Quantum Kush 38% THC?

st0wandgrow said:
Maybe instead of dropping bombs on the middle east would could drop science textbooks? :bigjoint:
Click to expand...

Maybe we could give them more knowledge to make nukes, warheads, missiles, and bombs that can travel in shoes and underwear?

Don't think it's a good idea......besides, the Russkies seem to be handing them whatever they need.
 
They'd just build houses out of them :) A text book is sturdier then a cow patty.

But yeah, honestly it would probably be the best place to start. At least it's a option where people aren't dieing. I am all about keeping folks happy and alive, lets all live to be old and grey and party hard the whole damn way and leave others alone if they aren't hurting anyone.

Right now they are arming the Kurds, which I think is the right thing to do now, but is it the right thing to do in 10-20-30 years? no, it's going to get people killed when they turn on the west, just likely history has proven will happen.
 
Amos Otis said:
Questions for you: [1]was the United States militarily engaged in the Middle East before the attack on it's home soil on 9/11?
[2] Prior to 9/11, could the U S have invaded and conquered it's choice of Middle Eastern countries with it's vastly superior army, weaponry, dollars, and technology? Then why didn't they?
[3] When you fought - hockey players fight, yes? - did you fight to win?
Click to expand...


1) militarily engaged? I suppose not..... but having permanent military bases in Saudi Arabia (and elsewhere) and inserting sock puppet dictators of our choosing in various countries certainly makes us partially culpable.

2) yes, we could have. We needed a 9-11 type event to make the sales pitch though. Did Afghanistan attack us? Iraq? Nope, we were told that it was Al Qaeda. Ironic that we were able to send a small Navy Seal team in to kill the leader of that group after trillions of dollars of conventional warfare couldn't get it done. Hopefully we learned a lesson there. I doubt we did though. There's not much money to be made with small tactical teams.

3) Not a good comparison IMO. Hockey fights are almost always justified, and there are no casualties other than the person that deserved the ass beating

Perhaps a bit beside the point here Amos, but you don't get to bemoan our national debt and out of control spending while simultaneously cheer leading trillion dollar wars. You can't have it both ways
 
Amos Otis said:
Maybe we could give them more knowledge to make nukes, warheads, missiles, and bombs that can travel in shoes and underwear?

Don't think it's a good idea......besides, the Russkies seem to be handing them whatever they need.
Click to expand...


I meant science as in evolution..... in an effort to cleanse them of the fairy tale.
 
st0wandgrow said:
1) militarily engaged? I suppose not..... but....
Click to expand...

But nothing. We were not.

st0wandgrow said:
2) yes, we could have. We needed a 9-11 type event to make the sales pitch though.
Click to expand...

That's rediculous [ no offense]. What was Hitler's sales pitch??
Aggressors and conquerors don't convince people to let themselves be conquered.

st0wandgrow said:
3) Not a good comparison IMO. Hockey fights are almost always justified, and there are no casualties other than the person that deserved the ass beating

Perhaps a bit beside the point here Amos, but you don't get to bemoan our national debt and out of control spending while simultaneously cheer leading trillion dollar wars. You can't have it both ways
Click to expand...

It's a great comparison. [hockey fights]. In any battle, if you're not fighting to win, you're doomed to lose.

Per your last line, I'm not cheerleading much of anything regarding the status of my country on 8/19/14. I cheer what this country was, and used to represent many years ago. Now now. The leaders of this country are as big a threat to it's existence as any external threat is.

Solutions? None of this world, imo.
 
Hide your kids, Hide your wife, and hide your doggy the muslims are cummin

images
 
Amos Otis said:
The United States could have owned the earth many times had that been the desire - because of superior force and riches. We didn't. Rather, we poured billions into defeated Japan [for instance] who's goal was to conquer the U S. Go figure!



Questions for you: [1]was the United States militarily engaged in the Middle East before the attack on it's home soil on 9/11?
[2] Prior to 9/11, could the U S have invaded and conquered it's choice of Middle Eastern countries with it's vastly superior army, weaponry, dollars, and technology? Then why didn't they?
[3] When you fought - hockey players fight, yes? - did you fight to win?
Click to expand...

1. Yes we've been involved with the Middle East since 1947. Many times in covert ways

2. See Iraq. It's easy to overthrow a government, it's harder to replace it. Unless of course we want to participate in genocide.

What does winning mean to you?
 
Mr.Head said:
They'd just build houses out of them :) A text book is sturdier then a cow patty.

But yeah, honestly it would probably be the best place to start. At least it's a option where people aren't dieing. I am all about keeping folks happy and alive, lets all live to be old and grey and party hard the whole damn way and leave others alone if they aren't hurting anyone.

Right now they are arming the Kurds, which I think is the right thing to do now, but is it the right thing to do in 10-20-30 years? no, it's going to get people killed when they turn on the west, just likely history has proven will happen.
Click to expand...

The Kurds are a very interesting group of people. I don't think arming them is a bad idea. What was a bad idea was going into Iraq I. The first fucking place. ISIS is now armed with what we left behind. Really Iraq should be three different countries.
 
Amos Otis said:
But nothing. We were not.
Click to expand...

But, there is a "but". A very relevant one too. For every Muslim that hates us simply because their holy book tells them to, there are dozens that hate us because of our foreign policy, our meddling in their affairs, and our blind support of Israel.

Amos Otis said:
That's rediculous [ no offense]. What was Hitler's sales pitch??
Aggressors and conquerors don't convince people to let themselves be conquered.
Amos Otis said:
The world is a different place than it was 80 years ago. Mutually assured destruction wasn't on the table back then. Today it takes a coalition. America couldn't go it alone against the rest of the world. There are military, and financial consequences that the power brokers understand ...... so a sales pitch is indeed needed for any military action on our part.

Amos Otis said:
It's a great comparison. [hockey fights]. In any battle, if you're not fighting to win, you're doomed to lose.
Click to expand...

What specifically did we (or can we) win here Amos? What's the objective? IMO the objective should be to hold the people responsible for 9-11 accountable. It's clearly been demonstrated that conventional war is not the path. I mean, the Russians figured that out in the 80's. Were we not paying attention?

Amos Otis said:
Solutions? None of this world, imo.
Click to expand...

You could be right .....
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The Kurds have proved fairly loyal for a very long time even with the US shitting on them constantly and not giving them the place they fought for. I am sure there is resentment there. Twice USA has come to Iraq to "fix it' and they leave and the Kurds get shafted again.

They better not be giving them anything capable of shooting down planes this time. This I really hope they don't do

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-taliban-missile-strike-chinook
 
TonightYou said:
What does winning mean to you?
Click to expand...

The opposite of losing....lol.

Some things are 'no-win'....like arguing full military ground war = 'involved'.

st0wandgrow said:
But, there is a "but". A very relevant one too. For every Muslim that hates us simply because their holy book tells them to, there are dozens that hate us because of our foreign policy, our meddling in their affairs, and our blind support of Israel.
Click to expand...

Of course.
We should have been nicer. :roll: Obama is certainly the man for these difficult days....LOL !

As a post discussion note: disagreements among friends - even strenuous one - only end weak friendships. [ argue that :cuss:]
 
Amos Otis said:
Of course.
We should have been nicer. :roll: Obama is certainly the man for these difficult days....LOL !
Click to expand...

That's not really what I meant. I'll ask this of you ..... How would you feel if China decided to set up military bases all over America, meddled in our politics, and financially and militarily supported our sworn enemy (Al Queada as an example)? You'd probably hate them. I would.

Amos Otis said:
As a post discussion note: disagreements among friends - even strenuous one - only end weak friendships. [ argue that :cuss:]
Click to expand...


Can't argue that. Well said
 
TonightYou said:
Well it certainly isn't an easy situation. Hardly think Romney or half dead McCain (who I actually liked in 2000) would do any better.

As you can tell, it's not like anyone is a huge fan of Obama. Even those who may have voted for him.
Click to expand...


McCain winning in 2008 wouldn't have been half bad. Especially considering the shenanigans with Russia lately. Sarah Palin could have kept an eye on that for us. :dunce:
 
Yeah voting in this day and age is just who you disagree with less and think wont be easily swayed by profits.
2016 isnt shaping up to be much better but I have said it before and will say it now, if scott walker makes it on the ballot im not even voting and will begin working on becoming a Canadian citizen that day lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Rollitup mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top