|
|
Post by chuffedstokie on Apr 13, 2017 21:45:16 GMT
Watched them launch (push) one just now on the news. Not what you'd call laser guided exactly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Apr 13, 2017 22:20:34 GMT
Tango the feckers.
|
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Apr 13, 2017 23:28:40 GMT
It's all getting rather serious isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 6:31:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 14, 2017 8:01:24 GMT
I'm just waiting for the hysterical liberal feminists outrage at the fact someone named the bomb "mother or all bombs" #staygenderneutral Correct. Should have been called the "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM of all bombs"  That's a real term by the way..... "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism" Or you could have FABGLITTER.... fetish, allies, bisexual, gay, lesbian, intersex, transgender, transsexual engendering revolution or inter-racial attraction.  |
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Apr 14, 2017 8:19:26 GMT
Don't you think this blustering and hard stance on Russia is a bit of a smoke screen by him to try and stop the impeachment of him for Russia getting him elected in the first place !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Billy the kid on Apr 14, 2017 9:05:48 GMT
Don't you think this blustering and hard stance on Russia is a bit of a smoke screen by him to try and stop the impeachment of him for Russia getting him elected in the first place !! I think it has more to do with him being fully briefed, Hillary was all for taking it to the Russians |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 9:33:58 GMT
I'm just waiting for the hysterical liberal feminists outrage at the fact someone named the bomb "mother or all bombs" #staygenderneutral Correct. Should have been called the "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM of all bombs" That's a real term by the way..... "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism" Or you could have FABGLITTER.... fetish, allies, bisexual, gay, lesbian, intersex, transgender, transsexual engendering revolution or inter-racial attraction. What are you trying to say here then ?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 9:35:27 GMT
Don't you think this blustering and hard stance on Russia is a bit of a smoke screen by him to try and stop the impeachment of him for Russia getting him elected in the first place !! No it's a little more than that . |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Apr 14, 2017 9:42:54 GMT
I'm just waiting for the hysterical liberal feminists outrage at the fact someone named the bomb "mother or all bombs" #staygenderneutral A $16m Bomb! ISIS do it with a strap on vest & kalashnicov... |
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Apr 14, 2017 9:46:42 GMT
It seems more like a scare tactic to me aimed at north korea. It's a funny game chess, i wonder who will make a move next? Chess is about seeing the game 5+ moves ahead... |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 14, 2017 9:51:13 GMT
Correct. Should have been called the "LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM of all bombs" That's a real term by the way..... "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, queer, questioning, flexual, asexual, gender-fuck, polyamorous, bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism" Or you could have FABGLITTER.... fetish, allies, bisexual, gay, lesbian, intersex, transgender, transsexual engendering revolution or inter-racial attraction. What are you trying to say here then ? ?? Gender neutral bombs. Can't have the "Mother" of all bombs surely? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 10:07:57 GMT
What are you trying to say here then ? ?? Gender neutral bombs. Can't have the "Mother" of all bombs surely? That's clearer then |
|
|
|
Post by TrentValePotter96 on Apr 14, 2017 10:15:07 GMT
If one country ends up destroying the world it'll be America. Not Iran, North Korea, China or even Russia, it'll be America.
|
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 14, 2017 11:07:59 GMT
If one country ends up destroying the world it'll be America. Not Iran, North Korea, China or even Russia, it'll be America. Nothing is a singular event though is it? Iran are continuing to develop nuclear arms no matter what they promised Obama to lift the sanctions and are threatening to erase Israel. North Korea is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles against UN sanctions. China has a terrible human rights record, supports/controls North Korea and has a history of vetoing pretty much any UN sanctions against Russia, Iran, Syria etc. Russia is at it's most aggressive global position for decades. From assassinations to cyber terror, backing Assad and shoulder to shoulder with Iran. |
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 14, 2017 11:38:54 GMT
If one country ends up destroying the world it'll be America. Not Iran, North Korea, China or even Russia, it'll be America. Nothing is a singular event though is it? Iran are continuing to develop nuclear arms not matter what they promised Obama to lift the sanctions and threatening to erase Israel. North Korea is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles against UN sanctions. China has a terrible human rights record, supports/controls North Korea and has a history of vetoing pretty much any sanctions from the UN against Russia, Iran, Syria etc. Russia is at it's most aggressive position for decades. From assassinations to cyber terror, backing Assad and shoulder to shoulder with Iran. America continues to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs against international law, has a terrible human rights record, supports/controls all manner of unsavoury regimes like Saudi Arabia, has a history of vetoing pretty much any UN sanctions against its friends, conducts assassinations and carries out cyber terror. Should it bomb itself as well just in case?  |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 11:40:29 GMT
It seems more like a scare tactic to me aimed at north korea. It's a funny game chess, i wonder who will make a move next? Chess is about seeing the game 5+ moves ahead... America seem to want things sorted quickly and sick of playing a long game with countries like Russia, Syria and North Korea. They may see 5 moves as too many. Already Putin has been shown for what he really is. North Korea however are not as easy to deal with, and could give America so many problems if they decided to take their threat out on South Korea by dropping a nuclear bomb on them. America would be blamed and many countries would certainly turn on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 11:49:33 GMT
Nothing is a singular event though is it? Iran are continuing to develop nuclear arms not matter what they promised Obama to lift the sanctions and threatening to erase Israel. North Korea is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles against UN sanctions. China has a terrible human rights record, supports/controls North Korea and has a history of vetoing pretty much any sanctions from the UN against Russia, Iran, Syria etc. Russia is at it's most aggressive position for decades. From assassinations to cyber terror, backing Assad and shoulder to shoulder with Iran. America continues to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs against international law, has a terrible human rights record, supports/controls all manner of unsavoury regimes like Saudi Arabia, has a history of vetoing pretty much any UN sanctions against its friends, conducts assassinations and carries out cyber terror. Should it bomb itself as well just in case? I think the world on the whole is a safer place with a strong America, they are not the best but they are the best of a bad bunch. We have achieved much alongside America in the effort to fight for world peace, and we have to believe eventually it will be achieved. It may not be pretty at times, but it is with the right intentions. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 14, 2017 12:18:31 GMT
If there was a world with Europe and America or Europe, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China, I know which one I'd prefer.
Anyone who thinks that all these Nations are the same in 2017 and are heading in the same direction are truly deluded and ill informed.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Apr 14, 2017 15:00:27 GMT
America continues to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs against international law, has a terrible human rights record, supports/controls all manner of unsavoury regimes like Saudi Arabia, has a history of vetoing pretty much any UN sanctions against its friends, conducts assassinations and carries out cyber terror. Should it bomb itself as well just in case? I think the world on the whole is a safer place with a strong America, they are not the best but they are the best of a bad bunch. We have achieved much alongside America in the effort to fight for world peace, and we have to believe eventually it will be achieved. It may not be pretty at times, but it is with the right intentions. I think what you've done here is confuse "the right intentions" i.e. creating world peace, with "American intentions" i.e. creating lots of money for them. Making war is the easiest way to make money on the planet, they've been doing it for decades and is the reason why it's military commanders that largely make the important decisions over there, those decisions are then fed down to the politcians by them and the lobbies who use huge backhanders to ensure they get their wishes granted. Not as if it's any kind of trade secret. |
|
|
|
Post by manmarking on Apr 14, 2017 15:36:42 GMT
If there was a world with Europe and America or Europe, Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea and China, I know which one I'd prefer. Anyone who thinks that all these Nations are the same in 2017 and are heading in the same direction are truly deluded and ill informed. Which nations? Which direction? Do try to be less gnomic, todgie |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2017 16:16:10 GMT
I think the world on the whole is a safer place with a strong America, they are not the best but they are the best of a bad bunch. We have achieved much alongside America in the effort to fight for world peace, and we have to believe eventually it will be achieved. It may not be pretty at times, but it is with the right intentions. I think what you've done here is confuse "the right intentions" i.e. creating world peace, with "American intentions" i.e. creating lots of money for them. Making war is the easiest way to make money on the planet, they've been doing it for decades and is the reason why it's military commanders that largely make the important decisions over there, those decisions are then fed down to the politcians by them and the lobbies who use huge backhanders to ensure they get their wishes granted. Not as if it's any kind of trade secret. I think challenging/stopping countries who are using chemical weapons and countries making nuclear weapons is the right thing to do. America would walk away if others i.e china and russia stepped up and did the job instead. Although they may make money from it, it is a job that needs doing and they do have to play the part as the world police and it is something many countries benefit from. America has not put loony leaders all over the place to give them a reason to go to war have they? Without America this world would be a hostile place to live, and the stability they have bought has given many people what they would class as a good life with endless opportunities no matter what your background. Could you imagine someone like Assad in control of a country like America? They are not perfect by a long shot, but i won't begrudge them for making money from it for the work they do. |
|
|
|
Post by capto on Apr 14, 2017 16:47:02 GMT
I think what you've done here is confuse "the right intentions" i.e. creating world peace, with "American intentions" i.e. creating lots of money for them. Making war is the easiest way to make money on the planet, they've been doing it for decades and is the reason why it's military commanders that largely make the important decisions over there, those decisions are then fed down to the politcians by them and the lobbies who use huge backhanders to ensure they get their wishes granted. Not as if it's any kind of trade secret. I think challenging/stopping countries who are using chemical weapons and countries making nuclear weapons is the right thing to do. America would walk away if others i.e china and russia stepped up and did the job instead. Although they may make money from it, it is a job that needs doing and they do have to play the part as the world police and it is something many countries benefit from. America has not put loony leaders all over the place to give them a reason to go to war have they? Without America this world would be a hostile place to live, and the stability they have bought has given many people what they would class as a good life with endless opportunities no matter what your background. Could you imagine someone like Assad in control of a country like America? They are not perfect by a long shot, but i won't begrudge them for making money from it for the work they do. I'm not sure i can agree that the world is a peaceful place? USA a policeman? Policing in the US is not what I'm used to? US invades Vietnam & destabilises the region - leading to massive human loss of life in adjoining countries. US invades Iraq - ditto If you want that as a way to make money, well, that's your choice - but you can't really then argue when these countries who have been brutalised by the world police launch terror attacks in your back yard? Match of the Day: fighting the corner of the under dog and the small clubs since 1964 |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 14, 2017 17:18:37 GMT
The Yanks are by far & away the biggest danger to world peace, they're involved in every conflict taking place around the world & have been since the end of WWII (And we're usually involved, too!)
As for all this shit about Assad, I'm still to see any proof of these chemical weapons used... I'm not saying he definately didn't, but where is the proof?
|
|
|
|
Post by RichieBarkerOut! on Apr 14, 2017 18:12:54 GMT
I think what you've done here is confuse "the right intentions" i.e. creating world peace, with "American intentions" i.e. creating lots of money for them. Making war is the easiest way to make money on the planet, they've been doing it for decades and is the reason why it's military commanders that largely make the important decisions over there, those decisions are then fed down to the politcians by them and the lobbies who use huge backhanders to ensure they get their wishes granted. Not as if it's any kind of trade secret. I think challenging/stopping countries who are using chemical weapons and countries making nuclear weapons is the right thing to do. America would walk away if others i.e china and russia stepped up and did the job instead. Although they may make money from it, it is a job that needs doing and they do have to play the part as the world police and it is something many countries benefit from. America has not put loony leaders all over the place to give them a reason to go to war have they? Without America this world would be a hostile place to live, and the stability they have bought has given many people what they would class as a good life with endless opportunities no matter what your background. Could you imagine someone like Assad in control of a country like America? They are not perfect by a long shot, but i won't begrudge them for making money from it for the work they do. So you're quite sure that is was Assad that used those chemical weapons. From where I'm sitting the only thing that is certain is that many innocents were killed as part of a wider conflict. It's bad enough that you believe the stuff that comes out of the US administration in general, let alone from the proven liar that Trump is. As an aide memoir, remember the evidence of Sadam's weapons of mass destruction? |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 23, 2017 17:48:25 GMT
Aye up.
The Saudi King names his son as envoy to the US.
Let the paranoia commence :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Apr 23, 2017 17:51:36 GMT
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, I was only glancing over things earlier so I might have mis-read it, but did I see that they've been elected to the UN council of women's rights or summat? ... I'm wondering if I might be 22 days late with that one |
|
|
|
Post by numpty40 on Apr 23, 2017 18:00:30 GMT
The Yanks are by far & away the biggest danger to world peace, they're involved in every conflict taking place around the world & have been since the end of WWII (And we're usually involved, too!) As for all this shit about Assad, I'm still to see any proof of these chemical weapons used... I'm not saying he definately didn't, but where is the proof? Apparently the Intelligence experts in the UK are concerned that British jihadis returning from the Syria could smuggle sarin back as it's so freely available in Syria. That information is a bit of a concern as to who was actually responsible for releasing the chemicals that killed those poor people!! |
|
|
|
Post by Mendicant on Apr 23, 2017 18:12:15 GMT
The Yanks are by far & away the biggest danger to world peace, they're involved in every conflict taking place around the world & have been since the end of WWII (And we're usually involved, too!) As for all this shit about Assad, I'm still to see any proof of these chemical weapons used... I'm not saying he definately didn't, but where is the proof? I suspect it was a fake excuse to fire a few Tomahawks (into the side of mountains in Lebanon...). No damage to the Syrian airbase runway and very little video footage. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Apr 23, 2017 21:17:58 GMT
Speaking of Saudi Arabia, I was only glancing over things earlier so I might have mis-read it, but did I see that they've been elected to the UN council of women's rights or summat? ... I'm wondering if I might be 22 days late with that one Well this is Saudi Arabia launching a "girls' council" without any girls They were in another room on a video link apparently  ![UN Women Commision.jpg]() |
|
