http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292487,00.html
hey, it's fox news, granted, but I found this interesting. He gets to some interesting ideas towards the end, like the fines idea.
That was actually a breath of fresh air!
Lol. I thought that was pretty funny, though things have to be pretty bad for someone to say (I might be paraphrasing here,) "Please, nuke my country. It would make my day."
Though the idea of taking away the financial incentive behind being terrorists is probably a decently solid idea. The problem will come in with people who are "suspected" of ties, then the whole fiasco starts all over again.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v436/Kvar/problemsolved.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1781/problemsolvedrf3.jpg[/IMG]
That's a little more what it would look like.
Zeta's was funnier. You left out the AIDS in Africa, too.
Wasn't really trying to be funny. :D
Naw, they're all dead and mutated.
So they're zombies.
MY GO-
So what? Europe is basically worthless anyway.
As is the human race.
And we prove it all the time.
Still, we are all here.
Zombies in Africa? RE5 anyone?
[quote=The Judge;686013]I see no drawback.
This is perfect.
Especially the mutation in the Arabian Sea and the concept of Russia being hit by a nuke to Iraq.
FINE, BUT YOU CAN KISS DOCTOR WHO GOODBYE.
Sure ..... whatever country we disagree with ... nuke them . If they threaten us ... nuke them . If they withhold oil .... Nuke them ... If any of them survive .. nuke them again .. if anyone objects to the nukings ... nuke them too .
Why can't we deal with it peacefully ?
way to not read the article or the thread, asshat
hmm no wonder people dont want to stay here with jerkwads like you posting here.
[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;741133]way to not read the article or the thread, asshat
Of course I read the article. One of the first things the Iraqi translator suggests as a solution to solve the violence is to "nuke Iraq" after they got the "good people" out or whatever. Then he went off and said to Charge money to the families of insurgents.. And I beleive that could well be what he wants, nuke the place then fine the hell outta people who survived the blast that could be related to the insurgents.
[quote=S
Reading comprehension is not your forte then. Read it again.
maybe I should explain that by "Iraqi translator" it means TRANSLATOR OF IRAQI DESCENT? That's why there's a hoopla here. Someone who actually LIVES there is tired of the BS and said "nuke Iraq". You're using all this terminology like "nuke them" "they don't agree with US nuke THEM" etc, so it's obvious that you didn't read the article or the thread OR you're a bumbling moron. Which is it? Oh, you claim you DID read the article and the thread. well that answers that.
hey, can't say he's alone their. When I get sick of hearing idiot bush supporters speak about the war, I too wish a nuke would just fall right out of the sky and blow my country to pieces.
getting rid of morons like you is almost worth it. almost.
If it would rid me of hearing the stupidaty of misdirected idealists who can't tolerate the notion of possibly not understanding every aspect of a situation, yet continue to use their fear as a basis for the right decisions, then yes. I, the moron, also would find it worth it too. Almost.
kind of like morons who would defend censorship and fascist ideals with pseudo-intellectual horse garbage that they heard in only the finest poorly spelled, second grade rhetoric? Don't insult others' intelligence if you're going to do it poorly, Mein Fuhrer.
...so, by dissagreeing with other people's opnions, I'm for censorship, fascisim, and psudeo intellectual garbage. Attack my credability through spelling if you so desire, but you're promoting censorship by telling me what I can or can't say, and that's what makes your particular argument on intelligence poor, for me.
We obivously dissagree in politics. I Agree to dissagree, but can't we agree that arguing on an internet medium would just make us both look like asses?
I'm not trying to censor you, I'm saying that wanting to nuke your entire country because of the existence of opinions with which you don't agree makes you a censor-wanting dickhole. I'm saying that you are a moron for believing that, but I think you have a right to your poorly expressed opinions. I'm insulting your intelligence, not promoting censorship. I don't want you to be vaporized by an atomic bomb or anything. . . you can say I'm promoting censorship by calling you a *******, sure, but I would highly suggest you never pursue higher education, because you'll be "censored" left and right. And if you think arguing on the internet makes one an ***, then why do you continue to, ya know, ARGUE? That stupid crack is the biggest, most overused and lowbrow copout in the history of the interwebz. I wish more people argued on the internet. Maybe they'd learn something.
Now I see where the miss-communication was. Our contexts are completely different for what I was getting across.
My first comments were more expressive to my emotions on the issue, and not what I honestly felt would be a good solution, like when someone says they're going to pull their hair out. Sorry for being unclear.