Just a few more years...WW3 ?

I look back at look at this current state the world is in. Like on the war aspect, every day some new scrwed up crap is goin on in that region we call the "middle east". Its gone past the almost 'normal' suicide/car bombings prosoners are being treated in-humanely. Though the facdt of anyone being treated in any human way during war is laughable(Its war damnit). Prisoners are being beheaded, for what I say? what does this really accomplish besides pissing off someone off high up in command. And this is my own shrwed opinion, but I say just nuke the whole damn area and be done with it. But seriously in a while I think there will be a bunch of middle eastern countries that will unite to get the U.S out of that area

The so called "threat" N. Korea has not gone away, if there ever really was any threat...
May 17, 6:36 PM ET (yesterday) after President Chen Shui-bian's swearing-in for a new four-year term on Thursday, China announced that any move toward Independence by the island of Taiwan will be met with any force necesary. That includes over 500 missles pointed at the Island. If China were to Invade Taiwan it would be probaly 2006, by 2005 China's military might would have surpassed Taiwans defense power. Deciding in 2006 would give China a few years to clean up before the 2008 Olympics.

And lest us not forget the old enemy the former USSR/Russia. Although the "Cold War" is over, though in a poll (2002) 40% of americans felt that Russia could become a threat in the future. (http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/russia/russia1b.cfm) Even though it has a greatly reduced military and even had problems dealing with a small civil war in Chechnya. But there is a large amount of Russian nationlaist politicians that if in power strive to restore Russia to a serious military power, and election time is almost around the corner.

India & Pakistan are on the brink of yet another war, only this time they have Nuclear weapons in their arsenal. The cause of all this is a place called Kashmir or most of it at least.

In just a few years the 3 largest/ most powerful countries, and 2 rising to that level could be in another war..., WW 3 anyone ?

Helios, I live in the middle-east, and I can tell you this if you think that arab countries or any countries in that area are going to unite against america or whatever other country, then it will be much later thatn a few years, more like a few decades.....

I look back at look at this current state the world is in. Like on the war aspect, every day some new scrwed up crap is goin on in that region we call the "middle east". Its gone past the almost 'normal' suicide/car bombings prosoners are being treated in-humanely. Though the facdt of anyone being treated in any human way during war is laughable(Its war damnit). Prisoners are being beheaded, for what I say? what does this really accomplish besides pissing off someone off high up in command. And this is my own shrwed opinion, but I say just nuke the whole damn area and be done with it. But seriously in a while I think there will be a bunch of middle eastern countries that will unite to get the U.S out of that area

I like how you added 'nuke the whole damn area'. Frankly, I couldn't agree more. Nothing like good old genocide, right? WRONG. One more genocidal comment and I'm closing the thread.

And lest us not forget the old enemy the former USSR/Russia. Although the "Cold War" is over, though in a poll (2002) 40% of americans felt that Russia could become a threat in the future. (http://www.americans-world.org/dige...ia/russia1b.cfm) Even though it has a greatly reduced military and even had problems dealing with a small civil war in Chechnya. But there is a large amount of Russian nationlaist politicians that if in power strive to restore Russia to a serious military power, and election time is almost around the corner.

I myself hate nationalistic politicians as well. I'd much rather have politicians who hate their own nation. Much better for the country. Are you saying it's bad that there are elections? What's next: Putin is a good president? This stuff is unbelievable...

India and Pakistan on the brink of war? I didn't know they ever were not on the brink of war. In any case, India will think twice about attacking since Pakistan has the aid of the US.

Now, please, let's all keep this thread clean from genocidal comments, or flaming...

Mr U

Bah. I think the genocide was a joke HU...

World War 3? Gee, I sure hope not, but anyway if there's a war then it's not likely to involve all five countries that you mentioned. For a world war there need to be allies. If there is a big war around the corner then it is the war of West vs East.
There's a serious danger of this happening in the next few decades, but I'll go against public opinion (at least on this site) and say that I actually think America is going the right way at least with the general idea of the war on terror. If anything will cause another big war it is a terrorist organisation that has grown to mass proportions. They need to be eradicated now before they get stronger - and yes, this means taking the risk of an upcoming war - but if it is not done now then the next generation will fight the war and all that would change is that the terrorists will become stronger.

Now this should be fun.

Are you saying that to prevent war, you must have war??!......

Im telling you this; as long as there is america, there will be militant groups, or as you would like to call them 'terrorists', because they're main target is to have a middle-east without any foriegn invaders, and beleive me they wont stop even if they know its impossible.......

World War 3 has started.

Think about it. The USA have started with their plan to destroy terrorist threats, with help from England and the UK. While this has been going on, terrorists have grown bolder, increased their numbers and started to retaliate. This may grow into something bigger, or it may not. But face the facts, WW3 has started, if only and a miniscule scale.

Originally posted by tHe aRcHeItEcT
Are you saying that to prevent war, you must have war??!......

Im telling you this; as long as there is america, there will be militant groups, or as you would like to call them 'terrorists', because they're main target is to have a middle-east without any foriegn invaders, and beleive me they wont stop even if they know its impossible.......

This is true that these militant groups want foreign "invaders" out of their region. But also they do not want anyone looking over there shoulder as they plan to do things that could affect the entire world. It is scary to think that these militant groups can get a hold of mass destructive weapons. These groups are too radical having no regard for anything but what constitutes their own "cause". Quite frankly I don't believe that the Middle East region will ever find peace. It has become quite a burden to the global community. If the world had guarantees that they would only destroy each other, then I would say that the United States should get out their right away, but such a guarantee is unrealistic isn't it? There was a time when the Eastern and Western worlds had little knowledge and little to do with each other. Conflicts within regions were isolated, but the world has changed in a way that it has become smaller. When conflict arises in one region, the entire global community is affected by it. But who in the Middle East really cares about that?

Originally posted by freeyourmind
Bah. I think the genocide was a joke HU...


I know. I joke daily about exteriminating entire peoples. My friends find it hilarious.

I agree with the ArcheItect on this one. With war, we will only create future terrorist orginasations, as we are murdering the parents, children and friends of potential terroists.

Freeyourmind, how exactly do you intend to eradicate terrorism? Nearly three years after Bush said he would capture and prosecute Osama Bin Laden, the man still hasn't been found!

Unless of course, you agree with me on the fact that Osama is a mere puppet of the US government, to steer the population's will towards war against the Middle-East, and they need Osama for future attacks. After all, Osama is the perfect representant of what the western people see as evil. Rich, non-western, cowardly...

There, a whole post without bashing the US!

I knew I cou..*twitches*.. Must control myse...I.. HATE THE US!!! Hmmmph.. Sorry bout that.

Mr U

Yeah, you actually started to bash America since before that last line too... :P

People joke about everything. I didn't find it offensive and neither should you I think. I think it only gets offensive when jokes make dun of disasters that already happen. If I were to say now that I'll go over to Holland and kill everyone of you crazy Dutch bastards then you might not find it funny since I've recycled this lame joke for as long as I could and more, but it's very likely that neither you nor any other moderator in this site would be offended and feel a need to "protect" the members of the site from said post. I just think it's being over-sensitive... which only bothers me since it comes off as agressive <-- constructive criticism btw, I want this site to be good for us all ;)

How "exactly" do I plan to eradicate terrorism? I'll be damned if I know. I never said I knew what to do. I'm not a politician or a statesman or an expert on, damn, any subject, so how the hell should I know? All I said was that I think the general idea of the war on terrorism is a good one. Personally I actually also think that the Americans have managed and fought it badly so far, but again, this assumption is basically a wild stab in the dark.

To go into it for in a little more detail just for the hell of it, and since I need something to do rather than study for my test so I can fail tommorow, I think we all need to realise that terrorists are not exclusively inspired by traumatic past experiences. It sure is the reasoning for some, but traumatic experiences happen everywhere in the world and still the only places where we hear of them "causing" mass murders or attempts at them are places where there is a large terrorist infrastucture, propoganda machine, and more often than not a supportive administration (supportive of terrorism). So that's one reason why I think the past wrongs are largely irrelevant to stopping terror (if not for acting morally).
Another reason is that even if we stop fighting terrorists completely, even if all of the western world retreats and squeezes into a small apartment in London and focuses their entire efforts on feeding the hungry of the Middle Eastern countries and helping to improve their quality of life; even then there will be people who hate us. Why? Because there are other reasons for terrorism. One could be capitalism, another one could be blatant racism, another one could be that we're not Islamic. Not all things that we can change. Some demands simply cannot be met and their demanders must simply be crushed. For instance, it would be foolish to try and appease Al Queda since they will only appease when we all convert to their fascist brance of Islam. What's my point here? Bah, good question, I'm spouting good questions today. The point is it's not that simple. Basically the point is we don't know shit. And either we go study to get more fluent in shit, or we just hope for the best. Anywho it doesn't make sense to have passionate beliefes about stuff which you know nothing about.

A suggestion: to counter me, give me a complete solution to bringing peace and calm to the Israeli/Palestinian and the American/Iraqi situation. Believe me many have tried before you, but perhaps you'll get lucky. But this time I want details. The demagogy gets tired after a while ;)
Just seems to me that currently your method of stopping terrorism begins and ends with "bring the boys back home". God knows we all wish it were that simple. But you still seem to be under the illusion that it is.

And to summarise my argument: peace and prosperty to all. And death to the Dutch. And to Kirsten Dunst. She must have some Dutch in her.
And long live teh pink!
And goodnight! I'm fucking tired!

It is simple because I know this is untrue:

Because there are other reasons for terrorism. One could be capitalism, another one could be blatant racism, another one could be that we're not Islamic. Not all things that we can change. Some demands simply cannot be met and their demanders must simply be crushed.

I know people from the Middle-East, and they are quite Islamic. In fact, I have had theological discussions with them. They do not hate me for not being islamic, they just told me I'll be going to hell. They hate us for destroying their families and homes.

Sure, there may be some fundamentalists, but do you really believe some Islamic fundamentalists will get any following if anyone in the Middle-East has their families and such. If people had something to loose when did executed their actions, they think twice. However, we have taken everything away from them, and it is therefore that they attack us. Not because they are islamic.

A suggestion: to counter me, give me a complete solution to bringing peace and calm to the Israeli/Palestinian and the American/Iraqi situation. Believe me many have tried before you, but perhaps you'll get lucky. But this time I want details. The demagogy gets tired after a while
Just seems to me that currently your method of stopping terrorism begins and ends with "bring the boys back home". God knows we all wish it were that simple.

Israel. Either full integration of the israelis into the Palestinian people, or full evacuation of the israelis from Palestinia.
Iraq. Full retraction from Iraq on jun 30th, after the UN has made a constitution with the people of Iraq, that abides on all of the laws set by the UN. Than, after a month election. And if it fails, we stay out of it. Our intervention does not save lives, it costs lives. We need to give them a push in the right direction and let the Iraqis do the rest. Democracy is a process, it can not be achieved in one day. In the mean time, the US can invest it's thrillians of dollars in it's own country, and sending humanitarian help to countries like Iraq and such.

Love shall set you free!

Mr U

Originally posted by HomoUniversalis
It is simple because I know this is untrue:



I know people from the Middle-East, and they are quite Islamic. In fact, I have had theological discussions with them. They do not hate me for not being islamic, they just told me I'll be going to hell. They hate us for destroying their families and homes.
I don't know which Muslims these are that you have spoken too, but I'd imagine they're Dutch, and even if not, more likely then not they were not part of a terrorist organisation. Btw, did these people you speak too support the terrorism against innocents or did you just bring them as an example to show that non-terrorist Muslims exist? Because that I know... It wasn't my point.
Sure, there may be some fundamentalists, but do you really believe some Islamic fundamentalists will get any following if anyone in the Middle-East has their families and such. If people had something to loose when did executed their actions, they think twice. However, we have taken everything away from them, and it is therefore that they attack us. Not because they are islamic.
There you have it. These Islamic fundamentalists, which if I'm not mistaken you just admitted that will always exist, will, if all suffering stopped, get less following, but "any following" will always exist. In other words, there are always those that will strike at you no matter what you do - there are always those that will hate you for what you are, not for what you do, and therefore you have no choice but to fight them and hope to defeat them. That was my point.

Secondly, of course hate and events that lead to it help the propogandists in their cause, but you make what I think is a wrong assumption that the terrorist organisations' power lies in their numbers and wide support. Again, it helps, but it's not the exclusive or even a main source of their power. Their power comes, again, from infrastructure - this includes many things, financing, leadership, propoganda (and yes, less innocent casualties will be a blow of sorts to it, but not one that would be impossible to overcome), and supportive national administration.
If we're going to fight terror, we're gonna have to deal with all its sources, not just the ones preached to us by the terrorists themselves. True, unnecessary killing should stop because it makes it harder for us (besides being morally wrong), but it can't possible be the only thing we focus on. We gotta face it, there is a reason for military presence, the army isn't there simply to make life worse for the inhabitants. You say these reasons have got to do with corruption or colonial aims, which may or may not be true, but what is definitely true is that some form of military force must be executed against the terrorist. If they are just let to be then they just get stronger and stronger. It's not an easy situation, and it definitely isn't simple, so if we really want to solve this we gotta start seeing the facts as they are.
Israel. Either full integration of the israelis into the Palestinian people, or full evacuation of the israelis from Palestinia.
Okay, leaving out for the time being the fact that you assume every claim the Palestinians make is a just one, even if the Palestinian leadership and people justly want Israel out of every inch in the West Bank and Gaza strip and will then lay down their weapons, there still exist organisations like the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad who have openly admitted that they will murder Israeli civilians until every single Jew goes out of the land between the Jordan sea and the Mediterranian and back to his country of origin. They will not negotiate. They will fight, and they will keep on fighting until Israel no longer exists. Every advancement the Palestinian leadership makes towards an independent state is for Hamas another step towards the destruction of Israel. Surely this is someone that you cannot negotiate with? Or should we try to appease them too? How exactly?
The integration thing I'm not even going to talk about since it's not realistic. Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis want it. Besides, when this land is formed, what will we call it? Israestine? All this does is make neither side happy...
Iraq. Full retraction from Iraq on jun 30th, after the UN has made a constitution with the people of Iraq, that abides on all of the laws set by the UN. Than, after a month election. And if it fails, we stay out of it. Our intervention does not save lives, it costs lives. We need to give them a push in the right direction and let the Iraqis do the rest. Democracy is a process, it can not be achieved in one day. In the mean time, the US can invest it's thrillians of dollars in it's own country, and sending humanitarian help to countries like Iraq and such.

Love shall set you free!

Mr U
Okay, the full retraction should be happening soon, so you'll have to wait till then to make complaints as to how the Americans are doing it ;)
Actually, in Iraq it probably is simpler. The Iraqi terrorists are not in support of the destruction of the American state, so once they get out it should probably be the end of that. It was a bad example. What about Al Queda? If I understand correctly, their purpose is to destroy the US and everything it stands for, or is it? Does anybody know exactly what Al Queda claim they are fighting for? Maybe it's against christianity, maybe capitalism, maybe secularism. Anyway, it's not against traumatic experiences.

A question, in Iraq, if the situation god forbid gets really bad, and the place is taken over by warlords and Iraq becomes an even more dangerous place than before, should they be left to be or should the Western world step in? What if there's an actual danger for western countries from the new Iraq?

And another point. I disagree about democracy being a process. A dictatorship does not slowly morph into a democracy, unless it's lead by someone who's willing to give up his power (this was the case with Gorbachov if I'm not mistaken?), but that's not very likely to happen, and even in that case it can't be called gradual.
No, democracy is the natural way of things (though perhaps not the correct...) and the moment people are given it the public can't "refuse", the only people who can stand in its way are people who want more power. So there's no gradually here, it happens by fighting the totaliterrians out of power - yes, by violence. If I'm not mistaken this is how Europeans democracies were formed, but there's a good chance I am and you probably have some example ready for me to prove otherwise so knock yourself out :D
Right now, it seems to me that the gradual process you speak of is the one of a democracy trying to be truer to the visions of the creators of the country or of modern democracy. But for that to happen, there has to already be a certain mindset in place. The mindset doesn't "gradually" change, it gets violently kicked out of office and changed to the natural way of things.

Just so that this doesn't get wildly off topic like these things often do, my main argument here is that the general idea of a war on terror is an excellent one since letting terrorism be is letting terrorism get stronger, not to mention more legitimate. All the other stuff is just to illustrate the point. Just don't get into details with me now about what America and/or Israel did that was right or wrong. It's irrelevant here. We're speaking about the general idea

WTF is all this shit about muslims being terrorists???
Are you call me a fucking terrorsit?
Coz Im muslim......does that mean im a terrorist???

And can you tell me if you were taught about how there used to be jews in other countries, mainly England, and how they were removed and intentionally placed in the heart of Arab countries, to start war???
WW3 was planned along time ago my friends, by people who hate arabs/muslims and want them eradicated, thats why Israel was created in an already exsisting arab country, so that wars would happen like the Egypt/Israel war, the gulf war, and so on.......

We are all on thin ice, and underneath us is a war to end all wars, and and all of humanity....

No, TA, I did not say you were a terrorist. When I said we need to be careful of Islaimic fundamentalists I meant we need to be careful of the Muslims that are fundamentalist, not that all Muslims are fundamentalist ;) About Israel, yes, I know the history and I disagree with you, but the current topic is the war on terror. I understand you think it was a bad idea? Why? Should terrorist organisations like Al Queda and Hamas be left alone? Do you think they'll stop their attacks then?

I know earlier I said something bout "nuking the whole area" I was joking. But on a serious note I say the US should have just detonated a ICBM over Bagdad Im quite certain that would have bypassed all this useless conflict. Whats a million or so casualties, the US has done it before have we forgotten Nagasaki and Hiroshima already. It would be no different.

As I say "Once a monster always a monster" dont tell me they have well over 1,000 nuclear weapons and they dont plan to ever use them, such a waste.

"Either war is obsolete or man is"

So you were just joking about nuking the area, you just want to nuke Baghdad, werer hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians live?

You are strange, in a bad way.

Mr U

Originally posted by Helios
I know earlier I said something bout "nuking the whole area" I was joking. But on a serious note I say the US should have just detonated a ICBM over Bagdad Im quite certain that would have bypassed all this useless conflict. Whats a million or so casualties, the US has done it before have we forgotten Nagasaki and Hiroshima already. It would be no different.

As I say "Once a monster always a monster" dont tell me they have well over 1,000 nuclear weapons and they dont plan to ever use them, such a waste.

"Either war is obsolete or man is"

What the fuck is going on in this ^^ post!?!? "Ehh...I don't mean the WHOLE of IRAQ...just the WHOLE of Bagdhad, Silly!" Oh...that's ok then, you stupid, ignorant moron.

You people act like it has not happened before, wake up it has twice and whats to stop it from happening again Nothing except some little political insecurities.

848,000 was the death toll from Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and had Japan not surrendered the US had a fourth bomb that they would have used on Tokyo which at that time had a little over 9 million in population. The estimated soldier death toll if the US were to invade Japan instead would have been around 1 million. The US was capable of possibly killing around 10 million to save 1 million interesting, do you really think the US has changed that much in the past 60 odd years.

wake up it has twice and whats to stop it from happening again Nothing except some little political insecurities.

No shit.

What the US can or can not do is totally besides the point. I could just state that they just should send all ballistic misiles to the other side of the moon and make it crash on earth. They could do that too.

This is not about what can be done, but what should be done. You suggested that we should nuke Iraq. Than you mentioned that was just a joke and that we should just nuke Baghdad.

The US can not use tactical nuclear missiles, or nuclear missiles, because if they do, they will have violated their own position as 'police officer' of the world, and no one will ever support them again.

What you are saying is not only genocidal, but your defence of it, is also rather pathetic. If you want to be controversial and feel special, fine. But at least come with a reason I can swallow.

Bah, I'm not good at this. Where is BSD when you need him?

Mr U

The US can not use tactical nuclear missiles, or nuclear missiles, because if they do, they will have violated their own position as 'police officer' of the world, and no one will ever support them again.

What you are saying is not only genocidal, but your defence of it, is also rather pathetic. If you want to be controversial and feel special, fine. But at least come with a reason I can swallow.

Mr U

Really this pretentious job of 'police officer' needs to be given up, how can a country go about "fixing" up other countries when their own still has so many problems.

What makes my comment genocidal Im talking about nuking one single city nothing more, thats hardly genocidal. Im saying get Saddam to surrender with one massive blow than to drag this whole ordeal out more thana year.

If you want to be controversial and feel special, fine. But at least come with a reason I can swallow.

Thats quite besides the point and hardly my intention. If I want to feel special i'll go do something no one else can. What I'm suggesting anyone can do, but I seem to be the only one with the guts to say it, and at least mean it.

First, I never stated that I agreed with the US position as police officer. In fact, I would rather have the UN fullfill this role.

Guts? That has absolutely nothing to do with guts. There are no guts involved when you cowardly bomb a city full of innocents while Sadam Husseing survives in his bunker. But, I'm sure you will pull up some schematics now on a bunker-buster. In any case, blowing up cities is uncool, and generally does not require guts, or intelligence.

Mr U

Originally posted by Helios
What makes my comment genocidal Im talking about nuking one single city nothing more, thats hardly genocidal.

Ohhhh...NOW I see your point! You just want to nuke an entire city, not an entire nation! Oh well, that's perfectly acceptable, how silly of me to misunderstand you...You're a genius.

Move over, Kofi...roll over, Bush...step out, Blair...This guy is the world leader we all need...

Originally posted by Ou Be Low hoo
Oh

Move over, Kofi...roll over, Bush...step out, Blair...This guy is the world leader we all need...

Thats right, Helios for Pres 2025.

Originally posted by Helios
Thats right, Helios for Pres 2025.

2025? Don't you mean 2024?

Originally posted by NMN
2025? Don't you mean 2024?

I was really just being sarcastic, but sure 2024 if you want to get specific. ;)

Originally posted by Helios
I was really just being sarcastic, but sure 2024 if you want to get specific. ;)

Were you joking about the year or being president? Either way...good joke.

Whats with all this US backed hatred? Why do I see a political thread, and somewhere in there, there is something like "America is causing all of this," or "I hate America" or "The terrorists only exist cause America does"?

Don't hate me cause Im an American, hate my damn leader, Goerge W. Bush. Hate him for this war, not the people. That man, although Congress is making all the decisions (highly opinionated statement) is causing this. We, as a country though, not all of us, but a ton of us are unknown and or unaware that someone may actually have a different view on things, or a different way of doing things. Half of my friends are racist toward anyone who supports Islam, and or feels any sort of sympathy or sorrow toward any Middle Eastern (had to think of something that didn't sound racist, and be accused of being a racist, when Im not) that is injured or killed. I think it's mainly due to the media being controlled by our government. They dont want us to see what is happening on the other side of the field. If we all knew what was happening, and if all the lies came into the light of day from our government, we would have total Anarchy. We as a country, are idiots...not all, but most. Too damn arrogant, and or ignorant to the fact that we should not be in the Middle East, and or even close to the region.

If America has already started WW3, then so be it, we all die, YAY! No more fighting, cause no one will be left to fight. America wants oil...plain and simple..Bush wants to be re-elected, plain and simple. I want people to stop bashing my country for the people that live here, since the media controls what we can and cant see in the world, and bash our political leaders, who see all, yet lie about it, plain and simple.

What if World War 3 happened? Hmmm, lets see......we wouldn't live to tell about it. This would end the world, and Jesus would be like...."Hmmm, guess they brough Armageddon on themselves. "

if bush is re-elected, he probaly will come up with another excuse to invade another country in the middle-east

he kept saying there nuke's and biological (hope i spelled that right) weapons in iraq.

but they NEVER found any. and still now he keeps saying that. bush is a stupid moron, with no brain.

he get's re-elected then we can kiss this world good bye. because he is going to be the one that will destroy this planet.


and if there is gonna be a WW3. f*ck off with the nuke's and be a man, fight man against man.

thats why i find these's wars not real fighting. just fire a missle from a distance and kill. the wars in the past (with swords and axe's) that were real fighting. MAN against MAN. oke there still be alot of deads, but those fights have more HONOR !

he kept saying there nuke's and biological (hope i spelled that right) weapons in iraq.


There's no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the keyword being "were." I'm looking forward to WWIII. The world population is far too high. Something must be done about it.

Everybody lets be serious.

How would you define WW3? Do you defy it as an international war? No it cannot happen there is simply no force in the world that could rise to cause such madness.
Please don't listen to the news reporters who say small terrorist groups are a vital threat. Until a large force is formed then only wars can cross borders. Pluss lets be serious we don't really want a world war 3 because there will proberly be no life after the war as the US will launch all 10,000 Nucleur missiles on the Enemy and Spread a radioactive world spreadout.

Please note this is only if your speaking of the real world ;)

Now if you don't be serious the world......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/Jacynth/Glb128.jpg

Will go Boom BOOM......

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v439/Jacynth/BOOM.jpg