bomb to defend themselves against a possible American attack to come).

And besides, I seriously doubt that the "North-Korean Bomb" shall be used as an excuse by the neighouring countries to equip themselves with nukes too. I strongly advice against it; the stability of the area is already under jeopardy as it is without having Japan, Taiwan and South Korea running for nukes. And I'd advise the European Community and the European representants to the UN Security Council (between which there is also Italy, now) to propose and enforce sanctions not only against North Korea, but also against any other Country in the area that should only try to equip itself with nuclear armaments in response to the North-Korean test.

OH, and besides:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UZI4U
Let me explain, for the assistance of some obviously retarded French general, just what this means:

#1: French army fires on Israeli F-16.
#2: Israeli F-16 evades outclassed French missile(s).
#3: Same Israeli F-16 flight AGM-88s or JDAMs said SAM site.
#4: Defacto state of war between France and Israel. France firing the first shot.
#5: We get to see what happens when, for the first time in history, two nuclear powers go into a conventional war.

After point #4 ("Defacto state of war between France and Israel. France firing the first shot"), replace point #5 ("We get to see what happens when, for the first time in history, two nuclear powers go into a conventional war") with:
#5: France instantly replies to the IAF attack against French forces by neutronizing Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all the main Israeli military sites, including the ones where the Israeli nuclear capabilities are stored, to prevent any counter-attack. France wins.

I am not hoping that it will ever happen. But DON'T THINK that France would not do it. Remember: France is the ONLY nuclear power in the world which has openly admitted to have plans to use nuclear devices against targets ON ITS OWN SOIL in case of an enemy attack, should the need arise. They are willing to nuke themselves to wipe out an enemy attacking force, don't bet your ass on France not using its neutron bombs against enemy targets on FOREIGN soil if anything similar happens.
__________________
"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law." -- Malcolm X

"We (atheists) act in good conscience because we believe in moral principles, not because we expect a reward in Heaven." -- Margherita Hack


Last edited by PT-The Italian Commie : 10-18-2006 at 08:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-18-2006
D Yankee (The Zionist)'s Avatar
D Yankee (The Zionist) D Yankee (The Zionist) is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 719
Send a message via AIM to D Yankee (The Zionist) Send a message via MSN to D Yankee (The Zionist) Send a message via Yahoo to D Yankee (The Zionist)
Default Well then

"I will NOT reply to most of your post, knowing how your vision of the world is distorted by the typically American conservative-chauvinist-reactionarian political views."

If that's the way you feel, then I won't bother even reading the rest of yours. Fair enough?

Yours Truly

The American,Conservative,Chauvinist,Zionist, Foot Soldier.

__________________
You who inherit the heavy privilege to serve in freedom's name, must brace for the battle surely to come.

-- Charlton Heston, 1923-2008
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-18-2006
UZI4U's Avatar
UZI4U UZI4U is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Antonio, Texas.
Posts: 890
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PT-The Italian Commie
I will NOT reply to most of your post, knowing how your vision of the world is distorted by the typically American conservative-chauvinist-reactionarian political views.

As opposed to your Italian-communist-metrosexual-utopitarian political views?

Quote:
Just let me tell you that you, and your fellow Countrymen (both in USA and Israel), would better start feeling the "Surrounding Syndrome" and do something about.

It isn't hard to be like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.

Quote:
'Cause when you will eventually realize that your foreign policy is upsetting (very moderate euphemism) the entire world,

Oh, you don't think we know that our mere existence is upsetting the various bullshit brigades of the world? As Americans our very existence has been upsetting to someone or another for well over two-hundred years, and as Jews our existence has been upsetting to someone or another for well over four-thousand. Explain to me why we should start giving a shit now?

Quote:
that your allies are quitting you one by one and passing to the side of your enemies,

That's called sifting the wheat from the chaff. I would rather have two die hard loyal allies than two hundred fair-weather-friends.

Quote:
and thay you can't go on consuming only by yourselves 25% of the world resources without pissing off more and more people, well, it will be WAY too late.

Except for one little factoid: We own this planet, pay your rent and shut up.


You can either side with us, as Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the UK are doing, and live in free-trade western consumerism under the defensive umbrella of the United States.

Or you can side with Islam, and live under Sha'ria, and have your nation waste away under the rule of a tyrannical theocracy until it is Just Another Third World Islamic Shithole™.

Or you can side with the Peoples Republic of China, live under tyrannical socialism where people are executed for dissent, and have the Chinese government suck the blood out of your country to feed its own imperialism.

There are no other choices, make up your mind. Delaying a decision will only make things bloodier.


Quote:
But let's stick to the DPRK nuclear issue, OK? That's what I started this thread for.

By all means.


Quote:
Actually, many great experts here in Europe still stick with the ipothesis that North Korea has faked the test.

European 'experts' with their heads up their asses? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell you!

Quote:
Remember that DPRK is the most highly-surveilled Country in the world; it's unlikely that they have developed anything like a nuclear technology without being noticed by their neighbours AND by your great American intelligence services.

Then how come all the intelligence services you quote have been saying North Korea has 6-12 nuclear weapons?

Quote:
For the same reason, it's highly unprobable that they might have smuggled into the Country anything similar. They are in the same situation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, as for WMDs: none in their hands, no possibility to develop or import them otherwise.


That's a good one, tell it again!

North Korea admits it has chemical weapons and plans to use them on Soul in the event of war. Pretty much all the worlds advanced intelligence services say North Korea already has nuclear weapons, somehwere in numbers between six and twelve.

North Korea went nuclear years ago, under which rock have you been living that makes you think didn't?

Quote:
Okay, there was radio-activity in the proximities of the test area, and then? What they could have done is possibly to have detonated some tons of old ordnance, maybe Korean War trash, with some sprinkles of uranium or plutonium here and there.

Thank you for proving this subject is beyond your understanding.

The nuclear trace materials that we found were not simple uranium or plutonium. We're talking about cerium 144, lanthanum 141, barium 140, caesium 137, tellurium 134 and others. These are materials that are instantly produced in a nuclear detonation, but would be very difficult, if not impossible to produce in large enough amounts to fake such a test, and would need nuclear laboratories far beyond what North Korea could manage.

Quote:
They don't have enough to build a fission bomb,

Yes they do, they have enough to build more than a dozen.

Quote:
so they tried to make their bluff be more effective by using this trick.

Except this 'trick' you mentioned is impossible, for the reasons stated above.

Quote:
It's not hard to find on the black market the very small quantities of radio-active materials used for such an operation:

It's impossible to find the correct radioactive materials for such an operation. Please study up on this subject before you continue, I'm going to just ignore the rest of this fantasy.

Quote:
But let's just suppose that they have the bomb, okay?

"Let's just suppose the reality actually does exist"

Quote:
Let's say one or two.

Try for 6-12.

Quote:
I don't think they can have much more. DPRK lacks the possibility of successful nuclear delivery. Their "long range missiles" are on prototype stage,

Except you don't need a long range missile to hit some of our allies in Asia. Short and medium range will work for that.

Quote:
and are very unlikely to pass unobserved to Russian, Chinese, South-Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese and American radar systems.

Which is irrelevant when dealing with a madman.

Quote:
So do their aircrafts, should they try an airborne nuclear delivery. And besides, what they can do with their nuclear devices (IF they have any) has very little to do with offensive purposes.

Except that they're willing to sell them to those who would use them for offensive purposes.

Quote:
Them will surely turn handy for defensive purpose, in the case of an attack (I think they are desperately trying to have the bomb to defend themselves against a possible American attack to come).

Or maybe Kim Jong Il is trying desperately to develop nuclear weapons so the world can't do anything as he continues to commit genocide on his own people? Or maybe he's doing it so he can blackmail the world into staying out of a North Korean war of unification using the threat of nuking Tokyo?

Quote:
And besides, I seriously doubt that the "North-Korean Bomb" shall be used as an excuse by the neighouring countries to equip themselves with nukes too.

South Korea is openly talking about it at this very moment. Wake up and smell the yellowcake.

Quote:
I strongly advice against it; the stability of the area is already under jeopardy as it is without having Japan, Taiwan and South Korea running for nukes.

In the face of a nuclear armed China and North Korea, a nuclear armed Japan and South Korea would make the region more stable, not less.

Welcome to MAD 101.

Quote:
And I'd advise the European Community and the European representants to the UN Security Council (between which there is also Italy, now) to propose and enforce sanctions not only against North Korea, but also against any other Country in the area that should only try to equip itself with nuclear armaments in response to the North-Korean test.

So you want to make sure only your fellow communist love-boy gets to have nukes?

Sorry, doesn't work that way. As I already mentioned, we'll just go with a NATO-style wartime nuclear weapons sharing setup. Since technically no nation in Asia is going nuclear under this plan, your sanctions mean nothing. It would be ironic for Western Europe to put sanctions on other nations for that while they themselves are still part of the NATO wartime nuclear weapon sharing plan.

Quote:
After point #4 ("Defacto state of war between France and Israel. France firing the first shot"), replace point #5 ("We get to see what happens when, for the first time in history, two nuclear powers go into a conventional war") with:
#5: France instantly replies to the IAF attack against French forces by neutronizing Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, and all the main Israeli military sites, including the ones where the Israeli nuclear capabilities are stored, to prevent any counter-attack. France wins.

Which planet do you live on?

It is a simple fact, backed by thousands of US, Soviet and Chinese wargame studies, that once a nation gains nuclear weapons and effective missiles, it becomes impossible to disarm said nation by military means without the nation being attacked getting at least one missile off the ground. This has been an accepted military reality since the 1950s, made only stronger in the 1980s. This is the reason the United States has not disarmed Pakistan, India or North Korea.

Any full-scale war between France and Israel, in which France attempts a nuclear strike on Israel would result in Paris being vaporized, and probably two or three other cities while we're at it. A classic French victory if I ever saw one.


Conventionally, France doesn't even have the range to reach Israel with its Air Force. Mid-flight refueling is a privilege bestowed on you Europeans by the United States, and we can refuse at any time. That leaves the French Navy... Which only has one aircraft carrier... The Charles De Gaulle.


Yup, that Charles De Gaulle...

But even if we assume that hunk of junk somehow managed to limp out of port in the event of a Franco-Israeli war, it really wouldn't have any effect to start with. It only carries about 20 combat fighters. It was designed to carry 40, but it seems the hangars were misdesigned and the Rafael just doesn't fit right. The last time the Charles De Gaulle sailed, it still had Super Etendards as its main fighter.

This, along with the De Gaulle being one of the slowest carriers made since WWII, means it would take at least six hours for it to get its fighters within range of Israel. By which time the IAF would have every single Israeli combat aircraft airborne.

Let's refresh.

De Gaulle Carrier Battle Group: 20-40 fighters, 20 being more likely.

IAF: 524 fighters.

Do I need to mention the fact that the IAFs F-15s loaded with IAI anti-ship missiles will be able to fire on De Gaulle long before the De Gaulles fighters are within range of any Israeli military base?

It's been a while since we've seen a carrier sunk. Make sure there are some HDTV cameras around to capture all the action.

The French military is outclassed by Israel. It would be a classic quantity versus quality battle, and we know how those turn out. France, without United States military aid, cannot reach Israel from its mainland. The De Gaulle is a non-factor.


This leaves nuclear missiles, and France is just as much inside Israels missile range as Israel is within France's missile range.

France can't win a war like that.

Again, welcome to MAD 101.

Quote:
I am not hoping that it will ever happen. But DON'T THINK that France would not do it.

And don't think for a minute that Israel would not reply to France in kind. Israel has a very effective early warning system, and its own missiles can easily hit all of France.


And let me remind you of one final little factor: The United States long standing nuclear policy on third-party nuclear wars in the middle east is to initiate a full scale nuclear attack against whichever nation uses nuclear weapons in the middle east first.

That would be France, in your dream.

Quote:
Remember: France is the ONLY nuclear power in the world which has openly admitted to have plans to use nuclear devices against targets ON ITS OWN SOIL in case of an enemy attack, should the need arise.

Don't let me stand in their way.

Quote:
They are willing to nuke themselves to wipe out an enemy attacking force, don't bet your ass on France not using its neutron bombs against enemy targets on FOREIGN soil if anything similar happens.


So let me see if I understand this... You're saying France would be the first the fire a shot against Israel, and then the first to use nuclear weapons against Israel?

Which country is Imperialist again?
__________________
Am Yisrael Chai!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-18-2006
Bacon Guy's Avatar
Bacon Guy Bacon Guy is offline
Super Senior member - Has no life and spends a lot of time here
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: i pwn n00bs
Posts: 309
Default Dude...

Why do you even bother with PT?

He's a classic Euridiot- no balls, no sense, no clue.

__________________
"Conservative, n, A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others."- Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary (1911)"



If you can't beat them, join them. Then beat them. Barring that, arrange to have them beaten.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SecurityArms.com 1995 - 2009