|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Brits fighting Bush's war for him
#6120841 - 10/01/06 08:50 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Think Bush will ever get round to fighting his own wars for a change? Instead of leaving the Brits in the shit?
A quad bike bounces across battle-ravaged desert, the remains of three dead British soldiers lashed to its back, while a Chinook buzzes overhead.
Exhausted squaddies exchange desultory small-arms fire with an invisible enemy. An infantry unit nervously patrols a burning village.
These are the images that reveal the gritty, deadly reality of the British engagement in Afghanistan. And they have been released to the world by the angry and beleaguered troops themselves.
The pictures were captured on digital cameras over recent months by infantrymen belonging to the Battlegroup of the 3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment. For the most part, they have been sent back to Britain by e-mail, sidestepping the Government's attempts to keep the true nature of the conflict away from the public gaze.
This is a deployment that Ministers, safe in their plush Whitehall offices, have characterised as a peacekeeping mission. John Reid, now Home Secretary, notoriously predicted that the British would serve their tour of duty without a shot being fired. Visits to troops by news teams have been discouraged or stage-managed.
But these unique pictures, backed up by commentary in the e-mails, tell the truth - of savage and bloodthirsty firefights, of unremitting skirmishes with the Taliban and of shortages of ammunition and even rations.
Water has run out, so soldiers drink from disease-carrying rivers. They eat bread scrounged from Afghan troops.
Squaddies are tormented by sand flies and scorpions and are driven mad by stress. They are attacked by Taliban militiamen on motorbikes who open fire while clutching children in front of themselves.
Battles take place against a backdrop of burning villages reduced to rubble by aerial bombardment. On occasion, panic-stricken combatants have used satellite phones to call England with the harrowing message that they are about to die.
The evidence has been delivered to The Mail on Sunday by soldiers who say that their enemy is more numerous, more determined and better equipped than politicians have acknowledged. This, they say, is no peacekeeping mission. This is a new Vietnam.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/ar...e&icc=NEWS&ct=5
|
Flop Johnson
Praise Skatballah


Registered: 09/22/05
Posts: 13,789
Loc: TX
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
#6121041 - 10/01/06 11:16 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
there are only 5,000 british troops in afghanistan, as opposed to the 200,000 american soldiers.
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Flop Johnson]
#6121054 - 10/01/06 11:28 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
actually their isnt 200,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan, probably only about 9,000 to 12,000.
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: The_Red_Crayon]
#6121213 - 10/01/06 12:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There are 20,000 US Troops in Afghanistan according to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5339530.stm
Also, under the new negotiated agreement, 12,000 of those US soldiers will now fall under NATO's command in order to help meet security needs in troubled areas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5392988.stm
So, yeah, the US clearly isn't "leaving the Brits" to fight anything.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
#6122668 - 10/01/06 09:27 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Bush's" war? How soon we forget.
The Afghanistan incursion is a UN deal. The UN approved it, a UN-backed coalition (admittedly made up pretty much exclusively of NATO members) of UN member nations is prosecuting it, the UN arranged and supervised the elections. Hell, even Canada is involved, fa cryin' out loud.
Since when does "Bush" equal "UN"?
Phred
--------------------
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
#6123294 - 10/02/06 02:22 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Economist said: There are 20,000 US Troops in Afghanistan according to the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5339530.stm
Also, under the new negotiated agreement, 12,000 of those US soldiers will now fall under NATO's command in order to help meet security needs in troubled areas: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5392988.stm
So, yeah, the US clearly isn't "leaving the Brits" to fight anything.
Afghanistan is a big place. There's no point having 20,000 troops in Afghanistan if they arn't stationed where the fighting is.
Edit: And I hate to say it but what good do you think 12,000 troops can do in an area the size of Afghanistan?
Edited by Alex213 (10/02/06 02:29 AM)
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Phred]
#6123299 - 10/02/06 02:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: "Bush's" war? How soon we forget.
The Afghanistan incursion is a UN deal.
Phred
Not really. It's an american deal. They were able to take the UN along with them in this case.
Do you seriously believe the UN would have invaded Afghanistan without America?
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Phred]
#6124315 - 10/02/06 12:44 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
It always amuses me when right wingers invoke the UN in their discussion. When 99% of the time those same people can barely let the "UN" escape their lips without being ever-so closely followed by a slanderous remark.
And yes, the will of the most powerful nation on earth does equal the will of the UN. And the very few times they try to act against the US the right will bleat on and on about how worthless they are. Which is it? Are they are buddies or are they worthless no buddies?
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
#6124401 - 10/02/06 01:01 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex213 said: Afghanistan is a big place. There's no point having 20,000 troops in Afghanistan if they arn't stationed where the fighting is.
Edit: And I hate to say it but what good do you think 12,000 troops can do in an area the size of Afghanistan?
But then the headline shouldn't be "Brits fighting Bush's war for him..." but rather "Brits send too few troops to Afghanistan, do shoddy job..."
At the end of the day the US is fighting the war in Afghanistan every bit as much as Britain is. The difference is that the US has done a lot of this sort of thing before, they've worked out logistics, and signed agreements with central Asian governments for use of military bases/logistical support.
The Brits haven't done nearly as much of this, and they're having a hard time as a result. The transfer of 12,000 US troops to NATO command will probably make a bigger difference in terms of support and logistics than the total number of boots available to NATO planners, and support/logistics is where the British are hurting now.
On the UN: When has the UN done anything with US support? Do you think any of the initial operations in Haiti, Somalia, or even Rwanda would have ever happened without the US?
And what happens when the US isn't interested? Rwandan genocide goes unchecked, no one does anything about Darfur, etc.
As much as they claim otherwise, when it comes to peacekeeping, the US = the UN.
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs



Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 6 months, 28 days
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
#6124485 - 10/02/06 01:17 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
#6127171 - 10/03/06 12:29 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
But then the headline shouldn't be "Brits fighting Bush's war for him..." but rather "Brits send too few troops to Afghanistan, do shoddy job..."
How many troops do you think Britain has? We havn't got enough money to properly equip the troops already there never mind sending more. If you want us to fight your war for you then send us more money and equipment.
At the end of the day the US is fighting the war in Afghanistan every bit as much as Britain is.
Then where are the american troops? I'm afraid 12,000 isn't going to even remotely do the job. Put 200-300,000 on the ground and there may be a tiny chance of making progress.
And what happens when the US isn't interested?
What happens? Blair goes to fight the war for them. That's why we're dying in Afghanistan while Bush has forgotten about it to invade Iraq.
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
#6129579 - 10/03/06 05:50 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ahh bollocks to it, bring em all home and have a UK v US war. Now that'd be some serious fun.
(Alex213) - "How many troops do you think Britain has? We havn't got enough money to properly equip the troops already there never mind sending more. If you want us to fight your war for you then send us more money and equipment" - Lol, USA is borrowing money from Mexico to relieve it's debt..... Kinda says it all.
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6129616 - 10/03/06 06:02 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xenophobic said: Ahh bollocks to it, bring em all home and have a UK v US war. Now that'd be some serious fun.
Nah, we've nuked islands before, you sort of lose the passion for it over time...
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Schwammel
Auk

Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: fireworks_god]
#6129650 - 10/03/06 06:10 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
haha
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: fireworks_god]
#6129666 - 10/03/06 06:18 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The Japs had no nukes, and that was bang out of order, those poor kids.... but anyways we're the only country who has ever destroyed your so called "White House", burned it to the ground. Remember? And we got as many nukes as you, oh and I think the old bag (Queen) commands over 41 million troops worldwide is it (might be 61 million, one of the two)? Gees even Canada would kick your arse. lol. Let's be nice now....
Anyways this aint some "we're better than you" discussion, all yanks are europeans unless you're a red indian or grew out the ground like a mushroom (lol) with white skin.
P.S - Fireworks_God.... that's why Hawaii refuses to remove the UK flag, at the request of any US president. They know what side their bread's buttered.
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
Edited by Xenophobic (10/03/06 06:38 PM)
|
Economist
in training


Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
#6129776 - 10/03/06 06:57 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex213 said: How many troops do you think Britain has? We havn't got enough money to properly equip the troops already there never mind sending more. If you want us to fight your war for you then send us more money and equipment.
What about all those British troops in Iraq?
As for money/equipment, that's not the fault of the US. If Britain wanted to deploy overseas, the US wasn't going to ask them "Are you sure you're ready for it?"
The real question you need to be asking is why British Military commanders told the British government that they were capable of deploying overseas, when this clearly wasn't the case.
Quote:
Alex213 said: Then where are the american troops? I'm afraid 12,000 isn't going to even remotely do the job. Put 200-300,000 on the ground and there may be a tiny chance of making progress.
America has 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, WAY more than Britain. American troops also aren't complaining about a lack of supplies and air support in Afghanistan, nor are American troops complaining about losing ground.
American troops have also carried out several successful offensives in the past year, so it's bull to claim they're "not fighting".
The real question is, why did Britain say they were capable of deploying when they clearly didn't have the logistical infrastructure to do so?
Quote:
Alex213 said: What happens? Blair goes to fight the war for them. That's why we're dying in Afghanistan while Bush has forgotten about it to invade Iraq.
Right, because Blair didn't redirect any troops to Iraq...
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
#6129882 - 10/03/06 07:24 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Any war with United Kingdom would raise armies from across the world... to protect the Queen, Head of State of....
Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas Barbados Belize British Antartic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Canada Falkland Islands Fiji Grenada Jamaica Jersey Guernsey New Zealand Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Islands Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Solomon Islands South Sandwich Islands Tuvalu United Kingdom And more that I cant be arsed to list....
Total army combined is in excess of over 230,000,000 military personnel. That was was my point. As compared to United States 54,000,000 military personnel. Hence USA always asking the UK for help in wars.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere fast. End of.
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
|
snoopaloop53
No BetterFriend. NoWorse Friend.

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 311
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6130160 - 10/03/06 08:36 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xenophobic said: Any war with United Kingdom would raise armies from across the world... to protect the Queen, Head of State of....
Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas Barbados Belize British Antartic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Canada Falkland Islands Fiji Grenada Jamaica Jersey Guernsey New Zealand Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Islands Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Solomon Islands South Sandwich Islands Tuvalu United Kingdom And more that I cant be arsed to list....
Total army combined is in excess of over 230,000,000 military personnel. That was was my point. As compared to United States 54,000,000 military personnel. Hence USA always asking the UK for help in wars.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere fast. End of.
The UK would beat the USA with that? You're so funny!
|
Schwammel
Auk

Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: snoopaloop53]
#6130180 - 10/03/06 08:41 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
the tony blair brits?
or the hungry chaps selling their souls?
they got no economy, no souls, no empire
and no money...
Waht else are they gonna do!!!!
we'll leave them as broke as we found them...
tony kissass
they'll do anything we say
Edited by Schwammel (10/03/06 08:54 PM)
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6130791 - 10/03/06 10:55 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The UK needs the US just as much as the US needs the UK. They both prop each other up and now they're bringing china into the fold. If one falls they all fall, the US would fall much harder though, as we have more to loose.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Schwammel
Auk

Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: RosettaStoned]
#6130849 - 10/03/06 11:12 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
we got bombers that fly outta the hills of .....
that can deleiver a payload anywhere
the brits doen't even have a runway long enough
|
Alex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Economist]
#6131370 - 10/04/06 05:20 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
What about all those British troops in Iraq?
But wouldn't Bush mind Blair pulling out of Iraq?
If Britain wanted to deploy overseas, the US wasn't going to ask them "Are you sure you're ready for it?"
It might have been nice if they asked tho - before sending all their troops to Iraq and leaving us in the shit. After all, you invaded Afghanistan in the first place.
Bush started the job, why should we be expected to finish it? The Soviet Union couldn't subdue Afghanistan - 3000 brits sure ain't gonna do it.
The real question you need to be asking is why British Military commanders told the British government that they were capable of deploying overseas, when this clearly wasn't the case.
I think it was far more a political dicision than a military one. Certainly the military commanders are now realising they have nowhere near enough troops or equipment. We're begging NATO for help but they sensibly see it's a lost cause and arn't sending anywhere near enough.
America has 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, WAY more than Britain
Yeah but clearly 20,000 isn't enough. It's no use having 20,000 americans in Kabul while the Taliban are kicking shit out of the Brits down in the Helmand province.
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Alex213]
#6132162 - 10/04/06 12:16 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The UK ruled Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Palistine, Iran, Syria. Including many others in that region along time ago. All were granted indepedance and now they moan because they are poor and start silly unofficial wars. About time we moved back in and took over sovereignty.
Fact is if UK and US went to war, you know you'd lose. Even the CIA World Factbook (available online) states that Europe has a population much larger than the United States and way more firepower combined. That conversation is getting boring now though.
As an earlier poster said, it's in both our interests to remain together rather than distance ourselves. Put your flag away and stop talking patriotic nonsense. If the USA came under attack from a country, the UK would be first there and vice versa, (Apart from you in the Falklands War when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, and you remained "neutral", pfft, so we did it ourselves even though we were on the other side of the world, ten times further than you were).
Now can we move on.... before North Korea tests a nuclear bomb & US & UK have to yet again threaten them. Seeing as the rest of the world is scared. *yawn*
P.S.
To: Schwammel - Cyprus Bases, Indian Ocean Bases, Australian Bases & a few Canadian Bases are leased to the USA from the UK. So that kinda shoots your "hill" philosophy out the water. Plus we have plenty of hills
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
Edited by Xenophobic (10/04/06 01:04 PM)
|
barfightlard
tales of theinexpressible



Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6132177 - 10/04/06 12:22 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Don't count out Canada. We have a bad ass row boat with a mounted machine gun. One boat to rule the seas!!!!!!!!
--------------------
"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: barfightlard]
#6132205 - 10/04/06 12:27 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
lol, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK is all one. Start on one, and you're in deep shit. Gotta laugh at the rowing boat thing though lol, hey we had a rowing boat in UK too but one of our oars broke, so we keep going in circles now. 
So the Royal Navy bought a Raft tied with string from some Mexican and it came with metal oars! It even has a catapult on the front to throw rocks at ships.
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: snoopaloop53]
#6132277 - 10/04/06 12:44 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
snoopaloop53 said:
Quote:
Xenophobic said: Any war with United Kingdom would raise armies from across the world... to protect the Queen, Head of State of....
Antigua and Barbuda Australia Bahamas Barbados Belize British Antartic Territory British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Canada Falkland Islands Fiji Grenada Jamaica Jersey Guernsey New Zealand Papua New Guinea Pitcairn Islands Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Solomon Islands South Sandwich Islands Tuvalu United Kingdom And more that I cant be arsed to list....
Total army combined is in excess of over 230,000,000 military personnel. That was was my point. As compared to United States 54,000,000 military personnel. Hence USA always asking the UK for help in wars.
Anyway, this conversation is going nowhere fast. End of.
The UK would beat the USA with that? You're so funny!
"Queen Elizabeth II is the most powerful head of state in the world" - Wikipedia
It sure would be funny seeing as you couldn't even fight off a small island like Japan without dropping 2 Atomic bombs.... and laughing as the the children/elderly got blown to pieces. Got your clean underwear ready?
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
Edited by Xenophobic (10/04/06 12:59 PM)
|
barfightlard
tales of theinexpressible



Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6132396 - 10/04/06 01:15 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Xenophobic said: we had a rowing boat in UK too but one of our oars broke, so we keep going in circles now
No, you just put a cover on top of it and sold it to Canada telling us they were submarines.
--------------------
"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger

Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6132951 - 10/04/06 03:54 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As an earlier poster said, it's in both our interests to remain together rather than distance ourselves. Put your flag away and stop talking patriotic nonsense. If the USA came under attack from a country, the UK would be first there and vice versa, (Apart from you in the Falklands War when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, and you remained "neutral", pfft, so we did it ourselves even though we were on the other side of the world, ten times further than you were).
Whoa there buddy. You are clearly not getting what I was saying. For 1 I am the furthest thing from a flag waving patriot as you will find. I am saying that the UK and the US are both feeding off each other. A very large portion of the british income is from the US, would you even begin to deny that? If the US falls we are taking you with us, and europe too don't kid yourself. Granted you guys will recover alot sooner than we would, but we are far too connected to think all will be roses in europe if the US falls.
As to my personal opinion the US govt does not represent my feelings or opinions and if anything they are the greatest oppressor to ever exist on the planet. The UK is no great shining light either, though the people of the UK certainly seem more grounded in reality than americans but your govt is just as fucked up as ours.
-------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
|
Xenophobic
Stranger

Registered: 05/24/03
Posts: 573
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: RosettaStoned]
#6133208 - 10/04/06 05:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Whoaahh, hold your horses. I totally agree. Think we got our wires crossed somewhere with meanings being misinterpreted as other meanings. US & UK Rule anyway, no doubt there..... let's leave it at that.
barfight... you crack me up, lol @ submarine....
-------------------- Only will man realise, when he cuts down the last tree, that he cannot eat money
|
snoopaloop53
No BetterFriend. NoWorse Friend.

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 311
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
Re: Brits fighting Bush's war for him [Re: Xenophobic]
#6133933 - 10/04/06 08:44 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Queen Elizabeth II is the most powerful head of state in the world" - Wikipedia
It sure would be funny seeing as you couldn't even fight off a small island like Japan without dropping 2 Atomic bombs.... and laughing as the the children/elderly got blown to pieces. Got your clean underwear ready?
shoot, serves them little slant eyed bastards right after they sucker punched us with one of those crazy hi-yah moves at Pearl Harbor
|
|