PDA

View Full Version : CHINA TELLS AMERICA: Turn Around The USS George Washington



megimoo
11-26-2010, 05:04 PM
China has warned against military activity near its coastline ahead of U.S.-Korea naval exercises, according to Reuters.

China's Foreign Ministry said in an online posting that naval exercises risks starting a war: "We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval."

North Korea has also threatened to respond to military gestures with more attacks: "The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war due to the reckless plan of those trigger-happy elements to stage again war exercises targeted against the (North)."

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-us-korea-war-drill-2010-11?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+I nsider%29#ixzz16PAbXWRS

marv
11-26-2010, 05:11 PM
China's Foreign Ministry said in an online posting that naval exercises risks starting a war: "We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval."
Probably doesn't include N Korea.......

Rockntractor
11-26-2010, 05:30 PM
This is an open show for our benefit, if China tells bama privately to turn around we will without question!

megimoo
11-26-2010, 05:36 PM
Probably doesn't include N Korea.......


China's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf: developments, problems, and prospects
http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v25y2001i1p71-81.html

Starbuck
11-26-2010, 08:59 PM
I put this whole "Send The George Washington" thing in the same category as I would sending in a cop with an unloaded gun. I don't believe Obama has any intention of doing anything. And not that that's wrong; it's just so....transparent.
Then the problem with everyone knowing that it's a transparent bluff is that he may actually be goaded into action and launch a bunch of planes, and that would be bad.

South Korea can take care of itself. Besides, they've been ripping us of economically for years, so I know they can afford a war.

Just hope our 20,000 guys (oh, yeah, and gals) don't get crushed in the process.

Israel had no problem taking out a Syrian nuclear reactor when they needed to, and I have no problem taking out one in North Korea. I'd just rather do it because it was the right thing to do; not because we felt the need to defend someone's honor.

megimoo
11-26-2010, 10:31 PM
Just to clarify what China is up against if they're thinking about going to war with America :

PART 1:

General Characteristics, Ohio Class
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division.
Date Deployed: Nov. 11, 1981 (USS Ohio)
Propulsion: One nuclear reactor, one shaft.
Length: 560 feet (170.69 meters).
Beam: 42 feet (12.8 meters).
Displacement: 16,764 tons (17,033.03 metric tons) surfaced; 18,750 tons (19,000.1 metric tons) submerged.
Speed: 20+ knots (23+ miles per hour, 36.8+ kph).
Crew: 15 Officers, 140 Enlisted.
Armament: 24 tubes for Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles, MK48 torpedoes, four torpedo tubes.

THEY ALL CARRY TWENTY FOUR TRIDENT D5'S

Primary Function: Strategic Nuclear Deterrence
Contractor: Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, Calif.
Unit Cost: $29.1 million (current production)
Power Plant: Three-stage solid-propellant rocket
Length: 44 feet (13.41 meters)
Weight: 130,000 pounds (58,500 kg)
Diameter: 74 inches (1.85 meters)
Range: Greater than 4,000 nautical miles (4,600 statute miles, or 7,360 km)
Guidance System: Inertial
Warheads: up to 10 Thermonuclear MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable re-entry Vehicle); Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle
............................
WARHEADS:
# Thermonuclear MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable re-entry Vehicle)
# 8 W88 300-475 kiloton MIRVs in a solid-fuel Mk 5 PBV
...............
SSBN BOOMBERS

USS Henry M. Jackson (SSBN 730), Bangor, WA
USS Alabama (SSBN 731), Bangor, WA
USS Alaska (SSBN 732), Kings Bay, GA
USS Nevada (SSBN 733), Bangor, WA
USS Tennessee (SSBN 734), Kings Bay, GA
USS Pennsylvania (SSBN 735), Bangor, WA
USS West Virginia (SSBN 736), Kings Bay, GA
USS Kentucky (SSBN 737), Bangor, WA
USS Maryland (SSBN 738), Kings Bay, GA
USS Nebraska (SSBN 739), Bangor, WA
USS Rhode Island (SSBN 740), Kings Bay, GA
USS Maine (SSBN 741), Bangor, WA
USS Wyoming (SSBN 742), Kings Bay, GA
USS Louisiana (SSBN 743), Bangor, WA

Last Update: 10 September 2010
......................
American SSGNs Prowl The Pacific

In the last month, three of the four American SSGNs (former ballistic missile subs each now carrying 154 cruise missiles and SEAL commando teams) appeared in the Pacific and Indian oceans (the Philippines, South Korea and Diego Garcia). Some through this was a message for China, but, in fact, the SSGNs go where the potential trouble is. When questioned, U.S. Navy officials responded that, for the first time, all four SSGNs were operating at sea, in locations distant from their bases. Two years ago, the U.S. Navy completed the conversion of the last of four Ohio class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), to cruise missile submarines (SSGN). Each of these boats now carries 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and provides space (for living, working and training) for 66 commandos (usually SEALs) and their equipment.

The idea of converting ballistic missile subs, that would have to be scrapped to fulfill disarmament agreements, has been bouncing around since the 1990s. After September 11, 2001, the idea got some traction. The navy submariners love this one, because they lost a lot of their reason for being, with the end of the Cold War. The United States had built a powerful nuclear submarine force during the Cold War, but with the rapid disappearance of the Soviet Navy in the 1990s, there was little reason to keep over a hundred U.S. nuclear subs in commission. These boats are expensive, costing over a billion each to build and over a million dollars a week to operate. The four Ohio class SSBN being converted each have at least twenty years of life left in them. The conversions weren't cheap, each one cost over $400 million.
.......................
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy

CVN-68 Nimitz 1975 Nimitz-class supercarrier, lead ship Active
CVN-69 Dwight D. Eisenhower 1977 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-70 Carl Vinson 1981 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-71 Theodore Roosevelt 1986 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-72 Abraham Lincoln 1989 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-73 George Washington 1992 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-74 John C. Stennis 1995 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-75 Harry S. Truman 1998 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-76 Ronald Reagan 2003 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-77 George H.W. Bush 2009 Nimitz-class supercarrier Active
CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford 2015 Ford-class supercarrier, lead ship Keel laid
CVN-79 unnamed 2019 Ford-class supercarrier Planned: A petition has also been set up for CVN-79 to be named as the ninth "USS Enterprise" after projected retirement of CVN-65 Enterprise in 2013.
CVN-80 unnamed 2023 Ford-class supercarrier Planned
..............................

Attack Submarines - SSN

Description
Attack submarines are designed to seek and destroy enemy submarines and surface ships; project power ashore with Tomahawk cruise missiles and Special Operation Forces; carry out Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) missions; support battle group operations, and engage in mine warfare.

Background
With the number of foreign diesel-electric / air-independent propulsion submarines increasing yearly, the United States submarine force relies on its technological superiority and the speed, endurance, mobility, stealth, and payload afforded by nuclear power to retain its preeminence in the undersea battlespace.

There are three classes of SSNs now in service. Los Angeles (SSN 688) class submarines are the backbone of the submarine force with 43 now in commission. Thirty-one Los Angeles class SSNs are equipped with 12 Vertical Launch System tubes for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles.

The Navy also has three Seawolf class submarines. Commissioned on July 19, 1997, USS Seawolf (SSN 21) is exceptionally quiet, fast, well armed, and equipped with advanced sensors. Though lacking Vertical Launch Systems, the Seawolf class has eight torpedo tubes and can hold up to 50 weapons in its torpedo room. The third ship of the class, USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23), has a 100-foot hull extension called the multi-mission platform. This hull section provides for additional payload to accommodate advanced technology used to carry out classified research and development and for enhanced warfighting capabilities.

The Navy is now building the next-generation attack submarine, the Virginia (SSN 774) class. The Virginia class is tailored to excel in a wide range of warfighting missions. The Virginia class has several innovations that significantly enhance its warfighting capabilities with an emphasis on littoral operations. Virginia class SSNs have a fly-by-wire ship control system that provides improved shallow-water ship handling. The class has special features to support special operation forces. The torpedo room can be reconfigured to house a large number of special operation forces and all their equipment for prolonged deployments and future off-board payloads. The class also has large lock-in / lock-out chamber for divers. In Virginia class SSNs, traditional periscopes have been supplanted by two Photonics Masts that house color, high-resolution black and white, and infrared digital cameras atop telescoping arms. With the removal of the barrel periscopes, the ships’ control room has been moved down one deck and away from the hull’s curvature, affording it more room and an improved layout that provides the commanding officer with enhanced situational awareness. Additionally, through the extensive use of modular construction, open architecture, and commercial off-the-shelf components, the Virginia class is designed to remain state of the practice for its entire operational life through the rapid introduction of new systems and payloads.

megimoo
11-26-2010, 10:35 PM
part 2
General Characteristics, Virginia class
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division and Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding - Newport News
Propulsion: One nuclear reactor, one shaft
Length: 377 feet (114.8 meters)
Beam: 34 feet (10.4 meters)
Displacement: Approximately 7,800 tons (7,925 metric tons) submerged
Speed: 25+ knots (28+ miles per hour, 46.3+ kph)
Crew: 135: 15 Officers; 120 Enlisted
Armament: Tomahawk missiles, twelve VLS tubes, MK48 ADCAP torpedoes, four torpedo tubes.
Ships:
SSN 786 - 791 - Under contract.
USS Virginia (SSN 774), Groton, CT
USS Texas (SSN 775), Pearl Harbor, HI.
USS Hawaii (SSN 776), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS North Carolina (SSN 777), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS New Hampshire (SSN 778), Groton, CT
USS New Mexico (SSN 779), Groton, CT
USS Missouri (SSN 780), Groton, CT.
California (SSN 781), No homeport - Christening scheduled for November 6, 2010
Mississippi (SSN 782), No homeport - Construction began February 2007
Minnesota (SSN 783), No homeport - Construction began February 2008.
North Dakota (SSN 784), No homeport - Construction began March 2009.
John Warner (SSN-785), No homeport - Construction began March 2010

General Characteristics, Seawolf class
Builder: General Dynamics Electric Boat Division.
Date Deployed: USS Seawolf commissioned July 19, 1997
Propulsion: One nuclear reactor, one shaft
Length: SSNs 21 and 22: 353 feet (107.6 meters)
SSN 23: 453 feet (138.07 meters)
Beam: 40 feet (12.2 meters)
Displacement: SSNs 21 and 22: 9,138 tons (9,284 metric tons) submerged;
SSN 23 12,158 tons (12,353 metric tons) submerged
Speed: 25+ knots (28+ miles per hour, 46.3+ kph)
Crew: 140: 14 Officers; 126 Enlisted
Armament: Tomahawk missiles, MK48 torpedoes, eight torpedo tubes.
Ships:
USS Seawolf (SSN 21), Bangor, WA
USS Connecticut (SSN 22), Bangor, WA
USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23), Bangor, WA

General Characteristics, Los Angeles class
Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co.; General Dynamics Electric Boat Division.
Date Deployed: Nov 13, 1976 (USS Los Angeles)
Propulsion: One nuclear reactor, one shaft
Length: 360 feet (109.73 meters)
Beam: 33 feet (10.06 meters)
Displacement: Approximately 6,900 tons (7011 metric tons) submerged
Speed: 25+ knots (28+ miles per hour, 46.3 +kph)
Crew: 16 Officers; 127 Enlisted
Armament: Tomahawk missiles, VLS tubes (SSN 719 and later), MK48 torpedoes, four torpedo tubes.
Ships:
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690), Groton, CT
USS Memphis (SSN 691), Groton, CT
USS Bremerton (SSN 698), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Jacksonville (SSN 699), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Dallas (SSN 700), Groton, CT
USS La Jolla (SSN 701), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN 705), Guam
USS Albuquerque (SSN 706), San Diego, CA
USS San Francisco (SSN 711), San Diego, CA
USS Houston (SSN 713), Guam
USS Norfolk (SSN 714), Norfolk, VA
USS Buffalo (SSN 715), Guam
USS Olympia (SSN 717), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Providence (SSN 719), Groton, CT
USS Pittsburgh (SSN 720), Groton, CT
USS Chicago (SSN 721), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Key West (SSN 722), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Oklahoma City (SSN 723), Norfolk, VA
USS Louisville (SSN 724), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Helena (SSN 725), San Diego, CA
USS Newport News (SSN 750), Norfolk, VA
USS San Juan (SSN 751), Groton, CT
USS Pasadena (SSN 752), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Albany (SSN 753), Norfolk, VA
USS Topeka (SSN 754), San Diego, CA
USS Miami (SSN 755), Groton, CT
USS Scranton (SSN 756), Norfolk, VA
USS Alexandria (SSN 757), Groton, CT
USS Asheville (SSN 758), San Diego, CA
USS Jefferson City (SSN 759), San Diego, CA
USS Annapolis (SSN 760), Groton, CT
USS Springfield (SSN 761), Groton, CT
USS Columbus (SSN 762), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Santa Fe (SSN 763), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Boise (SSN 764), Norfolk, VA
USS Montpelier (SSN 765), Norfolk, VA
USS Charlotte (SSN 766), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Hampton (SSN 767), San Diego, CA
USS Hartford (SSN 768), Groton, CT
USS Toledo (SSN 769), Groton, CT
USS Tucson (SSN 770), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Columbia (SSN 771), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Greeneville (SSN 772), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Cheyenne (SSN 773), Pearl Harbor, HI

m00
11-26-2010, 11:04 PM
Megimoo, I'm not concerned about our armament, I'm concerned about our will to use it when necessary. And the wisdom to determine when it is necessary and when it is not.

Rockntractor
11-26-2010, 11:14 PM
Megimoo, I'm not concerned about our armament, I'm concerned about our will to use it when necessary. And the wisdom to determine when it is necessary and when it is not.

Anything our current president would lead us into would be a fiasco, remember Jimmy Carter.

m00
11-26-2010, 11:16 PM
Anything our current president would lead us into would be a fiasco, remember Jimmy Carter.

Carter at least served in the military, so I think Carter is probably a better wartime leader.Sad days, huh?

megimoo
11-26-2010, 11:27 PM
Carter at least served in the military, so I think Carter is probably a better wartime leader.Sad days, huh?Carter served on a nuclear submarine .His politics always were liberal
but he went off the deep end when he was elected .As for what will Obama do? We all know he is weak,
confused and In way over his head .He's sure to kiss China's ass to avoid a war just as they've planed .

megimoo
11-26-2010, 11:31 PM
Megimoo, I'm not concerned about our armament, I'm concerned about our will to use it when necessary. And the wisdom to determine when it is necessary and when it is not.With these gutless critters in the Congress and White House we are screwed .Iran called Carters bluff,China's calling Obama's bluff .

m00
11-26-2010, 11:34 PM
Carter served on a nuclear submarine .His politics always were liberal
but he went off the deep end when he was elected .As for what will Obama do? We all know he is weak,
confused and In way over his head .He's sure to kiss China's ass to avoid a war just as they've planed .

Well, Carter is a hardcore liberal but I'm sure he has some basic understanding of the concept of a "strategic defense" You don't put idiots as officers on nuclear submarines, especially in the 1950s. Obama is a hardcore liberal who thinks war is a card game.

megimoo
11-26-2010, 11:58 PM
Well, Carter is a hardcore liberal but I'm sure he has some basic understanding of the concept of a "strategic defense" You don't put idiots as officers on nuclear submarines, especially in the 1950s. Obama is a hardcore liberal who thinks war is a card game.
Carter was an officer on a conventionally powered submarine ,he never actually served on a nuclear boat.His only strategic training comes from sub school at New London.He had no service on an SLBM submarine and without strategic ballistic missiles there is no reason to train them in Nuclear strategy .

Obamas only claims to fame are his color and his community organizer work.Most of that was for ACORN .His mysterious Harvard education and who paid for it.Obama has no qualifications for POTUS and his chosen advisers are all hard core left .

m00
11-27-2010, 12:01 AM
Carter was an officer on a conventionally powered submarine ,he never actually served on a nuclear boat.His only strategic training comes from sub school at New London.He had no service on an SLBM submarine and without strategic ballistic missiles there is no reason to train them in Nuclear strategy .

Good catch. From the interwebs:


When Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (then a captain) started his program to create nuclear powered submarines, Carter wanted to join the program and was interviewed by Rickover. On 1 June 1952, Carter was promoted to Lieutenant. Selected by Rickover, Carter was detached on 16 October 1952 from K-1 for duty with the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Development in Schenectady, New York. From 3 November 1952 to 1 March 1953, he served on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC to assist "in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels."

From 1 March to 8 October, Carter was preparing to become the engineering officer for the nuclear power plant to be placed in USS Seawolf (SSN 575), one of the first submarines to operate on atomic power. He assisted in setting up training for the enlisted men who would serve on Seawolf. During this time his father became very sick and died in July 1953. After his father's death in 1953, Carter resigned from the Navy to return to Georgia to manage the family interests. Carter was honorably discharged on 9 October 1953 at Headquarters, Third Naval District in New York City. On 7 December 1961, he transferred to the retired reserve with the rank of Lieutenant at his own request.

Still, I think it's pretty clear Carter wasn't an idiot. But I'll stop threadjacking now. :p

Rockntractor
11-27-2010, 12:05 AM
Still, I think it's pretty clear Carter wasn't an idiot. But I'll stop threadjacking now. :p
Maybe so but Obama has perfected idiocy, he should copyright it so that nobody can do it to the degree he has!

Thor
11-27-2010, 01:34 AM
Carter may not have been an idiot, but he certainly lacked common sense and the will to use the power he possessed. I was USN during the Carter years (and the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years and some of the Clinton years). The Carter years were some of the leanest years of my career. I can't tell you how many times we couldn't do any work, schedule any operations, etc during his regime. It was nice having "Liberty' as often as we did because of that.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-28-2010, 08:09 AM
Carter may not have been an idiot, but he certainly lacked common sense and the will to use the power he possessed. I was USN during the Carter years (and the Reagan years, the Bush 41 years and some of the Clinton years). The Carter years were some of the leanest years of my career. I can't tell you how many times we couldn't do any work, schedule any operations, etc during his regime. It was nice having "Liberty' as often as we did because of that.

Carter has become a bit of a nut with old age, but he strikes me as someone who was too nice during his Presidency. I mean as in too nice to be the Commander in Chief.

I know he gets a lot of hate, but I do think he was a generally good guy, just in over his head. He also didn't call out the opposing party as enemies or try to act any Socialist legislation.

namvet
11-28-2010, 10:16 AM
Osama's not going to war with anyone. unless the UN tells him to

PoliCon
11-28-2010, 11:25 AM
China will not think twice about tanking their own economy for the sake of their honour and power - and China see's Korea as one of it's possessions. FURTHERMORE - if things escalate in Korea - I'll lay you what ever odds you want that Taiwan is on the chopping block as well. Barry better be serious about any moves he makes.

Teddy Kennedy
11-28-2010, 12:11 PM
China will not think twice about tanking their own economy for the sake of their honour and power - and China see's Korea as one of it's possessions. FURTHERMORE - if things escalate in Korea - I'll lay you what ever odds you want that Taiwan is on the chopping block as well. Barry better be serious about any moves he makes..

Sadly, I can see bam bam abandoning Taiwan.

megimoo
11-28-2010, 01:48 PM
China will not think twice about tanking their own economy for the sake of their honour and power - and China see's Korea as one of it's possessions. FURTHERMORE - if things escalate in Korea - I'll lay you what ever odds you want that Taiwan is on the chopping block as well. Barry better be serious about any moves he makes.
Surely You Jest,Barry ?He's too stupid to understand and too hateful of America to care.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-29-2010, 03:30 PM
.

Sadly, I can see bam bam abandoning Taiwan.

If China wants it they can have it. That's just the reality, nothing the US can really do about it short of something stupid.

It sucks because those people do deserve independence.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 03:33 PM
If China wants it they can have it. That's just the reality, nothing the US can really do about it short of something stupid.

It sucks because those people do deserve independence.

Anytime anyone needs advice on cowardice or surrender they need to call you.
are you French?:confused:

KhrushchevsShoe
11-29-2010, 03:39 PM
Anytime anyone needs advice on cowardice or surrender they need to call you.
are you French?:confused:

I'll take picking your battles over starting World War 3,

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 04:28 PM
I'll take picking your battles over starting World War 3,

You would never pick any battle Frenchy, only the nearest exit!
Huh, Khrushchev's running Shoes.

megimoo
11-29-2010, 04:41 PM
I'll take picking your battles over starting World War 3,
WW3 is just about here .The pressure builds and nothing will stop it now !

It's the same with all wars.Little things all cause the pressure to increase and a response leads to more pressure.

China is feeling her oats and forces a confrontation in the South China sea and America is warned not to intervene .China pushes N.Korea to 'stir the pot' and America joins S.Korea in a show of force .N.Korea launches a few missiles at the American fleet and all hell breaks lose .

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 04:45 PM
WW3 is just about here .The pressure builds and nothing will stop it now !

It's the same with all wars.Little things all cause the pressure to increase and a response leads to more pressure.

China is feeling her oats and forces a confrontation in the South China sea and America is warned not to intervene .China pushes N.Korea to 'stir the pot' and America joins S.Korea in a show of force .N.Korea launches a few missiles at the American fleet and all hell breaks lose .

and KhrushchevsrunningShoes heads for Canada!

Zathras
11-29-2010, 04:47 PM
I'll take picking your battles over starting World War 3,

Hey DUmbass, WW3 has started already...it was started on 09-11-01. Too bad gutless cowards like yourself wont let us win it.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 04:54 PM
Hey DUmbass, WW3 has started already...it was started on 09-11-01. Too bad gutless cowards like yourself wont let us win it.

I think it is actually World War version 2.9, they haven't done the 3.0 upgrade yet.

Bailey
11-29-2010, 05:07 PM
To China: Make us

KhrushchevsShoe
11-29-2010, 10:20 PM
WW3 is just about here .The pressure builds and nothing will stop it now !

It's the same with all wars.Little things all cause the pressure to increase and a response leads to more pressure.

China is feeling her oats and forces a confrontation in the South China sea and America is warned not to intervene .China pushes N.Korea to 'stir the pot' and America joins S.Korea in a show of force .N.Korea launches a few missiles at the American fleet and all hell breaks lose .

Nah man I think you just want it to happen really badly.

As for saying World War 3 started on 9/11, I ask "against who?"

-inb4- THE TUR'RISTS

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 10:24 PM
Nah man I think you just want it to happen really badly.

As for saying World War 3 started on 9/11, I ask "against who?"

-inb4- THE TUR'RISTS

We can't tell you, it's a secret!

KhrushchevsShoe
11-29-2010, 10:25 PM
Oh, so I take it you're losing.

Rockntractor
11-29-2010, 10:30 PM
Oh, so I take it you're losing.

If we were losing you would allready be in Canada Frenchy!

Zathras
11-30-2010, 04:33 AM
Nah man I think you just want it to happen really badly.

As for saying World War 3 started on 9/11, I ask "against who?"

-inb4- THE TUR'RISTS

If you have to ask, you're more of an idiot than can be believed. If you had a functioning brain in that black hole of a skull you would know. But, since you show with every post you make that you do not, I'll tell you....Islamofacists the world over, that's who.

Zathras
11-30-2010, 04:34 AM
If we were losing you would allready be in Canada Frenchy!

Nope, he'd be on his knees begging to not be killed, selling out his country at the earliest opportunity.

m00
12-02-2010, 10:10 PM
If we were losing you would allready be in Canada Frenchy!

French Canada is pretty nice actually. I'm adding it to my list of "places where I feel like I have more rights and civil liberties than the USA." :D

Rockntractor
12-02-2010, 10:13 PM
French Canada is pretty nice actually. I'm adding it to my list of "places where I feel like I have more rights and civil liberties than the USA." :D

I've been to Ontario but not Quebec.

megimoo
12-02-2010, 10:37 PM
I've been to Ontario but not Quebec.Quebec is frog country and Ottawa is English country.

m00
12-03-2010, 12:30 AM
I've been to Ontario but not Quebec.

How did you find Ontario?

Rockntractor
12-03-2010, 12:31 AM
How did you find Ontario?

I was raised in Minnesota.