mr mahs

1st- This topic doesn't really get me going. My concern rises when they try to use a sacramental label for there civil unions. You lefties socialist want seperation of state so then why not name it after the correct political term "civil unions" You wanna know why not.....it's because little drag hags like yourself want to bitch and moan about something that the majority of the gay community can give two shits about...You are searching foir something to fight about because you have a empty life.... This topic is getting annoying, they could piss, shit, set each other on fire and stomp each other out with alchohol drenched cleats for all I care... just don't call it "Marriage"... Put that in your pipe and smoke it....

I wonder why you can actually put together a coherent thought when it comes to Ghey marriage?? Hit home there sperm burper? The fact is you and your butt buddies can piss and shit all over each other I don't give a flying fawk just don't call it marriage, civil unions is perect...

:laugh: Thats great....

Read this article yesterday and forgot to comment. I saw a interview with the author on HANNITY AND COLMES last night and will def pick this book up. I always knew Rumsfeld wanted to change the way the Pentagon operated into a more flexible fighting force and doing so only helps our effort. Did you hear about the Commanche getting cancelled? A little disapointed by the news because reading the description of the new helicopter it sounded like a perfect fit for a new, quicker fighting force I woinder why they scrapped it???

Can you blame the Isreali's now? How can they not target the leadership of these cowards?

Best selling author, Political commentator and she drives liberals NUTS....

:laugh:

DRAMA QUEENS...lol

I'd eat it...

I still don't believe it... And stop spinning it bud.... no-one here said Arafat once did (and still might) support terror. The paper reported that according to its sources the report will show that Arafat did not use the financial assistance from the EU to "help in any way to fund terror organizations like the Al Aksa Brigades." If he did it in the past why wouldn't he do it again?

:laugh: Dude did you sniff elmers glue as a kid? Arafat not supporting terror :laugh:

1st -Arafat has amassed a fortune close to a billion dollars and his people starve... 2nd- If a portion of the aid is going in his pockets then what makes you think the terorist groups HE controls didn't see a cut? 3rd Why would the Europeans admit that they helped fund terror? And finally If you believe he doesn't help fund and control terrorists groups with EU aid I have a mosque to sell you....lol

:laugh: That's almost comical...

He does sometimes feel remorse for the Americans he helps kill, but not enough to make him stop. "We know the American soldier has a family, a life and has been ordered to do this. But they tell us in their country they have freedom, not like us, and they could have refused to come here." First off, I think piece is bullshit because if Australian jounalists can find this fucker the coalition can't? Second I hope his nuts get cut off and stuffed in his mouth like the pig that he is... The part I highlighted above shows what kind of person he is and I hope they burn his & relatives home to the ground and hang him by his nutsack in the town square

Huh? You mean you went to law school and you're complaining about the infringment on ncivil liberties and can't cite one example in the law that was written or an incident due to enforcing it and your excuse is"Im not in Politics"

:clap2:

Putin Watches As Missile Launch Fails By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV The Associated Press Tuesday, February 17, 2004; 2:45 PM MOSCOW - A technical glitch thwarted the launch of Russian ballistic missiles in the Barents Sea on Tuesday during naval maneuvers overseen by President Vladimir Putin, who watched the massive exercise while decked out in naval officer's garb aboard a nuclear submarine. The failed launch - part of an exercise described as the largest show of Russian military might in more than 20 years - marred an event apparently aimed at playing up Putin's image as a leader attempting to restore the country's military power and global clout. Putin, who is expected to easily win the presidential election March 14, went to the Barents Sea on board the giant Arkhangelsk submarine to observe maneuvers set to involve numerous missile launches and flights of strategic bombers. But the ambitious exercise hit a snag when a ballistic missile - a missile that is launched on a high-arch trajectory to hit a designated target - failed to blast off as scheduled from another submarine, the Novomoskovsk, a government official said on condition of anonymity. The official said the automatic safety system blocked the launch for unspecified reasons. A Defense Ministry spokesman refused to comment. And Russian state-run television channels, which are lavishly covering the daily activities of Putin ahead of the election, did not report the failed launch. But the event became a hot topic for Russian analysts and military figures. "The failed launch has shown the gap between the real condition of the Russian military and the ambitions and muscle-flexing of the Russian leadership," said Yevgeny Volk, the head of the Heritage Foundation's Moscow office. Retired Capt. Igor Kurdin, who in the early 1990s served as captain of the Novomoskovsk, said a technical problem or a crew mistake might have caused the failure. "It's very annoying that it happened in front of the commander in chief," Kurdin, who did not witness the exercise, told The Associated Press. "I'm sure that the crew was getting ready for the launch very thoroughly in such circumstances." There were differing accounts of what happened. The Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies said the Novomoskovsk had been scheduled to launch two RSM-54 missiles in succession at a practice target on the Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia's Far East. They quoted an unidentified Northern Fleet officer as saying a satellite signal blocked the missile launch from Novomoskovsk, a Delta IV-class submarine. An online news outlet, gazeta.ru, said the missile suffered an engine failure and disintegrated immediately after its launch. Despite earlier official statements about the scheduled launch, the Russian navy's chief, Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov, was shown later on NTV television insisting the navy had planned only imitation "electronic" launches, both of which he said were performed successfully. Putin boarded the Arkhangelsk late Monday, putting on naval officer's garb complete with white scarf and gloves. He inspected the ship, discussed the exercise's plan with the top brass and dined with the crew. "Putin likes playing these military games and donning uniforms," Volk said in a telephone interview. "It was part of the election campaign, an attempt to win the military and nationalist votes." Putin visited another Northern Fleet nuclear submarine in April 2000, just about four months before the sinking of the Kursk nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea. That catastrophe killed all 118 men on board and cut into the Russian navy's prestige. After returning to the Arctic base, Putin traveled to the northern launch pad of Plesetsk. There, he was expected to watch the launch of a Topol intercontinental ballistic missile, the Kommersant newspaper reported Tuesday. The exercises, which began in late January, reached their peak Tuesday when 13 Northern Fleet ships and seven nuclear submarines, including the Arkhangelsk, went out to sea, practicing launches of air defense missiles, according to Channel One television. Several Tu-95 strategic bombers also participated, test-firing cruise missiles. The Russian military has dismissed media reports that the exercises closely resemble Soviet-era simulations of an all-out nuclear war with the United States, saying the maneuvers are not directed against any specific country. At the same time, the military said the exercises reflect Moscow's concerns about U.S. plans to develop new types of nuclear weapons. It has not said when the exercises will end

Name one?

I don't understand your thinking bud... You say France isn't our allie in another thread but then feel Bush shouldn't be relected because we pissed off France & Germany in acting unilaterally?

I agree... Isreal should disarm and they should be protected by our and their own missile defense system just in case the IRANIANS get cute.... If the regimes in the middle east like Syria, Iran and other radical nations are replaced then Isreal can disarm. The big diffrence between Iran's and Isreal's nuclear ambitions are deterance for the latter and hopes for annihalation of Isreal for Iran..

So they can send all your cousins in the middle east to the paradise on a monster MARTYDOM operation??? I could sit here and try to convince you that the minute Iran has a nuke they will drop it on Isreal but you won't believe it even when it is on paper as a direct qoute....... If Iran and Isreal have a nuclear exchange,the world will never be the same you do realise that right?

Dude did you eat paint chips as a kid? Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, sat on the board of a company which three years ago sold two light water nuclear reactors to North Korea - a country he now regards as part of the "axis of evil" and which has been targeted for regime change by Washington because of its efforts to build nuclear weapons. The key word is LIGHT WATER REACTOR.... This was brokered in a deal in hope they would abandon their ambitions for a nuclear weapon.. Those LIGHT WATER REACTORS cannot produce highly enriched uranium crucial for building a NUKE.... capeesh?

Look at Kuwait? If you need a good exampole of capitalism bringing stabilty to region and the people of the land Kuwait is a a great example.

Thanx Drunk, I decided to do my own research on the subject and came up with this that lead me to believe the same thing and proves Mark is a hateful windbag.. "Today, ABB says it no longer has any involvement with the North Korean power plants, due to come on line in 2007 and 2008". The "2007-2008" and "Power plants" jogged my memory of the Clinton agreement that N.Korea backed out of.