1. Hello,


    New users on the forum won't be able to send PM untill certain criteria are met (you need to have at least 6 posts in any sub forum).

    One more important message - Do not answer to people pretending to be from xnxx team or a member of the staff. If the email is not from forum@xnxx.com or the message on the forum is not from StanleyOG it's not an admin or member of the staff. Please be carefull who you give your information to.


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  2. Hello,


    You can now get verified on forum.

    The way it's gonna work is that you can send me a PM with a verification picture. The picture has to contain you and forum name on piece of paper or on your body and your username or my username instead of the website name, if you prefer that.

    I need to be able to recognize you in that picture. You need to have some pictures of your self in your gallery so I can compare that picture.

    Please note that verification is completely optional and it won't give you any extra features or access. You will have a check mark (as I have now, if you want to look) and verification will only mean that you are who you say you are.

    You may not use a fake pictures for verification. If you try to verify your account with a fake picture or someone else picture, or just spam me with fake pictures, you will get Banned!

    The pictures that you will send me for verification won't be public


    Best regards,

    StanleyOG.

    Dismiss Notice
  1. Fluffy McNoo

    Fluffy McNoo Porn Star

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,246
    I've been hearing a lot about countries getting nuclear weapons lately. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan... seems like these days any country who has a grievance against anyone else, wants to be packing nukes. It's like the latest in must-have accessories for the trend-setting country of tomorrow. (I wonder if they come with a nice designer label?)

    So what should be done about it? Build anti-nuclear shields? Diplomatic discussions/bribery to discourage unstable regimes from owning such weapons? Sanctions? Threats of all out warfare if said countries don't comply? Create a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons from some/all countries?

    What would you do?

    Bye for now - Fluffy McNoo. :cool:
     
    #1
  2. Rockprincess

    Rockprincess Celestial Princess

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Messages:
    21,200
    North Korea is making me a little nervous lately...He's crazy enough to do just about anything...Treaties mean nothing to people like him...What can you do when you're dealing with someone like Jong??? Hopefully, he's all talk, but I wouldn't count on it...
     
    #2
  3. 69magpie

    69magpie Mischievous Magpie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    19,039
    First i thought moving to the moon, but as most of those nuclear countries are more than capable of getting a rocket up there then i'm guessing it's going to be mighty crowded on that big block of cheese.

    So then i've decided that the better move would be to Antarctica, firstly it's not a nuclear threat to anyone and secondly with the increasing climate change disaster and the rapid melting of the ice shelves i'm guessing in 30 or 40 years it's going to be one of the better places to live. Well better in the fact that there possibly wont be any acid rain from all the nuclear blasts and little to none radiation poisoning.
    Though we might have to live underground as the hole in the ozone layer down becomes huge and it'll be too dangerous to be out in the sunlight for more than 5 minutes at a time.

    But for the rest of you who can't make it to the moon or my place down-down-down-under, the only other option will be to put your head between your legs and kiss your arse goodbye.

    Or all the countries could get together and negotiate to make the world a safer place, and for all nuclear weapons to be destroyed, and that includes the USA's stockpile.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 14, 2009
    #3
  4. Lioness

    Lioness A Fun Flirty Frisky Friendly Felion

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    51,318
    I think the human race is hellbent on blowing each other up.
     
    #4
  5. Heyesey

    Heyesey Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    8,362
    If treaty violation is a matter for concern, then by far the most dangerous country in the world is the USA; let's worry about disarming them first. North Korea is a penny candle by comparison.
     
    #5
  6. Empress Lainie

    Empress Lainie Ascended Ancient<br>Unexpected Woman In XNXX Heaven

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    55,152
    North Korea IS a sovereign country even if their leaders are maybe psychopathic, sociopathic. So they actually have as much right to have nuclear weapons as we do, or as Iran does.

    The US government seems to have the attitude that everyone in the world should do what they tell them. Witness Netanyahu's speech, of course he fixed it so that the Palestinians would reject it, but he made it appear as if was willing. A clever political trick.

    I think NK is crazy like a fox. The more they threaten in the past the more bones they have been thrown by the US. They know full well that if they ever launched any nuclear weapon, the retaliation would destroy their country, but it would also destroy SK and affect Japan, Russia and China.

    Or maybe they believe the new US regime would NOT retaliate, I almost believe that myself.

    If Gore had been president on 9-11, I think he would have issued an apology to the Arab nations and never gone into Afghanistan or Iraq.
    On the other hand, if the conspiracy people are right, 9-11 would not have happened since it was a false flag op by the Bush admin.
     
    #6
  7. lynnopus

    lynnopus Porno Junky

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    431
    Two things Lainie, where is it written that ANYBODY has the "right" to have nuclear weapons.

    And why would retaliation destroy south korea japan russia and china. We could destroy n korea 10 times over with conventional weapons, there would be no reason what so ever to retaliate with nuclear weapons
     
    #7
  8. Heyesey

    Heyesey Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    8,362
    It isn't.

    It's fairly well established that NOBODY does, but I don't see any signs of the US or UK beginning to disarm. Until that happens, any argument that Iran, North Korea or anyone else shouldn't be allowed them is hypocrisy of the first order and will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
     
    #8
  9. ElCasanova

    ElCasanova Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,904
    Lets think of the countries who have nuclear weapons, and think about the countries who are considered super powers. Now think of the bullshit organization known as the UN and think of the permanent members of the Security Council. I think if you think of how the world is broken into all of these titles, you can draw a conclusion as to who and why those countries have nuclear weapons.

    Korea and Iran both scare me. I am not as worried about Korea, as I am about Iran. It is just personal views, but some of these views come with some reasoning behind them. Pakistan really does not worry me at all.
     
    #9
  10. bar34

    bar34 The Guardian Angel

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,113
    actually Casa ... pakistan is quite unstable !
     
    #10
  11. ElCasanova

    ElCasanova Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,904
    Yes, I know this man. But what country are we in right now that neighbors Pakistan?
     
    #11
  12. bar34

    bar34 The Guardian Angel

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,113
    India, but it´s not that strategically placed geographically, besides pakistan is a big garden where a lot of nasty weeds grow, and they can take over the garden ... and with those boys ... there is no diplomacy !

    but then again ... i´d feel better if there was non of that in pakistan, or north korea, iran ... US, Britain, France, Russia, Ukraine, Casaquistan, Belarus etc ...

    it´s a fucked up concept !
    it´s genocide

    i know i´ll get a lot of heat posting this in a forum full of americans but ...

    :)rolleyes: here it goes)

    ... i don´t find a big diference between Autchvitz and Hiroshima !
    this was almost 70 years ago !!!

    can´t we all grow up

    (it´s utopian, i know)
     
    #12
  13. ElCasanova

    ElCasanova Porn Star

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,904
    You are killing me man. I was talking about the country west of Pakistan, you know, Afghanistan. Even though Afghanistan is east of Iran, Pakistan I am thinking would be an easier attack, than Iran.

    And not sure you can compare Autchvitz to Hiroshima. I am thinking it would be somewhere between the genocide of Native Americans and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans and Japanese Nationals in internment camps out on the west coast during WWII.
     
    #13
  14. bar34

    bar34 The Guardian Angel

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,113
    sorry ... by this i thougth U meant something else !

    guantanamo ?

    even in this century Casa, it´s seems we can tolerate the most amazing medieval things if it´s suits our best interests or if it happens to someone else of far from our sigth!

    with all the advances ... it seems we didn´t evolved that much !

    techlology and all that comes with it, is developing a lot faster than us ... and we are not mature enougth ...

    use of genocidal force
    the screwing up of the planet
    unbalanced distribution of wealth
    mass hunger

    etc

    we´re just dum homo sapiens, a monkey, only greedier !
     
    #14
  15. tallguy28

    tallguy28 Amateur

    Joined:
    May 9, 2008
    Messages:
    90
    #15
  16. 69magpie

    69magpie Mischievous Magpie

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    19,039
    Does anyone really believe that Nth Korea will send in the missiles to Sth Korea expecially when the Nth's usual allies in China and Russia have said they wont support them. Even though Kim Jong Il seems to be nuts he couldn't be that crazy to think that there'd be anything worth salvaging after the countries around him have retaliated. He's just trying to show the big boys that he ain't scared if them......Look my dick's as big as yours, you don't scare me
     
    #16
  17. marco ten

    marco ten Porn Star

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,661
    I don't worry too much about North Korea or Pakistan. Yeah they're both unstable and bat shit insane, but neither of them have enough weapons to do real damage to the US and they both have leashes on them. North Korea has China, and Pakistan has India. They both know if they launched missiles then theyre respective leashes would annihilate them.

    It's Iran that scares me. The Muslim idea of martyrdom means they'd launch an assault without regard for consequences and they're first target would be Israel and followed by the US. Granted if the attacked Israel, Israel would fire back, probably at more then just Iran. I mean two nukes to take out Israel, and if they're going down they're going to take Iran and probably as much of the arab world out with them as possible.

    I think Iran needs to be stopped before they actually get weapons. But I think Obama is too chicken-shit to do anything. *Hopefully* they Israelis will do something.
     
    #17
  18. stumbler

    stumbler Porn Star

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    106,322
    What I think should be done is exactly what Barack Obama is doing on multiple levels. So much bullshit gets thrown around about Obama's alleged lack of experience and yet in reality one of the things he jumped right into when he entered the US senate and has been working ever since is Nuclear non-proliferation.

    And right now Obama is approaching the problem on three levels. First by trying to de-escalate world tensions and solving the problems that cause those tensions. Second, by opening avenues for discussions and trying to start negotiations with those countries who are seeking nuclear weapons. And third and most importantly working towards nuclear disarmament with the world powers. Obama's view is a world where NO countries possess nuclear weapons.

    I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind you thoughts here. Why don't you tell us what they are?

    This sounds bat shit insane to me. Countries like North Korea and Pakistan don't have to have enough weapons to damage the US for them to start a nuclear war and kill all of us with nuclear pollution and nuclear winter.

    And if this is not insane then if is just downright stupid and bigoted to me. Your view depends on an irrational fear of Iran and Muslims when if you even look at what is happening in Iran right now its plainly obvious that people in Iran are not a bunch of suicidal zealots that are eager to die. That is ridiculous.

    And if we want to avoid nuclear war then it is Israel and not Iran that needs to be stopped before they do attack Iran.
     
    #18
  19. Fluffy McNoo

    Fluffy McNoo Porn Star

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2007
    Messages:
    5,246
    My thoughts on this whole situation.

    The world needs a Gort.

    "Say what?!" I hear you say.

    Let me explain. Gort was the all-powerful, universal police in the original "The day the earth stood still". Anyone attempting to start a war, would have Gort turn up and kill them all. No arguing, no debating. Just "try and you die."

    Let's face it, even without nuclear weapons, the world is perfectly capable of killing millions of it's own people in many other ways. Conventional fire power. Biological attack (ie disease). Chemical warfare. In fact, recently, I heard about testing of a Vacuum bomb, which is like a green nuclear bomb. Every bit as devastating as a nuke, but without all that nasty fallout. And neutron bombs have been around for years...

    So, nuclear war, isn't the issue. Humanity's thirst for killing - over a bit of land, political or religious ideology, skin tone, oil, or any other reason you can think of - is. After all, no-one's used nukes in Iraq, but plenty of people are still dead. Likewise Yugoslavia, and Rwanda.

    So instead of building bigger better boom-boom toys to kill ourselves with, how about we start putting our energy into a mutually agreed system that prevents any kind of warfare in the first place?

    Enter, Gort. Or something along those lines. Think about it. Parents and teachers keep children in line. Without them, kids would grow up as wild animals - literally. As adults, laws and regulations keep us in line. We know without them, anarchy would swiftly follow. So why not a world guardian, that keeps countries in line? Created by the world, for the world. No more spending billions on bigger and better machines of death. No more war. No more genocide. No more worrying what "they" are going to do.

    Perhaps it's naive of me to hope such a machine could be built. Perhaps it can't. But considering the alternative, it has to be at least worth a try.

    Most people just want to live in peace, and get on with their lives, the world over. Maybe it's time we thought about the best way of helping them achieve that - instead of the best way of blowing them off the face of the planet.

    Because I don't know about you, but I really like the thought of future children happily playing in the sunshine one day, without the shadow of Armageddon silently hanging over their heads.

    Bye for now - Fluffy McNoo. :cool:
     
    #19
  20. Tightcuntlover

    Tightcuntlover Porn Star Suspended!

    Joined:
    May 13, 2007
    Messages:
    20,551
    A worldwide referendum on the subject would be a good start.

    Two choices only.

    1. The world is fine as it is and nothing needs to be changed....

    or

    2. We all live in peace.

    It should be a unanimous vote once the fearmongers realise it will be a better world for them too....and they'd look pretty damn stupid or selfish...or both if they didn't agree!!

    Best Wishes
     
    #20