Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-13-2006, 09:30 PM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Back on topic... :P

I think the proliferation of weapons is a serious issue. Nukes, of course, but also rocket launchers, land mines, automatic weapons...

Eisenhower's "military and industrial complex"...
__________________

__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 01:01 AM   #22
Full time employment: Posting here.
bosco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 987
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
You're right. I suppose it's the bigger stick theory: He who has the bigger stick gets to make the rules. (Doesn't necessarily make it "legal" however).

But perhaps we should also ask if we have a moral basis to do so. Do we have a moral obligation to prevent our people from being annihilated by our enemies?

We certainly have a strategic need to do so.
one could argue that the moral position would be to oppose possession of nuclear weapons by all nations.

I realize that pragmatically that is an unlikely scenario. However, if being moral is the goal of the US, perhaps a start would be adapting a no first-use policy like many other nuclear nations. Maybe an apology for nuking civilians in Japan would also be an appropriate gesture.

It's really tough to exert moral leadership on the topic of proliferation when you sit on the biggest arsenal in the world, have actually used it on civilian populations, and will not foreswear first use of the damn things in the future. A bit too much of the "do as I say, not as I do." Not usually a position that garners a lot of respect.
__________________

__________________
I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.
bosco is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 06:59 AM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosco
Maybe an apology for nuking civilians in Japan would also be an appropriate gesture.
There were other things in your post I disagree with, but I can't let this one go. Japan attacked us without provocation. Which, by the way, resulted in fewer deaths than the 9-11 attacks. They fought like fanatics, throughout the entire Pacific campaign. It was this ferocity that led the leadership to weigh the use of nuclear weapons. Would it be more humane to nuke a couple cities and kill civilians or risk a long land and sea battle that would cost more lives on both the Japanese side and our side? The long land battle would most likely result in civilian casualties anyway. So to sum up the choices 1) use two nuclear bombs that will definitely kill civilians and demonstrate the devastating power we possess in hopes the Japanese capitulate or 2) save the guaranteed civilian casualties and fight a long expensive, in money and lives, land battle, that will probably result in many civilian deaths anyway. I think we made the correct choice. An argument can be made that the use of the nuke in Japan resulted in ours and the Russians reluctance to use them later during the cold war.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 07:09 AM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Ed_The_Gypsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the City of Subdued Excitement
Posts: 5,292
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Be aware that
1) an embargo is an act of war, and
2) it didn't work very well when we tried it on Iraq.

__________________
my bumpersticker:
"I am not in a hurry.
I am retired.
And I don't care how big your truck is."
Ed_The_Gypsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 09:08 AM   #25
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
saluki9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,032
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosco


I'm all in favor of economic and other pressures to discourage them. But I guess I'd like to understand why Iran may not have nukes but Israel can.
Israel's large stockpile is likely the only thing stopping the millions of angry muslims surrounding them from invading. I would argue that they deserve nukes more that any other nation out there.

As for Iran, I look at it this way. I'm a die hard second amendment type. I love my guns, yet I support not allowing convicted fellons to own guns why? Because they have proven themselves unable to live peacfully. I think the same goes for Iran. At every opportunity they have proven themselves (thanks to a very small % of their population) unable to play nicely.

__________________
saluki9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 09:32 AM   #26
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 699
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by saluki9
As for Iran, I look at it this way. I'm a die hard second amendment type. I love my guns, yet I support not allowing convicted fellons to own guns why? Because they have proven themselves unable to live peacfully. I think the same goes for Iran. At every opportunity they have proven themselves (thanks to a very small % of their population) unable to play nicely.
Ok, that sounds like it could possibly form the kernel of some kind of coherent international policy. But why stop at nukes? Should Iran be allowed submarines? An air force? How do you draw the line between what they (or anybody else -- including your own country) can decide they need for self-defense and what the international community can legitimately forbid?
__________________
bpp is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 10:16 AM   #27
Full time employment: Posting here.
bosco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 987
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire
There were other things in your post I disagree with, but I can't let this one go. Japan attacked us without provocation. Which, by the way, resulted in fewer deaths than the 9-11 attacks. They fought like fanatics, throughout the entire Pacific campaign. It was this ferocity that led the leadership to weigh the use of nuclear weapons. Would it be more humane to nuke a couple cities and kill civilians or risk a long land and sea battle that would cost more lives on both the Japanese side and our side?
these are weighty questions. But regardless of their answer, a precedent was set. Nuking civilian populations is apparently an acceptable way to prosecute a war.

My point was not to claim that WWII was unjust or Japan was right. My point was that once you have nuked civilians, it becomes understandably much more difficult to attempt to gain the high moral ground in a proliferation debate.

As for what was more "humane", I refuse to accept that civilians are acceptable military targets, nukes or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the major argument about terrorism? That they kill innocent civilians? They probably believe that by killing a "few" Americans, that they will save lots of Muslims, or at least Muslim souls. So they believe their killing is moral also. Well.....let's practice what we preach. Is the offense that civilians are targeted, or is the offense that the killing is done by a non-government entity? It would appear from your argument that killing civilians in ok, even moral, so long as it is done by your government. After all, they were fanatical Japs.... After all, it saved lives. But it's completely immoral if you don't do it as a government action. Never mind that (if you're Palestinian) one of your major beefs might be that you aren't allowed control the land to form a government.

Which brings me to another question....how is what went on in the American West different from what is going on today in Darfur in the Sudan? (ducking). My point being, that as Americans if we want to be moral leaders (as opposed to bullies), we might start by owning our own less-than-stellar history.
__________________
I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.
bosco is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 10:57 AM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosco
My point was not to claim that WWII was unjust or Japan was right. My point was that once you have nuked civilians, it becomes understandably much more difficult to attempt to gain the high moral ground in a proliferation debate.

As for what was more "humane", I refuse to accept that civilians are acceptable military targets, nukes or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the major argument about terrorism? That they kill innocent civilians? They probably believe that by killing a "few" Americans, that they will save lots of Muslims, or at least Muslim souls. So they believe their killing is moral also. Well.....let's practice what we preach. Is the offense that civilians are targeted, or is the offense that the killing is done by a non-government entity? It would appear from your argument that killing civilians in ok, even moral, so long as it is done by your government. After all, they were fanatical Japs.... After all, it saved lives. But it's completely immoral if you don't do it as a government action. Never mind that (if you're Palestinian) one of your major beefs might be that you aren't allowed control the land to form a government.

Which brings me to another question....how is what went on in the American West different from what is going on today in Darfur in the Sudan? (ducking). My point being, that as Americans if we want to be moral leaders (as opposed to bullies), we might start by owning our own less-than-stellar history.
Your 2006 view does not translate well into what was happening in the 1940's. The decision to use nukes was taken based on the knowledge and experience of WWII. During that war many civilians were killed. There were whole cities destroyed by bombs, I'll bet many civilians were killed during those runs. It happens. It is war, it is called collateral damage. The costs of collateral damage is weighed against the benefits of destroying the target of military significance.

So we own up to our less than stellar past. Then what are our actions we say, "Well your right we did have slavery so we can't hold you in contempt because you have them." I'd say we have looked at what we have done and tried to correct what we could. I think saying sorry to the Japanese for using a nuke on them is a poor way to start. How do you phrase it, "I'm sorry you snuck up and attacked us without provocation, and fought so fanatically that we felt the horror of sending land troops to kill and be killed was for to great for either of our nations so we bombed two of your cities with nuclear weapons."

The last time I checked we were going about our business when two of our civilian use buildings were attacked WITHOUT provocation. What is the military gain form attacking these buildings? None, absolutely nothing. That is the difference between a military strike and a terrorist attack. The terrorist does it for terror not a valid military objective. Looked at through the military significance of the target I'd say the dropping the nukes were a very good decision. It ended the war and saved the lives of many people on both sides.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 10:57 AM   #29
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosco
these are weighty questions. But regardless of their answer, a precedent was set. Nuking civilian populations is apparently an acceptable way to prosecute a war.

My point was not to claim that WWII was unjust or Japan was right. My point was that once you have nuked civilians, it becomes understandably much more difficult to attempt to gain the high moral ground in a proliferation debate.

As for what was more "humane", I refuse to accept that civilians are acceptable military targets, nukes or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the major argument about terrorism? That they kill innocent civilians? They probably believe that by killing a "few" Americans, that they will save lots of Muslims, or at least Muslim souls. So they believe their killing is moral also. Well.....let's practice what we preach. Is the offense that civilians are targeted, or is the offense that the killing is done by a non-government entity? It would appear from your argument that killing civilians in ok, even moral, so long as it is done by your government. After all, they were fanatical Japs.... After all, it saved lives. But it's completely immoral if you don't do it as a government action. Never mind that (if you're Palestinian) one of your major beefs might be that you aren't allowed control the land to form a government.

Which brings me to another question....how is what went on in the American West different from what is going on today in Darfur in the Sudan? (ducking). My point being, that as Americans if we want to be moral leaders (as opposed to bullies), we might start by owning our own less-than-stellar history.
Bosco

Good god man you have just made my thread!!

This one of the best responses I have read anyplace about the subject.
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 10:59 AM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire
Your 2006 view does not translate well into what was happening in the 1940's. The decision to use nukes was taken based on the knowledge and experience of WWII. During that war many civilians were killed. There were whole cities destroyed by bombs, I'll bet many civilians were killed during those runs. It happens. It is war, it is called collateral damage. The costs of collateral damage is weighed against the benefits of destroying the target of military significance.

So we own up to our less than stellar past. Then what are our actions we say, "Well your right we did have slavery so we can't hold you in contempt because you have them." I'd say we have looked at what we have done and tried to correct what we could. I think saying sorry to the Japanese for using a nuke on them is a poor way to start. How do you phrase it, "I'm sorry you snuck up and attacked us without provocation, and fought so fanatically that we felt the horror of sending land troops to kill and be killed was for to great for either of our nations so we bombed two of your cities with nuclear weapons."

The last time I checked we were going about our business when two of our civilian use buildings were attacked WITHOUT provocation. What is the military gain form attacking these buildings? None, absolutely nothing. That is the difference between a military strike and a terrorist attack. The terrorist does it for terror not a valid military objective. Looked at through the military significance of the target I'd say the dropping the nukes were a very good decision. It ended the war and saved the lives of many people on both sides.

Saddam did not attack those buildings. A guy STILL FREE did it . That IS one of the reasons I have a problem with the president.
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 11:04 AM   #31
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

I never comented on Iraq, did I? :
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 03:45 PM   #32
Full time employment: Posting here.
bosco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 987
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire
Your 2006 view does not translate well into what was happening in the 1940's. The decision to use nukes was taken based on the knowledge and experience of WWII. During that war many civilians were killed. There were whole cities destroyed by bombs, I'll bet many civilians were killed during those runs. It happens. It is war, it is called collateral damage. The costs of collateral damage is weighed against the benefits of destroying the target of military significance.
what's the statute of limitations on immoral acts? What happened since the 1940s that made targeting civilians moral? And since when does someone else's immorality justify a response in kind?

We all understand there is "collateral damage" during a war. I think most of us also realize that it's not collatoral if civilians are THE TARGET. It is something more akin to state-sponsored terrorism. Terrorism as a concept means nothing if it's called something else just because you are in agreement with that side. If we don't like them, they are terrorists. If we like them, they are Contras, or freedom fighters, or some such rubbish. It gets a bit akward when the same group is involved (i.e. mujahadeen, who we supported, then didn't). The significance of the Taliban in Afganistan, whom the US supported as a means of giving Russia a black eye, seems to be lost on many Americans. The fact the the US did so much to further the cause of radical Islam is a bitter irony. I guess the Commies must have been even worse.

The purpose of the nuclear strike in Japan was to demoralize, and for that reason a civilian location was deliberately selected. If this is acceptable military behavior, then so be it. But then let's not lecture others for chosing civilian targets when they are at war. You can't have it both ways.
__________________
I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.
bosco is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 03:55 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosco
what's the statute of limitations on immoral acts? What happened since the 1940s that made targeting civilians moral? And since when does someone else's immorality justify a response in kind?

We all understand there is "collateral damage" during a war. I think most of us also realize that it's not collatoral if civilians are THE TARGET. It is something more akin to state-sponsored terrorism. Terrorism as a concept means nothing if it's called something else just because you are in agreement with that side. If we don't like them, they are terrorists. If we like them, they are Contras, or freedom fighters, or some such rubbish. It gets a bit akward when the same group is involved (i.e. mujahadeen, who we supported, then didn't). The significance of the Taliban in Afganistan, whom the US supported as a means of giving Russia a black eye, seems to be lost on many Americans. The fact the the US did so much to further the cause of radical Islam is a bitter irony. I guess the Commies must have been even worse.

The purpose of the nuclear strike in Japan was to demoralize, and for that reason a civilian location was deliberately selected. If this is acceptable military behavior, then so be it. But then let's not lecture others for chosing civilian targets when they are at war. You can't have it both ways.
bosco,

What are your thoughts, given where we are now, on how we should proceed in regard to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, surviving/living with terrorism, and that sort of thing?

I've been following along with you guys, but suddenly you were debating WWII issues, and I'd like to hear your thought about going on from here. I think I understand your feelings about how things are. How do you think we should proceed?
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 04:23 PM   #34
Full time employment: Posting here.
bosco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 987
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet
bosco,

What are your thoughts, given where we are now, on how we should proceed in regard to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, surviving/living with terrorism, and that sort of thing?
I wish I had the answers. I wish somebody had them..

My personal belief is that refusing to talk to Iran has been a mistake. I think a dialog can not hurt and I don't understand Bush's refusal to do so. I have no problem with international embargos etc., but I still am curious as to the legal reasoning behind Iran's being told they may not develop nukes. I'm not a lawyer, though.

I think a lot of fuel on the terrorism fire would be removed if some sort of middle-east settlement between Israel and Palestine could occur. I don't think this will happen without the US being far more impartial in that mess than it has been. I don't think Bush has done much to help here, but in fairness to him, smarter presidents tried and failed. However, even a settlement in the middle east would not end terrorism, just remove some fuel IMO.

I would like to see the US be more willing to work through the auspices of the UN. That involves a shift in national psyche, and a willingness to give more weight to the opinions of allies rather than making comments about "old Europe" and just trying to manipulate them. In other words, a higher value ascribed to diplomacy rather than military solutions. Although sometimes military solutions are necessary. I don't think anybody was opposed to invading Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the job was never finished.

Living with terrorism....that's a tough one. I don't know the answer, but I do know that we run the risk of becoming like those we oppose if we allow terrorism dictate our legal and constitutional system. Statistically, we should be more worried about living with traffic. I think we have to try to put the problem into perspcetive.

I fear that we have irreconcilable differences with radical Islam. Therefore, it seems to me the smartest thing we can do is to try to work with other governments (and especially those in the middle east) to marginalize this type of thinking rather than going out of our way to give it a cause to rally around.

just my $.02, and barely worth that.
__________________
I have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.
bosco is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 07:48 PM   #35
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 77
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick

But perhaps we should also ask if we have a moral basis to do so. Do we have a moral obligation to prevent our people from being annihilated by our enemies?

We certainly have a strategic need to do so.
Who is annihilating whom. The last time I checked, the United States of America had done most of the annihilation. Let's not get carried away with the propaganda and mind control tactics the powers that be use to have us believe that we are under attack every day. Our country presents the greatest danger to others. Let's be real.
__________________
ADJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 07:52 PM   #36
Full time employment: Posting here.
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern, Florida
Posts: 925
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by ADJ
Who is annihilating whom. The last time I checked, the United States of America had done most of the annihilation. Let's not get carried away with the propaganda and mind control tactics the powers that be use to have us believe that we are under attack every day. Our country presents the greatest danger to others. Let's be real.
Read the whole thread. I'm talking about Iran's soon-to-be (unless someone stops them) nuclear weapons capability. And don't believe they won't use it when they get it. Sheesh. :
__________________
Retired in 2006 at age 49.

"Who among us is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others?" - Voltaire
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 07:58 PM   #37
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,119
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick
Read the whole thread. I'm talking about Iran's soon-to-be (unless someone stops them) nuclear weapons capability. And don't believe they won't use it when they get it. Sheesh. :
Again I wonder, lets see Iran gets a nuke uses the nuke, Iran then does not exist anymore.

the whole thing seems absurd.
__________________
newguy88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 08:07 PM   #38
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 77
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire
They fought like fanatics, throughout the entire Pacific campaign. It was this ferocity that led the leadership to weigh the use of nuclear weapons. Would it be more humane to nuke a couple cities and kill civilians or risk a long land and sea battle that would cost more lives on both the Japanese side and our side? The long land battle would most likely result in civilian casualties anyway. So to sum up the choices 1) use two nuclear bombs that will definitely kill civilians and demonstrate the devastating power we possess in hopes the Japanese capitulate or 2) save the guaranteed civilian casualties and fight a long expensive, in money and lives, land battle, that will probably result in many civilian deaths anyway. I think we made the correct choice. An argument can be made that the use of the nuke in Japan resulted in ours and the Russians reluctance to use them later during the cold war.
This is the argument that's always used to justify this cowardly and evil act. One can argue that Germany deserved it and not Japan but somehow they were able to convince themselves that the yellow people deserved it more. Bitter wars have always been fought and many lives lost but the nuking of innocent civilians to the tune of millions can never never ever be justified under any scenario. I can think of many many countries the US attacked unprovoked under the guise of protecting their interest?. Does this justify an attack on the innocent American civilian in return. I always content that Americans do not vehemently oppose wars because they don't really understand the suffering of people in war. It's easy when it's happening to other people to turn the other cheek.

__________________
ADJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 08:07 PM   #39
Full time employment: Posting here.
Patrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern, Florida
Posts: 925
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy888
Again I wonder, lets see Iran gets a nuke uses the nuke, Iran then does not exist anymore.

the whole thing seems absurd.
So you are willing to trust these nutcases to not use it? Didn't you start this thread saying we needed a draft for a 500K man army to stop them? I agree with Nords, you are a troll.
__________________
Retired in 2006 at age 49.

"Who among us is smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others?" - Voltaire
Patrick is offline   Reply With Quote
Re: Isolating Iran Funny
Old 11-14-2006, 08:08 PM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Re: Isolating Iran Funny

Quote:
Originally Posted by bosco
Which brings me to another question....how is what went on in the American West different from what is going on today in Darfur in the Sudan? (ducking). My point being, that as Americans if we want to be moral leaders (as opposed to bullies), we might start by owning our own less-than-stellar history.
How are those Canadian indigenous people doing? I don't think they are running Canada ,are they? I think their land was stolen, too. Give it back, you plaid-wearing imperialist thugs!
__________________

__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Iran the british navy and what should be done. newguy88 Other topics 80 04-05-2007 03:06 PM
Iran is almost on double-secret probation now! mickeyd Other topics 8 12-24-2006 10:36 AM
Iran and Nukes Papi Other topics 29 05-19-2006 11:25 AM
Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons Craig Other topics 23 02-10-2006 09:21 PM
Funny Car Ad TromboneAl Other topics 2 07-01-2005 09:21 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.