Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pakistan Continues To Tip Off Militants  
User currently offlinefuturepilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1780 times:

This is turning into an absolute joke.

Quote:
In the tradition of 'trust but verify,' the Americans carefully monitored the area with satellite and unmanned drones, to see what would happen, after sharing the information a third and fourth time, the officials said.

In each case, they watched the militants depart within 24 hours, taking any weapons or bomb-making materials with them, just as militants had done the first two times. Only then, did they watch the Pakistani military visit each site, when the terror suspects and their wares were long gone, the officials said.

How can we continue to give information to the Pakistanis when time and time again, the tip off our enemies? They said it themselves, they can't go into a very dangerous area without first warning the elders??? WTF. I thought the military/police would be able to go WHEREVER they wanted in a "sovereign" country as they claim to be whenever the US violates their borders, why is it now that they basically have to ask permission to certain areas, which tips off the militants. This is a disgrace. They're not even trying to hide it anymore.

I say we go into Pakistan and do whatever the hell we want to do to get rid of these militants because as much as they want to huff and puff and claim violations of their sovereignty, there ain't a damn thing that they can do to us. Furthermore, if they're not gonna use the several billion dollars in aid that we give them to NOT fight the militants, then we might as well take that money and put it to better use. I'm sick of this garbage and i'm sure our diplomats to Pakistan and military members are as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43451438/ns/politics/


"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1759 times:

Quoting futurepilot16 (Thread starter):
there ain't a damn thing that they can do to us.

How about cutting off that vital line of supply to NATO troops in Afghanistan?


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8702 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1755 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 1):
How about cutting off that vital line of supply to NATO troops in Afghanistan?

Please don't interrupt a good old jingoistic bit of

Quoting futurepilot16 (Thread starter):
huff(ing) and puff(ing)

with such boring things like facts.  



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 6 days ago) and read 1721 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 1):
How about cutting off that vital line of supply to NATO troops in Afghanistan?

Won't be a problem if all the troops are pulled from that godforsaken hellhole.

Pakistan has always been a problem, and will continue to be a problem. The only reason the West is pouring money into that place is to maintain some sort of stability and maybe try to prevent their nuclear technologies from falling into the wrong hands.



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineGST From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2008, 930 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 3):

Won't be a problem if all the troops are pulled from that godforsaken hellhole.

Either way you are then more or less unable (or at least majorly hindered) from making the incursions into Pakistan suggested in the OP. Given that most of the insurgent rich areas of Pakistan are those bordering or near Afghanistan, if those bases are lost you're scuppered. India wouldn't let you go in from there as things are at last looking rosy(ish) between them on a diplomatic perspective (or at least not imminently threatening war), and they don't have any interest in jepordising that. China and Iran? I don't think we need to even go there.

The last option for using helos and special forces is to continue parking an aircraft carrier off Pakistan, but I think they could make it pretty damned difficult to covertly get to the insurgent zones and back, especially if you'd done it before. You would need to escort the strike package and all of a sudden its impossible to disguise. The insurgents would always know you are coming.

The other option is to continue using long range drones or upping the ante and employing the occasional B2, but its kinda nice to get boots on the ground for intelligence gathering purposes and capturing people in the know.

Either way, Pakistan has some extremely effective options for ruining your entire day when it comes to anti insurgent activity. Its best to keep the status quo at this moment, we have bases where we can realistically strike targets in a variety of ways, just not too much. At the moment Pakistan's government objects more on a saving face basis, but I would not be at all surprised if a significant number of their highest ranks are happy with things as it is dealing with their problems in a way that they cannot, and not even risking the lives of their troops. but if the attacks are massively stepped up? Well then the face saving might have to require punitive measures as well as diplomatic objections.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1652 times:

Quoting futurepilot16 (Thread starter):
I say we go into Pakistan and do whatever the hell we want to do to get rid of these militants because as much as they want to huff and puff and claim violations of their sovereignty,

Whats your views if The worlds largest democracy suffering from crossborder terror,decides to attack terror training camps in the neighbour territory as there is no support on that side to dismantle them.

The citizens out here are pushing for such a strike irrespective of the consequences.Terror needs to be wiped out from its support.



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinegolfradio From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 757 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1555 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 4):
India wouldn't let you go in from there as things are at last looking rosy

India does not share a border with Afghanistan any more. There is no land based supply route from India.

As to the capability of launching OPS from India, the LoC in the state of Jammu & Kashmir has the maximum air defence assets deployed due to the close proximity of Islamabad. It would be hard to penetrate without being detected and having the PAF scramble their interceptors.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

You guys should read The Bookseller of Kabul. It'll teach you a few things from Pakistan (yes, I am aware that Kabul is Afghanistan's capital).

Pakistan still operates on the basis of tribes. They set aside some areas for them which are literally No-Man's lands. They belong to Pakistan, but the central government exercises very little power if any. To prevent these tribes from turning against the government, Pakistan kinda turns a blind eye to their activities. Pakistan knows these land harbor Taliban and Al-Qaeda members, but instead of thinking of stability of the world, it prefers to maintain a central, stable, operating government, even if it comes at the cost of citizens' lives.

Why does the US continue to fund Pakistan and treat it as a Major Non-NATO ally? Simple:
1. A supply route to Afghanistan
2. A nuclear arsenal

Should the US continue to do so? The answer is quite clear: any entity that tips off the enemy is no friend of ours, especially if we shared information with that entity.

Can it stop now? Unfortunately, unless the US seeks to cut off its troops from supplies, then it'll just have to continue pleasing Pakistan for the moment. Afghanistan has a border with various countries (many of them ex-Soviet republics). These republics are land-locked: too expensive to move supplies from the nearest NATO base (presumably in Turkey). Russia is reluctant to allow supplies to go through its territory (and if they are indeed going through, I'm sure Russia is not too happy with the idea). Iran? Yeah right. China? Not enough military cooperation and too much land to cross.

Should the US do more operations like the one that killed bin laden? No. It would send the wrong message to other nations. How would it look that a nation that preaches about democracy and liberty constantly violates sovereignty? While it is true that we sent a message that nations that harbor terrorists will be considered foes, it will only serve to fuel anti-Americanism abroad.

Solutions to this? I propose the following: let the war run its course. When all troops leave Afghanistan, reduce military cooperation with Pakistan. To ensure the nuclear arsenal, set aside a small contingent of agents (whether NATO, UN, whatever) to help the Pakistani army guard these weapons. To help reduce these fears, start a series of SALT/START treaties between India and Pakistan to ensure a level of cooperation sort of like the US has with Russia and an eventual reduction of nuclear warheads.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1506 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 7):
Should the US do more operations like the one that killed bin laden? No. It would send the wrong message to other nations. How would it look that a nation that preaches about democracy and liberty constantly violates sovereignty?

That doesn't rationalize with the idea of the tribal regions. If the central government exercises no control over those particular areas, how can they really claim to have sovereignty over them? For all intents and purposes, the US is attacking targets in a different country.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5694 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1496 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 7):
Why does the US continue to fund Pakistan and treat it as a Major Non-NATO ally? Simple:
1. A supply route to Afghanistan
2. A nuclear arsenal

Nuclear arsenal... so what? Why should it imply that you have to be buddies and allies with the likes of Pakistan just because they've got nukes? North Korea has them, as does Iran...The fact you ally yourself with a failed country like Pakistan (by default) against full fledged democracy like India is morally indefensible any way you cut it. Ditto for the Saudi kingdom of medieval standards.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 7):
constantly violates sovereignty

Pakistan can't even control their own territory and lets significant part of their country be run by Taliban.


User currently offlineSpringbok747 From Australia, joined Nov 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):
Nuclear arsenal... so what? Why should it imply that you have to be buddies and allies with the likes of Pakistan just because they've got nukes? North Korea has them, as does Iran.

NK and Iran are not as bad and much more stable. Pakistan is on its way to becoming a failed state..and as you said:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):
Pakistan can't even control their own territory and lets significant part of their country be run by Taliban.

If the government falls..then who knows where those nukes will end up.

Like I said before..the only reason why the West is pouring money into that place is to keep some sort of stability. For how long..that is the big question.



אני תומך בישראל
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1480 times:

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 3):
The only reason the West is pouring money into that place is to maintain some sort of stability and maybe try to prevent their nuclear technologies from falling into the wrong hands.

Which will happen anyway. At this rate they will just wait us out and murder any of our allies. Something will have to give and it does't look so good. Israel will have to defend themselves and they won't wait for us.


User currently offlinefuturepilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1473 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 1):
How about cutting off that vital line of supply to NATO troops in Afghanistan?
Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 10):
If the government falls..then who knows where those nukes will end up.

If that does happen, I say we launch a full on bombing campaign till every last one of those nukes are history, then we can deal with their government, or rather let India do it.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Quoting Springbok747 (Reply 3):
Pakistan has always been a problem, and will continue to be a problem.

True and they do seem to pass on information to those who we would wish did not know. But against this, you have to set the fact that the Pakistanis have arrested more terrorists than just about any other country - of course they probably have a better selection to chose from than most.

What the west needs to work out much better is which ones Pakistan is happy to arrest and which ones it is not happy to arrest. But then Pakistan a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma as far as the west is concerned. Wonder if the Pakistanis can understand it, probably not.

Basically our intelligence is not doing well. It seems to turn out that with Tunisia, Libya and Egypt the main sources of intelligence were also those propping up the regimes so that when the regimes went so went the intell sources. It is not even apparent that we have good sources of intelligence for Pakistan - not that the other ones were very good when it came to rebellion!!!

Nice to know that some are not worried by Pakistan's nukes going AWOL.   I assume our Indian friends are not showing as much insouciance on that issue! And neither should we.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4896 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1429 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):
of course they probably have a better selection to chose from than most.

I guess the better sort of terrorist prefers Pakistan!  

I am sure the majority of Pakistanis want to live peaceful everyday lives and want this mess to be over. However, unlike other democracies, it has four branches of government: Judiciary, Executive, Legislative, and Military - which is a big problem. The Military has been funded by US largesse over the last 50 years so it's become a co-dependent relationship. The Military keeps alive the India bogeyman as its raison d'etre before it was gifted with the Afghani/Taliban issue.

The US is stuck with Pakistan for the near future. China is Pakistan's new BFF and will be most happy to take over the relationship. It is building the port at Gwadar - a major strategic asset in the Indian Ocean. It is a shame that these three countries have to spend so much on defense when so many go hungry.

I think the nukes have safeguards and IIRC the US is involved in their security. The terrorists best case scenario is that another Mumbai style attack occurs, India gets enraged and attacks camps in PoK, and Pak's nukes are let loose. Since India is on a roll economically, and nobody wants the party to stop, retaliation is unlikely.

Is Pakistan lurching into Gotterdammerung? No. China is the ally of last resort and will make sure nothing goes wrong. The US is an irrelevant ally well past use-by date.


User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1419 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):
What the west needs to work out much better is which ones Pakistan is happy to arrest and which ones it is not happy to arrest. But then Pakistan a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma as far as the west is concerned. Wonder if the Pakistanis can understand it, probably not.

How? It's quite clear the government and law enforcement is fractured in Pakistan. The good guys probably can't even tell who is with them. Pakistan isn't a riddle. It's a country tethering on the edge of total disaster in which we will have a serious problem. The only reason they haven't totally turned on us is the billions we send them but down the road it's going to very bad. Especially since we have now said we are pulling out. The Taliban will just wait and take over when we are gone.

At this point we simply can't trust Pakistan and have to pay them to deter them becoming Iran on steroids.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3053 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1412 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 8):
If the central government exercises no control over those particular areas, how can they really claim to have sovereignty over them?

For all intents and purposes, those lands are inside Pakistan borders. Ergo, they are part of Pakistan. The issue of central government exercising little power over there is an internal affair.

We can equate that to North Cyprus. The Republic of Cyprus (the Greek part) controls two thirds of the island, but is recognized as having dominion over the entire island. Whether the government cannot exercise power in the northern third is a different matter. If another country (other than Turkey for the obvious reason) carries out operations in the northern part, it is literally violating Cyprus's sovereignty.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 1359 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16):
For all intents and purposes, those lands are inside Pakistan borders.

For all intents and purposes, they're not. They might as well be another country, as the rule of Pakistan's government doesn't apply there. Technically, they're Pakistan's lands, sure, but not from a practical standpoint.

The US, and other countries, have the right to carry out preemptive attacks against those who might attack them. When those people are not legitimate armies of a nation, then it falls to the nation in which they are located to get the first crack at going after them. If they choose not to do so, then it's fair game for the threatened nation to do so instead.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 21 hours ago) and read 1351 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 15):
How? It's quite clear the government and law enforcement is fractured in Pakistan. The good guys probably can't even tell who is with them. Pakistan isn't a riddle.

In brief, if it is not a riddle, why is it that we understand it so poorly?


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 19, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1275 times:

Quoting futurepilot16 (Thread starter):
I say we go into Pakistan and do whatever the hell we want to do to get rid of these militants

There are a few other countries that share the same view. 
Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):
.The fact you ally yourself with a failed country like Pakistan (by default) against full fledged democracy like India is morally indefensible any way you cut it.

True.Unless it stops being "My" war against terror & "your" war against terror......it should be War against terror.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):
Nice to know that some are not worried by Pakistan's nukes going AWOL.   I assume our Indian friends are not showing as much insouciance on that issue! And neither should we.

The IAF will take care of it when required.....



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineNIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1266 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
In brief, if it is not a riddle, why is it that we understand it so poorly?

We understand it perfectly. Yet have to play ball for Israel and India's sake. Pakistan has nukes and the way to unleash hell. If we alienate them and stop the billions in aide we have to be ready to act if things go south which they are sure to do.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1207 times:

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 20):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
In brief, if it is not a riddle, why is it that we understand it so poorly?

We understand it perfectly. Yet have to play ball for Israel and India's sake. Pakistan has nukes and the way to unleash hell. If we alienate them and stop the billions in aide we have to be ready to act if things go south which they are sure to do.

Yes, so perfectly that by the time Osama died, the US had converted him into a middle aged American male - well who else is sitting in front of the TV with the remote in one hand and a pile of porn in the other - a comment from Fatima Bhutto
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/05/31/3231030.htm
Pakistan is, at once, a country plagued by natural disasters, endemic political corruption, religious fundamentalism and is claimed by many to be the central headquarters of Islamist terrorism. Bhutto sees this condition Pakistan suffers as a plain result of crippling conspiracy-theorising and manifesting as paranoiac nuclear armament.

But Bhutto finds not all the fault lies at home. She speaks to the West’s hypocrisy with regards to its aggressive “freedom fighting”, including its ever-mounting use of Drone strikes under Obama’s presidency and the civilian casualties which are beyond measure.


As well as being informative she is extremely witty. This is where she comments that in a list of corrupt countries, Pakistan comes second to Nigeria, but that is because Pakistan paid Nigeria to take the fall.

We really do not understand Pakistan. Listen to her discussing a case of rape.


User currently offlinewn700driver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting GST (Reply 1):

How about cutting off that vital line of supply to NATO troops in Afghanistan?

How about pulling NATO out of Afghanistan all together. If the natives' memory is too short to let them properly deal with folks like the Taliban, that's their problem. As far as our interests go, it's pretty obvious the party's over...

Quoting GST (Reply 4):
The other option is to continue using long range drones or upping the ante and employing the occasional B2, but its kinda nice to get boots on the ground for intelligence gathering purposes and capturing people in the know.

I have no problem with that, is indeed we must do anything at all. Intel can be sourced more covertly than by maintain a huge military presence requiring the "help" of a questionable ally. We took care of that just fine all through the cold war, for example, without having to make nice with Poland or Yugoslavia...

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 5):

Whats your views if The worlds largest democracy suffering from crossborder terror,decides to attack terror training camps in the neighbour territory as there is no support on that side to dismantle them.

If the world's largest democracy feels the need to take matters into its own hands, who the hell are we to stand iin the way? Do what you gotta do, I say...

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 7):

Why does the US continue to fund Pakistan and treat it as a Major Non-NATO ally? Simple:
1. A supply route to Afghanistan
2. A nuclear arsenal

No. 1 we really don't need anymore. No. 2 is already taken care of simply by the existence of a nuclear India. They are, after all, the ones who have to live right next door. If nothing else ever happens between those two, the Indian Nuclear presence is, at the very least, a healthy counterbalance...

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):

Nuclear arsenal... so what? Why should it imply that you have to be buddies and allies with the likes of Pakistan just because they've got nukes? North Korea has them, as does Iran...

Hang a big "maybe" on Iran...

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 9):
The fact you ally yourself with a failed country like Pakistan (by default) against full fledged democracy like India is morally indefensible any way you cut it. Ditto for the Saudi kingdom of medieval standards.

Don't even get me started on that one! We have all kinds of very questionable relationships here. But you are quite right...


User currently offlineojas From India, joined Mar 2008, 2970 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1177 times:

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 22):
If the world's largest democracy feels the need to take matters into its own hands, who the hell are we to stand iin the way?

We did feel that way post 26/11 and were ready to go ahead as well, just when Condolezza Rice popped in and things were "calmed down" by her.



A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of the sheep
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (3 years 1 month 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1174 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 21):
But Bhutto finds not all the fault lies at home. She speaks to the West’s hypocrisy with regards to its aggressive “freedom fighting”, including its ever-mounting use of Drone strikes under Obama’s presidency and the civilian casualties which are beyond measure.

Drone strikes aren't freedom fighting. They're about security.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Baroque : Did you listen to her lecture?
26 PROSA : Another though indirect sign that Pakistan is a failed state is the utterly disgraceful socioeconomic performance of Pakistani immigrants in Britain.
27 Baroque : I guess that explains this from Wiki: Many first generation British Pakistanis have invested in second homes or holiday homes in Pakistan.[124] They
28 futurepilot16 : Well, the Bush admin didn't really give a damn about anyone else other than making sure that nobody interfered with their interests in Iraq and Afgha
29 ojas : That is everyone's belief and is shaping up as a fact with wikileaks, David Headley trials and other corroborative evidence. Actually on all televisi
30 HAWK21M : The Common man mood is similiar....esp post 26/11.....Now its only time for the Political rulers to give the signal.
31 Mir : I did, and my point stands. Drone strikes are certainly not Plan A, but the Pakistani government and military are obviously corrupt and unreliable, a
32 Baroque : Well arguably are you not demonstrating her point, one man's bomb(er) is another man's security/freedom.
33 Mir : If terrorists had any legitimate security gains to be made from attacking civilians in the US, I might be. But that's not the case. -Mir
34 Baroque : Well that is our view, but I think it highly likely it was not the Osama view. Read his manifesto. He thought "he" was being attacked. And after 10 y
35 Mir : I'm sure Osama did think he was being attacked, because he was a radical lunatic. But would any rational person, even in Pakistan, agree with him? Fr
36 Baroque : Sigh. It is not me you are fighting, it is those who think the para you just wrote is total rubbish. And while you continue to assume there is total
37 Quokka : This is based on how many years of research? How many interviews have you conducted with people of Pakistani descent in the UK to arrive at this conc
38 Mir : I do think the drone strikes are justified, but I do understand that people wouldn't like them. Hell, I don't like them myself. But unless Pakistan c
39 Baroque : And getting rid of that level of corruption is one of the most difficult things a country can attempt - look at the woes of the Indonesian anti-corru
40 BarfBag : India will not participate in *any* strategic arms limitations talks with the Pakis - our nuclear program is directed primarily at China. You only ne
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How Not To Come Off As A Whiner posted Mon Aug 11 2008 23:07:11 by Tsaord
Giuliani Continues To Disinform People posted Wed Dec 5 2007 14:56:23 by B752fanatic
Castro Continues To Recuperate posted Sat Sep 22 2007 08:25:31 by TACAA320
Nola Population Continues To Grow (stats) posted Thu Jul 26 2007 20:55:02 by MSYtristar
A-Rod Continues To Play Baseball Like A Girl posted Thu May 31 2007 23:07:49 by S12PPL
Military Continues To Discharge Gay Arab Ling posted Wed May 30 2007 02:14:21 by Airfoilsguy
Apple Trying To Turn Off IGasm posted Mon May 28 2007 20:45:20 by Zone1
Giant Elastic-powered Aircraft Fails To Take Off posted Tue Oct 24 2006 14:15:02 by Nighthawk
Drunk Man Bets To Cut Off His Penis For 2,000 USD posted Fri Aug 11 2006 20:10:02 by Clickhappy
Pakistan Set To Hang Acquitted British Man posted Sun May 21 2006 02:36:36 by KFLLCFII