Bush le simplet

[djnvcm]

Monday 17th march 2003 is a major break through in the world affairs
One state of the earth has decided to start the war against another one at a distance of more than 8000 km and against the will of world community of states.

Tomorrow, China will be free to invade Taiwan; India/Pakistan; North Korea/South................................(fill up the blanks)...........

Robin Cook, one of the main british minister has immediatly resigned saying that (translation tentative from "Le Monde" dated 19/3/03) :
- Military power of Irak is half the one of the first gulf war
- It is wrong to say that this country is a threat justifying the war
- What was disturbing me the last weeks is to think that if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Monday 17th march 2003 is a major break through in the world affairs
One state of the earth has decided to start the war against another one at a distance of more than 8000 km and against the will of world community of states.

Tomorrow, China will be free to invade Taiwan; India/Pakistan; North Korea/South................................(fill up the blanks)...........

Robin Cook, one of the main british minister has immediatly resigned saying that (translation tentative from "Le Monde" dated 19/3/03) :
- Military power of Irak is half the one of the first gulf war
- It is wrong to say that this country is a threat justifying the war
- What was disturbing me the last weeks is to think that if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................

Complete and utter nonsense:

1, This isn't a new war, its the completion of one that began and sadly was not finished in 91

2. The UN has itself with the US unanimously passed resolution after resolution condemning your buddy Saddam and mandating that he disarm. unfortunately the level of beaurocracy is so high there, that they can't actually do it themselves. And even if they could, who would do it, ummhmm., the US, so its really the same result in the end, just less time the French and Germans get to feel special and hurt our economy.

3. Oh no, not a resigning demagogue? what next, a sit-in in France?

4. Lastly, only a fool would use the old "what if" arguement. Bush was elected. I didn't want him, but I'm glad Gore wasn't in office during 911. There's where we would have acted like the Europeans - appeasers

[Ralph63]

The problem with large "Bush doctrine" preemptive US military commitments, is that US can realistically only handle a very few selected rogestate/terrorist-troubles at a time. Only one at a time of the magnitude of Irak. How can this be exploited? Well, take the recent murder of the Serbian primeminister, Zoran Djindjic, for example. Is it a coincidence that the shady figures behind this chose to do this exactly now, then they very well know that US/UN is 100% occupied with the Irak-issue?

Above is one of the built-in problems with preemtive US-military commitments around the globe. The more US exhausts its recourses in one selected issue at a time, the more new terrorists networks, roge-states and border-quarrels states are likely to take their chances, while attention is set elsewere.

Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by djnvcm
..... if Al Gore were elected we would not be sending our troops in this war.............................
True, I cannot be certain of your nationality merely from the fact that you list france as your location, but your posts clearly seem to be ESL (English as a Second Language. No offense intended).

So, I am assuming the you are, indeed, french. In which case, I am mystified at your use of the word "our" as highlighted above.

Where does a french guy get off, referring to troops of the "Coalition of the Willing" as "our" troops?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Ralph63
.....Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

I take issue with your perspective. First of all, unlike yourself, I live in the United States, have been in the Service of this country, and am cogizant of the general state of our military preparedness. Not an expert by any means. But, I consider your analysis to be unfounded, especially since you chose to just "throw" it out there with no attribution.

If you make factual claims to prove a point, show it as more than some off the wall "opinion" by providing links to the material in question instead of just announcing, " I read it somewhere." Perhaps your links will bring with them an aura of respectability that even an opponet would have to consider.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by MichaelC
If you make factual claims to prove a point, show it as more than some off the wall "opinion" by providing links to the material in question instead of just announcing, " I read it somewhere." Perhaps your links will bring with them an aura of respectability that even an opponet would have to consider.

OK, fair enough. Go to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives. It was publiced february 16, 2003.

[Alfred]

Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.” Alfred, as usual you are cracking me up here! It must be a real "hoot' to sit around and hoist a beer with ya. Of course, being as you are located in SLC, you might not be into that sort of thing. Nonetheless, I like your sense of humor.

I expect there will some french-oriented person along shortly with no sense of humor at all to take you to task for your vile, rascist ways.

[minusthejihad]

ah the French? forget about them, too much attention anyway. I do hope that we will go through with the rest of those though, sincerely.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Alfred
Djnvcm is right. Iraq is just the first country we plan to invade.

Here is the list:

Iraq
Iran
Syria
Libya
France

France you say? Yes, we plan to invade France in the September/October timeframe. Let me give you the ten reasons why we plan to invade France:

1. We will have worldwide support
2. Like the Iraqis, the French will surrender quickly
3. California wine is better
4. Paris has far too many French in it
5. The roads are nicer than in the Middle East
6. The best French troops are foreigners and probably hate the French anyway. (Foreign Legion)
7.The country will probably be on strike.
8. We have been there a couple of times before and know the territory
9. The British will wrestle with us for the right to shoot first
10. There are already 75,000 American soldiers in France


On another note. Chirac has said that if Sadaam uses gas or biologicals (which the French say he does not have) then France will send troops to help the US. I hope that Bush says NO in a very Texas way.

Remember George Patton: “I would rather face a German division in front of me than a French division behind me.”

I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

say buhbye to their budies the Hezbollah as well in that case. I'm really surprised that the US hasn't brought this relationship up more often, like after the Francophone summit where Chiraq shook hands with a man who was directly responsible for bombing US Marine baracks.

[Salim]

you just have to admire them :) (no, not the French)

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by Salim
you just have to admire them :) (no, not the French)

Again. Do you speak in code or something? Is it that hard to get your point across or at least reply to a specific question in general. No one knows what you are talking about?

Did you mean, all the French want is for us to admire them? Then you said, no not the French? I have no clue guy.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Again. Do you speak in code or something? Is it that hard to get your point across or at least reply to a specific question in general. No one knows what you are talking about?

Did you mean, all the French want is for us to admire them? Then you said, no not the French? I have no clue guy.

That's precisely what the frog-eaters want; they want recognition. They want acclaim. The worst thing to a Frenchman is to be ignored.

They believe, incredibly, that as long as the eyes of the world are on France, they are illuminating and leading the world. They believe it to be their destiny.

That's a real thigh slapper!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Ralph63
The problem with large "Bush doctrine" preemptive US military commitments, is that US can realistically only handle a very few selected rogestate/terrorist-troubles at a time. Only one at a time of the magnitude of Irak. How can this be exploited? Well, take the recent murder of the Serbian primeminister, Zoran Djindjic, for example. Is it a coincidence that the shady figures behind this chose to do this exactly now, then they very well know that US/UN is 100% occupied with the Irak-issue?

Above is one of the built-in problems with preemtive US-military commitments around the globe. The more US exhausts its recourses in one selected issue at a time, the more new terrorists networks, roge-states and border-quarrels states are likely to take their changes, while attention is set elsewere.

Besides; I read an article that US volonteer-army recruitment system apparently is going through growing tensions since 11 september. Dissatisfaction with neverending abroad assignments and therefore growing problems on the homefront (divorces, domestic quarrels). Also, the US-gov sets their hopes/taxmoney on new ever more effective weapons-systems, while the military-personnel actually shrinks in size. "Do more with less" its called.

I can't cite where or when, but I read an article that there is a growing affinity for beastiality, among Swedish men; that this is causing problems on the homefront; divorces, domestic quarrels, etc. Also, that the Swedish government sets its hope on more effective programs designed to draw their men back to what has been considered a normal domestic relationship.

As far as our country being able to do more with less, keep your eyes on the next few weeks news programming. You're going to see something you can't even comprehend. You Putz!

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Ralph63
OK, fair enough. Go to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives. It was publiced february 16, 2003. The Washington Post requires registration in order to access complete articles at its archive. They allow reading of complete articles on the day of publication and I have read there before, but I do not like the concept of registering at sites merely to read what is there. I do it at particular sites, but not many.

I appreciate your effort in referencing the article but in the future, perhaps you could post the entire text with link.

I would like to say in response to some of the points that you did make concerning the morale of active military personell that I was an enlistee in the Viet Nam era and I griped about everything just like everyone else, draftee and enlistee alike.

The essentially unstable nature of the military life with the sort of demands that can separate family members at a moments notice, placing loved ones in the way of harm, has always been a source of friction among families. It is not anything new and to attribute these type of things to some new phenomenon is not accurate. It is just the way things are, unfortunately. I understand that the members of metropolitan police departments whose assignments are often similar to the those of the military, suffer from much the same problems.

Also, and this is solely my opinion. any shrinkage in the military in recent years has been purposive in order to effect concepts of streamlining. There is no shrinkage, to my knowledge, from any lack of committment on the part of Americans to serve their country in a volunteer army.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Also, and this is solely my opinion. any shrinkage in the military in recent years has been purposive in order to effect concepts of streamlining. There is no shrinkage, to my knowledge, from any lack of committment on the part of Americans to serve their country in a volunteer army.

I believe his motivation is to lower morale by invoking doubt on the veracity of our troops; that they are there unwillingly to fight and win. This is a none too clever ploy.

Perhaps he should change his nom de plume to "Baghdad Ralph"?

He is a saboteur. (Hey.... those were French words....) :mad:

[mimil]

Hello everyone,

Please find attached a part of american history that you can find on the following link:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p11.htm

"In France, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. However, the Crown lent its support to the colonies for geopolitical rather than ideological reasons: the French government had been eager for reprisal against Britain ever since France's defeat in 1763. To further the American cause, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris in 1776. His wit, guile and intellect soon made their presence felt in the French capital, and played a major role in winning French assistance.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France. After Britain's defeat at Saratoga, France saw an opportunity to seriously weaken its ancient enemy and restore the balance of power that had been upset by the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War). On February 6, 1778, America and France signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, in which France recognized America and offered trade concessions. They also signed a Treaty of Alliance, which stipulated that if France entered the war, neither country would lay down its arms until America won its independence, that neither would conclude peace with Britain without the consent of the other, and that each guaranteed the other's possessions in America. This was the only bilateral defense treaty signed by the United States or its predecessors until 1949.

The Franco-American alliance soon broadened the conflict. In June 1778 British ships fired on French vessels, and the two countries went to war. In 1779 Spain, hoping to reacquire territories taken by Britain in the Seven Years' War, entered the conflict on the side of France, but not as an ally of the Americans. In 1780 Britain declared war on the Dutch, who had continued to trade with the Americans. The combination of these European powers, with France in the lead, was a far greater threat to Britain than the American colonies standing alone.

With the French now involved, the British stepped up their efforts in the southern colonies since they felt that most Southerners were Loyalists. A campaign began in late 1778, with the capture of Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, British troops drove toward Charleston, South Carolina, the principal Southern port. The British also brought naval and amphibious forces into play there, and they managed to bottle up American forces on the Charleston peninsula. On May 12 General Benjamin Lincoln surrendered the city and its 5,000 troops, the greatest American defeat of the war.

But the reversal in fortune only emboldened the American rebels. Soon, South Carolinians began roaming the countryside, attacking British supply lines. By July, American General Horatio Gates, who had assembled a replacement force of untrained militiamen, rushed to Camden, South Carolina, to confront British forces led by General Charles Cornwallis. But the untrained soldiers of Gates's army panicked and ran when confronted by the British regulars. Cornwallis's troops met the Americans several more times, but the most significant battle took place at Cowpens, South Carolina, in early 1781, where the Americans soundly defeated the British. After an exhausting, but unproductive chase through North Carolina, Cornwallis set his sights on Virginia.

In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.

Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. The fledgling colonies that Richard Henry Lee had spoken of more than seven years before, had finally become "free and independent states." The task of knitting together a nation yet remained."

A this time, America was fighting for its independance against the british and france was on american side and helped them gained there independance.

This just to mention that the all discussion about USA-France relationship as oftenly approched on this site is childish. And I trully belive that such behavior are first totally none constructive, but are also the very roots of future diplomatic problems. We are all on the same boat.

Regards,
mimil

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
Hello everyone,

Please find attached a part of american history that you can find on the following link:

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/H/1994/ch3_p11.htm

"In France, enthusiasm for the American cause was high: the French intellectual world was itself in revolt against feudalism and privilege. However, the Crown lent its support to the colonies for geopolitical rather than ideological reasons: the French government had been eager for reprisal against Britain ever since France's defeat in 1763. To further the American cause, Benjamin Franklin was sent to Paris in 1776. His wit, guile and intellect soon made their presence felt in the French capital, and played a major role in winning French assistance.

France began providing aid to the colonies in May 1776, when it sent 14 ships with war supplies to America. In fact, most of the gun powder used by the American armies came from France. After Britain's defeat at Saratoga, France saw an opportunity to seriously weaken its ancient enemy and restore the balance of power that had been upset by the Seven Years' War (the French and Indian War). On February 6, 1778, America and France signed a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, in which France recognized America and offered trade concessions. They also signed a Treaty of Alliance, which stipulated that if France entered the war, neither country would lay down its arms until America won its independence, that neither would conclude peace with Britain without the consent of the other, and that each guaranteed the other's possessions in America. This was the only bilateral defense treaty signed by the United States or its predecessors until 1949.

The Franco-American alliance soon broadened the conflict. In June 1778 British ships fired on French vessels, and the two countries went to war. In 1779 Spain, hoping to reacquire territories taken by Britain in the Seven Years' War, entered the conflict on the side of France, but not as an ally of the Americans. In 1780 Britain declared war on the Dutch, who had continued to trade with the Americans. The combination of these European powers, with France in the lead, was a far greater threat to Britain than the American colonies standing alone.

With the French now involved, the British stepped up their efforts in the southern colonies since they felt that most Southerners were Loyalists. A campaign began in late 1778, with the capture of Savannah, Georgia. Shortly thereafter, British troops drove toward Charleston, South Carolina, the principal Southern port. The British also brought naval and amphibious forces into play there, and they managed to bottle up American forces on the Charleston peninsula. On May 12 General Benjamin Lincoln surrendered the city and its 5,000 troops, the greatest American defeat of the war.

But the reversal in fortune only emboldened the American rebels. Soon, South Carolinians began roaming the countryside, attacking British supply lines. By July, American General Horatio Gates, who had assembled a replacement force of untrained militiamen, rushed to Camden, South Carolina, to confront British forces led by General Charles Cornwallis. But the untrained soldiers of Gates's army panicked and ran when confronted by the British regulars. Cornwallis's troops met the Americans several more times, but the most significant battle took place at Cowpens, South Carolina, in early 1781, where the Americans soundly defeated the British. After an exhausting, but unproductive chase through North Carolina, Cornwallis set his sights on Virginia.

In July 1780 France's Louis XVI had sent to America an expeditionary force of 6,000 men under the Comte Jean de Rochambeau. In addition, the French fleet harassed British shipping and prevented reinforcement and resupply of British forces in Virginia by a British fleet sailing from New York City. French and American armies and navies, totaling 18,000 men, parried with Cornwallis all through the summer and into the fall. Finally, on October 19, 1781, after being trapped at Yorktown near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, Cornwallis surrendered his army of 8,000 British soldiers.

Although Cornwallis's defeat did not immediately end the war -- which would drag on inconclusively for almost two more years -- a new British government decided to pursue peace negotiations in Paris in early 1782, with the American side represented by Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay. On April 15, 1783, Congress approved the final treaty, and Great Britain and its former colonies signed it on September 3. Known as the Treaty of Paris, the peace settlement acknowledged the independence, freedom and sovereignty of the 13 former colonies, now states, to which Great Britain granted the territory west to the Mississippi River, north to Canada and south to Florida, which was returned to Spain. The fledgling colonies that Richard Henry Lee had spoken of more than seven years before, had finally become "free and independent states." The task of knitting together a nation yet remained."

A this time, America was fighting for its independance against the british and france was on american side and helped them gained there independance.

This just to mention that the all discussion about USA-France relationship as oftenly approched on this site is childish. And I trully belive that such behavior are first totally none constructive, but are also the very roots of future diplomatic problems. We are all on the same boat.

Regards,
mimil geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

Every American history student knows that France's ulterior motive was removing Britain, so they could dominate the trade for the raw materials from the colonies.....

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.

I think there's in excess of 6,000 buried at Normandy, alone....

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC
geeeeeeeeeeesh!! Lighten up Mimil. We're having a little fun in some grim times with the current crop of duplicitous politicians from france. I cannot remember the precise number of my countrymen who are buried in there, but I think we have MORE than paid back any debt which you feel we might have accrued.

TWICE!

I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil

[Johnny Yuma]

September 11 was not only the first attack on the American mainland in 150 years, but it was also sudden and unexpected. Three thousand civilians were brutally killed without any warning. In the months that followed, Americans worried about anthrax attacks, biological terror, dirty bombs and new suicide squads. Even now, the day-to-day rhythms of American life are frequently interrupted by terror alerts and warnings. The average American feels a threat to his physical security unknown since the early years of the republic.

September 11 added a new layer of assertiveness to Bush’s foreign policy. Understandably, the administration decided that it needed total freedom of action. When NATO, for the first time in its history, invoked the self-defense clause and offered America carte-blanche assistance, the administration ignored it. NATO has its limitations, which were powerfully revealed during the Kosovo campaign, but the signal this sent to our closest allies was that America didn’t need them. Thus as seen by the rest of the world, 9-11 had a distressingly paradoxical effect. It produced a mobilization of American power and yet a narrowing of American interests. Suddenly, Washington was more powerful and determined to act for its own core security and even pre-emptively when it needed to.

After 9-11, the rest of the world saw something quite different. They saw a country that was hit by terrorism, as some of them had been, but that was able to respond on a scale that was almost unimaginable. Suddenly terrorism was the world’s chief priority, and every country had to reorient its foreign policy accordingly. Pakistan had actively supported the Taliban for years; within months it became that regime’s sworn enemy. Washington announced that it would increase its defense budget by almost $50 billion, a sum greater than the total annual defense budget of Britain or Germany. A few months later it toppled a regime 6,000 miles away—almost entirely from the air—in Afghanistan, a country where the British and Soviet empires were bogged down at the peak of their power. It is now clear that the current era can really have only one name, the unipolar world—an age with only one global power.

America’s position today is unprecedented. A hundred years ago, Britain was a superpower, ruling a quarter of the globe’s population. But it was still only the second or third richest country in the world and one among many strong military powers. The crucial measure of military might in the early 20th century was naval power, and Britain ruled the waves with a fleet as large as the next two navies put together. By contrast, the United States will spend as much next year on defense as the rest of the world put together (yes, all 191 countries). And it will do so devoting 4 percent of its GDP, a low level by postwar standards.

American dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as
large as the next three—Japan, Germany and Britain—put together. With 5 percent of the world’s population, this one country accounts for 43 percent of the world’s economic production, 40 percent of its high-technology production and 50 percent of its research and development. If you look at the indicators of future growth, all are favorable for America. It is more dynamic economically, more youthful demographically and more flexible culturally, than any other part of the world. It is conceivable that America’s lead, especially over an aging and sclerotic Europe, will actually increase over the next two decades.

(Boy does it feel good to be on the inside....)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil Nobody said you were french, but since you appeared to be taking up their cause and implying that people were out of line, it seemed to me that you were putting the onus for our disrespect on us (Americans) rather than on france where it belongs. If you think Chiraq is taking his position from some principled and altruistic motive, please grow up. That is ridiculous.

Had it not been for the Israelis, iraq would have been twenty years into their nuclear program producing weapons grade material from a reactor built by france. france provides iraq with mirage fighter jets and spare parts. france thought the cozy oil deals made with the savage Hussein would put it in an enviable position, but the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in exile has nipped that in the bud.

So, if you think we're going to get all teary eyed around here about a lowlife location like france, forget it. As Mr. Yuma has already pointed out, they didn't help the fledgling United States for any other reason than their own self interest. And their self interest is all they are into now. When we start turning up weaponry in Iraq with "made in france" stamped on it, a portion of their true motives will be exposed.

[Communication]

France and Germany are left to wonder: Did they carry things too far?

In Berlin, a reporter talking to a German official heard that the Schroeder government initially believed Iraq was a one-issue crisis, narrowly confinable to disagreement on the military undertaking and the painful although surmountable problem (in the middle term) of Germany's nonparticipation.
.
But reacting in fear of isolation, the official suggested, Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer's willingness to subordinate Germany to a French view of confrontation with the United States on many wider fronts has brought the government to a position it now finds an awkward fit with Germany's long-term interests, outside the two men's realm of when they ran for re-election on a pacifist platform last September...

"Have They Gone Overboard?" this week's cover-story in Le Point, a center-right newsmagazine, wondered over a picture of Chirac and Foreign Minister Dominic de Villepin. Its lead editorial's response was mostly yes, noting viperishly that France was rather good at accommodating itself to any detestable status quo. But that hardly signaled some kind of special unease, no more than the middle-ground financial daily La Tribune did in saying Tuesday that France would pay dearly for its gratuitous threat of a veto.




http://www.iht.com/articles/90195.html

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Every American history student knows that France's ulterior motive was removing Britain, so they could dominate the trade for the raw materials from the colonies.....

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.

I think there's in excess of 6,000 buried at Normandy, alone....

Excactly, thank you to make my point. Then it is obvious that the intervention in iraq is not to free the country from an oppresing leader. Neither it is to free the poor iraqi people.

We talk about war, we about the motives. Now anyway it will happen.

I watched yesterday the debate in the house of commun. I was amazed by the political speach of tony Blair. But supprinsingly absent of the debate, is what will be done when the war is over. Those questions have hartdly been adressed by anyone.

Does peace in the middle east means a werternization of the region ? What kind of goverment will be put in place ? By who ? What kind of control will be enforced to ensure what is now being said: That the nation ressources will be given to the people of irak, that democratie will become a reality ?


Peace has various meanings, so does democracy and so does "Serious consequences".

Look at afghanistan, the suppose talibans there in power have mainly changed country, ben laden is still running, and the pipeline is on the way (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm).

What bothers me is that we don't ear anymore about afghanistan since the war is over.

Finally when talking about diplomacy I don't understand why there is no debate in the US about what is hapening. Tony blair at least faces his opinions in front of his political class. In USA you ask the senat six month prior to the facts to give there consent. On a political point of view, this war has been approved. The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago. It's is a very funny kind of democraty to tackle issues in this way. Lets go back to the house of commun, the speach by Mr Blair was very convincing, and it is only when question came that it lost some of its power. This confort my idea of a need for open debates, and not only a single man talking.

Anyway, sorry for that messy post, my point is simply that opposition is a healthy compromising force in any debate and that we should be be thankfull of its existance rather than blaming its position.

Regards,
Mimil

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Excactly, thank you to make my point. Then it is obvious that the intervention in iraq is not to free the country from an oppresing leader. Neither it is to free the poor iraqi people.

Let me take a stab at this before going back to my second night job.

Um, yes you are right, so? Every educated person knows that we expect payoffs. We expect to be able to live securely and sell our products to 1.5 billion people who are always prodded somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism, none of which permitts the frivolous spending of money and consumption - consumerism. So its not the most moral objective nor lifestyle, but compared to the poverty, fear for your life, lack of freedom, and no possiblity of pursueing happiness except for Jihad, its a positive alternative, no?


We talk about war, we about the motives. Now anyway it will happen.

I watched yesterday the debate in the house of commun. I was amazed by the political speach of tony Blair. But supprinsingly absent of the debate, is what will be done when the war is over. Those questions have hartdly been adressed by anyone.

Actually, we've been following it pretty close here, I mean the discussion, and I can tell you that much has been said, such as the billions we plan on donating (your welcome - personally, out of my taxes, you are welcome), the statement issued "the oil belongs to the people of Iraq", etc. But you bring up a very valid point:

The PEACENIKS, knowing the war was inevitable, and being true humanitarians, should have focused on the issue of what will be done after the war, rather than spend all their breath preventing the inevitable.


Does peace in the middle east means a werternization of the region ? What kind of goverment will be put in place ? By who ? What kind of control will be enforced to ensure what is now being said: That the nation ressources will be given to the people of irak, that democratie will become a reality ?


Great questions. But whatever will surely be better for all humanity than what exists there today.


Peace has various meanings, so does democracy and so does "Serious consequences".

Look at afghanistan, the suppose talibans there in power have mainly changed country, ben laden is still running, and the pipeline is on the way (http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm).

Will get to this later, promiss. But just lookinh thru that site, something doesn't smell right. Like proof.


What bothers me is that we don't ear anymore about afghanistan since the war is over.

We hear about it everyday. Maybe moving up to an actual news site instead of reading sites like "truth out" may give you some more insight.


Finally when talking about diplomacy I don't understand why there is no debate in the US about what is hapening. Tony blair at least faces his opinions in front of his political class. In USA you ask the senat six month prior to the facts to give there consent. On a political point of view, this war has been approved. The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago. It's is a very funny kind of democraty to tackle issues in this way. Lets go back to the house of commun, the speach by Mr Blair was very convincing, and it is only when question came that it lost some of its power. This confort my idea of a need for open debates, and not only a single man talking.

Anyway, sorry for that messy post, my point is simply that opposition is a healthy compromising force in any debate and that we should be be thankfull of its existance rather than blaming its position.

Regards,
Mimil

Ok, first of all, there was plenty of debate, but evenn with the bickering, we are united. We know what a threat is and we're going to finish the job that should have been done in 91.

Second, say "The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago." really exposes your agenda. Care to prove this? While you're out, check out this link that Justpat found fthat completely disproves this arguement, notice the date:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm

"US Vice-President Al Gore has told Iraqi opposition politicians that the United States remains committed to the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. "

Anyway, enjoy and talk to you later.

[mimil]

Just to clarify:
"The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago."

Is the election of a president an unconditionnal approval of its politic over time? That is what I meant with this sentence.

Sorry for not being clear.

Regards,
Mimil

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
Just to clarify:
"The amercian people have also said yes to the war by electing Bush 2 years ago."

Is the election of a president an unconditionnal approval of its politic over time? That is what I meant with this sentence.

Sorry for not being clear.

Regards,
Mimil

And by my above source and link and quote, the American people were given 2 options, each of which was certain of war.

[mimil]

Originally posted by MichaelC

Had it not been for the Israelis, iraq would have been twenty years into their nuclear program producing weapons grade material from a reactor built by france. france provides iraq with mirage fighter jets and spare parts. france thought the cozy oil deals made with the savage Hussein would put it in an enviable position, but the Iraqi Nat'l Congress in exile has nipped that in the bud.



About Osiris, and osirak:

"It should be known that, until Carter which realized the damage, the sale of engines of research in the world was going well. They are large units or small some far from dear, known as MTR (Materials Testing Reactor) which render great services in the industrial research, the manufacture of the radioisotopes of medical use (a simple scintiscanning uses some) or industrialist (the element ionizing of a smoke detector is americium 241 etc. 200 MTR exist in the world, and any respected university, even in the Third World has one of them. In fact especially the american sold them, business is business. It should be known that some of these engines functioned with very enriched fuel completely suited and without any difficulty of entering the composition of a weapon. The yankees are thus "the" culprits of the proliferation, and they prefer not to praise themselves"


"Like its name indicates it Osirak is the certified copy of Osiris, an engine who functions with a little enriched fuel and completely incompetent of quarrelsome use: the limit of enrichment of uranium not proliferating is 20%, it is a physical reality, Osiris always was below by construction. "

mimil

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Let me take a stab at this before going back to my second night job.

Um, yes you are right, so? Every educated person knows that we expect payoffs. We expect to be able to live securely and sell our products to 1.5 billion people who are always prodded somewhere between socialism and totalitarianism, none of which permitts the frivolous spending of money and consumption - consumerism. So its not the most moral objective nor lifestyle, but compared to the poverty, fear for your life, lack of freedom, and no possiblity of pursueing happiness except for Jihad, its a positive alternative, no?

Darn it! You beat me to the punch. Thank you, sir.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by mimil
About Osiris, and osirak:

"It should be known that, until Carter which realized the damage, the sale of engines of research in the world was going well. They are large units or small some far from dear, known as MTR (Materials Testing Reactor) which render great services in the industrial research, the manufacture of the radioisotopes of medical use (a simple scintiscanning uses some) or industrialist (the element ionizing of a smoke detector is americium 241 etc. 200 MTR exist in the world, and any respected university, even in the Third World has one of them. In fact especially the american sold them, business is business. It should be known that some of these engines functioned with very enriched fuel completely suited and without any difficulty of entering the composition of a weapon. The yankees are thus "the" culprits of the proliferation, and they prefer not to praise themselves"


"Like its name indicates it Osirak is the certified copy of Osiris, an engine who functions with a little enriched fuel and completely incompetent of quarrelsome use: the limit of enrichment of uranium not proliferating is 20%, it is a physical reality, Osiris always was below by construction. "

mimil Your "opinions" are welcome as long as they make sense, but of course you realize that there are other views on the matter. Here is one of them from the webpage of the Federation of American Scientists:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm

Iraq began to expand its nuclear sector in the 1970's, but made little progress in the early 1980's, when most of its energy and attention were focused on the war against Iran. In September 1980, at the onset of the Iran-Iraq War, the Israeli Chief of Army Intelligence urged the Iranians to bomb Osiraq. On 30 September 1980 a a pair of Iranian Phantom jets, part of a larger group of aircraft attacking a conventional electric power plant near Baghdad, also bombed the Osiraq reactor. Minor damage to the reactor was reported. No further Iranian air attacks against Iraqi nuclear facilities were identified during the rest of the seven-year war.

When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq's intention of producing weapons at Osiraq, the Israeli government decided to attack. According to some estimates, Iraq in 1981 was still as much as five to ten years away from the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Others estimated at that time that Iraq might get its first such weapon within a year or two. Prime Minister Menachem Begin felt military action was the only remedy. Begin feared that his party would lose the next election, and he feared that the opposition party would not preempt prior to the production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb.

The raid would have to occur before its first fuel was to be loaded, before the reactor went "hot" so as not to endanger the surrounding community. The target was distant: 1,100 km from Israel. Preparations included building target mock-ups and flying full scale dress-rehearsal missions. The aircrews were selected from the cream of the IAFs fighter corps. The IDF Chief-of-Staff, Lt. Gen. Rafael (Raful) Eitan, briefed the pilots personally. Displaying unusual emotion, he told them: "The alternative is our destruction".

[Alfred]

Originally posted by MichaelC
Your "opinions" are welcome as long as they make sense,


This is a rather severe requirement....it must be new. Does that mean that Takeo and Northlander are now to be stricken??


:)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
This is a rather severe requirement....it must be new. Does that mean that Takeo and Northlander are now to be stricken??


:) I wish!!

[Northlander]

As americans Im sure you will find a way to remove us without making it look like you are breaking the rules of this forum.

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.


thank you. I cant belive we agree on one single thing. So you would say that USA are not in Iraq to free the iraqi people?

I for one would say that France do not oppose USA out of morality alone.

BTW. I heard you lost a helicopter. What can I say?

[Mediocrates]

1 - do you want to be a martyr? give the word, we'll kick you off if you want us to. otherwise I don't see it happening.

2 - probably right, who really cares about Iraq anyway apart from as a proxy to bash the US?

3 - say whatever you want, fire your AK into the air, buy a pastry, pet your dog.

[Johnny Yuma]

Basic rule numero uno: No one does anything, unless there's a payoff.
thank you. I cant belive we agree on one single thing. ?

Nope! Not yet. Don't believe it, because we don't.

So you would say that USA are not in Iraq to free the iraqi people?

No. I wouldn't say that. I would say that the payoff is that we are there to get rid of a tyranical bastard that poses a threat to the United States, and, in the process, get the Iraqi people out from under his grip. It's a win/win situation. Besides, mother said, "Charity starts at home...."

I for one would say that France do not oppose USA out of morality alone.

Hmmm... perhaps I was a bit hasty, when I said we didn't agree on something.

Here, you are right. France does not oppose us out of morality alone. France wishes to continue selling military components to someone who would like to kill Americans..... and, they would like to continue developing the Iraqi oil fields.

For you to say that France has the moral high ground, is like a whore claiming she's a virgin to the next trick she propositions.

BTW. I heard you lost a helicopter. What can I say?

Yeah. One had mechanical failure and crashed in Kuwait. It happens here, from time to time. We expect it. We've got plenty more.

BTW... Heard you lost a Concorde a while back. French ingenuity? Ohhh! I'm sorry. I forgot. You're a Swede. You guys don't have anything like that. I like your meatballs, though......

But in regards to the helicopter, and you and I both know which helicopter you'd like it to have been, I heard was spraying some Iraqi guts all over the desert.

Don't worry. He's still out there......

So let me ask you a few questions:

Do you, as a Swede, feel personally threatened by what the United States is doing?

Do you think people in the United States are talking about Sweden? If not, does that bother you?

Would you consider yourself attractive? Do others consider you attractive? If so, why?

Have you ever heard voices in your head? If yes, what did they say?

Are you frightened by Americans? If the answer is no, why not?

Do you have nightmares about Americans? If the answer is no, it should be yes.

[Northlander]

I know I shouldnt argue with some fat white trash inbreed wacko from arizona but I cant help it. Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.
There is afterall a tiny little chance that your excuse for president finds out and starts to demand inspections. We of course will in turn refuse and hopefully after that I will get the chance of meeting interesting people like you.

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and also sees the benefits of fighting the war on enemy soil I still have hopes for a scenario like that. You have a way of picking the right enemies so far. Well, Vietnam excluded, but hopefully one day you will pick the wrong.

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test?

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
I know I shouldnt argue with some fat white trash inbreed wacko from arizona but I cant help it. Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.
There is afterall a tiny little chance that your excuse for president finds out and starts to demand inspections. We of course will in turn refuse and hopefully after that I will get the chance of meeting interesting people like you.

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and also sees the benefits of fighting the war on enemy soil I still have hopes for a scenario like that. You have a way of picking the right enemies so far. Well, Vietnam excluded, but hopefully one day you will pick the wrong.

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test? I'm laughing so hard, I spit on the monitor screen!!

I don't intend to steal any of Mr. Yuma's thunder, as I know he'll have a good time time with this idiotic post, but I did want to say, before I kick back and await his arrival, that you have a habit of regularly digging yourself into some incredibly large holes and now you seem to see fit to also pull the dirt in on your head all by yourself.

My American readers will grasp the idiom I use, though you may be left in the dust, as you generally are in all your posts.

Posts like this hardly need be commented upon. They really do stand on their own as a cautionary tale concerning the mental condition of people who live in your neck of the woods.

Mr Yuma! Mr. Yuma! Where are you!?

[Alfred]

It is near impossible to explain to a European our reasons for going to war. We do not think alike.

They come up with all these "motivations" because that is what they would do if they were running the show. They cannot believe our reasoning because they are not Americans.

Europeans do not liberate....they conquer or colonize.

Europeans are masters of killing and genocide

Europeans can out Machiaveilli (sp) the Americans any day


America was formed by Europeans who were sick of Europe and who wanted a new order. America has been free from day one for the poor and oppressed.

We do not need to listen to Old Europe...they have very little to offer except excellent cuisine.

America is not perfect. Far from it. We have our share of airheads (liberals), communists, nazis and the like.

But America is the most generous and the least imperialistic of any major nation on earth.

We need not listen to the blathering of the effete.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
I know I shouldnt argue with some fat white trash inbreed wacko from arizona but I cant help it. Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.
There is afterall a tiny little chance that your excuse for president finds out and starts to demand inspections. We of course will in turn refuse and hopefully after that I will get the chance of meeting interesting people like you.

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and also sees the benefits of fighting the war on enemy soil I still have hopes for a scenario like that. You have a way of picking the right enemies so far. Well, Vietnam excluded, but hopefully one day you will pick the wrong.

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test?

Actually, we have a true multi-cultural society, so our gene pool is more varied than what you have on that iceberg you live on. Frankly, based on the attrition rate of your population, you won't last another 150 years. In other words, your birth rate can't keep up with the death rate. Better get busy....

WMD capabilities huh?... Hmmmm. I wonder if your government knows that?

Hmmmmm... an even greater hmmmmmm. You're threatening us with a pre-emptive strike? Ooooh! Someone get me a Zannex!

What are you gonna throw our way? Fruit soup? Potato dumplings? Or the dreaded pickled herring? Oh yeah. Weapons of Meatball Destruction.... :rolleyes:

Humph. Wake up with a ... well... you know.. ;) Naah. I'm gonna be thinking of a Swede. Ya shure! Can't wait to meet you, too..... sweetie! I bet you'll look really cute in a wedding dress....

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Alfred
It is near impossible to explain to a European our reasons for going to war. We do not think alike.

They come up with all these "motivations" because that is what they would do if they were running the show. They cannot believe our reasoning because they are not Americans.

Europeans do not liberate....they conquer or colonize.

Europeans are masters of killing and genocide

Europeans can out Machiaveilli (sp) the Americans any day


America was formed by Europeans who were sick of Europe and who wanted a new order. America has been free from day one for the poor and oppressed.

We do not need to listen to Old Europe...they have very little to offer except excellent cuisine.

America is not perfect. Far from it. We have our share of airheads (liberals), communists, nazis and the like.

But America is the most generous and the least imperialistic of any major nation on earth.

We need not listen to the blathering of the effete. Hear, Hear ! I am down with that with that statement, Alfred.

[Johnny Yuma]

...... my wife is standing here asking, "Now how did he know you were a fat white trash whacko from Arizona?"

... but she's Norwegian. They don't particularly like Swedes, either....


Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

[Johnny Yuma]

Okay... she told me to divulge a little about myself.

I'm not really "from" Arizona, even though I do live here, now. I'm really "from" Florida. And the reason I moved here is because I was offered an attractive position with a local firm.
When I say attractive, I mean very attractive.

We live in an up-scale neighborhood in a 4000 square foot energy devouring money pit; four bedrooms, formal living and dining rooms, den, two offices, three car garage, indoor jacuzzi, and... a snooker table; my personal favorite.

We have a Shar Pei that thinks he's a human being, and he prefers not to walk on grass, because it's not as soft as the carpet in the house. He also loves New York Strips.... medium rare. Just a little A-1 sauce, please. Sorry... I went on about the dog.. I'm fond of him.

I have six vehicles at the house; a 2002 Montero, a 1961 Chevy pickup (cherry), a 1966 Mustang (coupe, not fastback, also cherry), a 2001 Jeep Sahara, and a 1999 "Mini Wini' motorhome. I'm hating the price of gas, right now.... We really need those oil fields...... ;)

That's about all I'm going to tell you, because anything else might be enough for you to make good on your "pre-emptive strike". :rolleyes:

Otherwise, if that's what it means to be white trash, I'll take it any day, over being a pasty effeminate Swede.....

If that's

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
I never mentionned or talked about any debt, I do not question the fact that france does not speak german because of the american intervention. I am saying that WWII is not a proper argument to protest about the french position.

As for french duplicitous politiciens ... I am still not sure what is my position. I never liked many of the country politics in the past, to be honest I am still searching for one worth trust anywhere else. Whatever Chirac's motive, and I do not here express any opinion on the content, I am pretty amazed by the fact that he has the guts to stand up and resist the american juggernauts. It seems to please and make life so much easier for so many other leaders that ... I am stunt by such a position.

Finally, who said I was french ??

Regards,
Mimil

Your syntax speaks volumes..... You write your sales English as though you are speaking Francais....

[Northlander]

Alfred I think you better send that list of the bad europeans and the good americans to the arab nations cause they sure dont know it. What we saw today was pure hate on the streets in S.Arabia,Egypt,Jordan etc etc. Hate towards USA, not europe.

This is about preventing terrorism, yeah right.

ok, Johnny I see calling you white trash did hurt. Im sure you have gotten your share of the american dream. Dont worry I was just trying to provoke you.
My point of taking Sweden as an example is because no matter how laughable a conflict would be between us we are potentially much more of a threat than Iraq is to you so you wouldnt lack reasons. It would also be more fun for you because we wouldnt just stand still in the desert having our guts blown out by apaches, more of a challenge so to speak. Dont get me wrong, you would win of course but maybe life wouldnt be so fun after that.

On occasions we harbour terrorists or potentional terrorists as most other european countries indeed do. That is because of the very large number of immigrants we take in compared to our population and especially the countries they come from. Mainly countries where you americans have done your stuff. That is a terrific reason wouldnt you say? We dont train them but what the heck.

We have no nuke program even though we had. We however do sell arms all over the place. Our laws says we cant sell to countries in war but the government does it nevertheless.
We clearly sell far more than Iraq so there you have another reason.
Since we always have seen war with Russia as the most emminent threat we still needed some kind of deterent during the cold war and nukes were out of the question, its there biological weaponry comes into place. It doesnt matter that our population doesnt know it as long as the russians do. There you have the ground for most of the swedish medical and chemical industries. Since we are one of the countries in the world with most scientists per capita we never had any problems keeping fairly up to date with the military development in the world.
In a much debated article one professor at an university here wrote that the time it would take to lay over the production from medical to military in the event of a crisis were somewhere around 3 weeks in the largest medical factories. Probably shorter during the most serious crisis with the russians.
With a little fantasy you can probably imagine that our nation as a very small neutral country during the cold war had little choice but to really plan for retaliation on the russians. Just in case. The price for them always had to be higher the the gains. My point is that you americans could quite easy use this as an excuse for invasion so today basically any western country with a average level of chemical industry could be seen as a potential threat. Iraq is probably 20 years after any european and most asian countries when it comes to military science AND in amount of armsdeals.

Me and my friends just discussed how it comes that the Iraqis use the tactics the do. The logic of the defence of Baghdad is obvious. That they have understood but other than that its like they have absolutely no idea about whats happening or what will happen. What have they done since the last war in preparing for this? Anyone here doing their military service is used to training for a war they will surely lose, the hypothetical war with the russians. The sole purpose of the training and also the weaponry is not to win but rather to create as much terror and destruction as possible. You get my point? Really dirty fighting. The Iraqis are in the same situation but they have no similar doctrine.

The japanese army used anthrax in manchuria during their occupation there and even today the chinese government have problems getting rid of it. The spores lives in the ground. Poor farmers still live with open wounds in the legs that never heals just from moving in certain areas. 60 years after.
Many americans are very naive when you see modern conflicts. You are far to used to battle people that fight on your terms. I hope you nothing bad, I really dont do but you must understand that sooner or later someone will really start to think about military doctrines like that of even my own, pathetic small peaceful welfare state. Invasion can never be an option. Ever.
Had the Iraqis seen it the same way and had they indeed HAD any of the chemical/biological weapons you say they have, they would have striked at you in USA by now.

No matter how cool you feel when seeing your tremendous military power you should realise that the majority of the world sees it too. I dont feel threatened by you. But many people do. Especially arab nations today and I imagine N.korea. How long do you think it takes for anyone finding out effective deterents? What do you think Iran is thinking about now? S.Arabia? When they realise that terrorbalance is indeed possible they will feel much safer.

Im sad this is the truth but it really is. Why would people outside US accept living in fear of attack by you? You lose security and your population are even more threatened by every military victory you have. Not the opposite. Since you never seem to stop your wars I still hope you pick the wrong choice someday anyway. It will learn you that war is hell and war is terror. Depending on who is next I guess we will find out eventually.

I say it will take 2 or 3 more weeks for you to have total victory. That is not a good defence which is the evidence they were never a threat to you. I would much rather fight you now than the russians during the cold war. You are more capable clearly but it would nevertheless be easier in many ways. Mainly regarding propaganda and the public opinions but also because of your doctrine and also the background of your soldiers.

the Iraqis fail to see anything about you but nevertheless I wish them good luck as an invaded nation.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Alfred I think you better send that list of the bad europeans and the good americans to the arab nations cause they sure dont know it. What we saw today was pure hate on the streets in S.Arabia,Egypt,Jordan etc etc. Hate towards USA, not europe.

This is about preventing terrorism, yeah right.

ok, Johnny I see calling you white trash did hurt. Im sure you have gotten your share of the american dream. Dont worry I was just trying to provoke you.
My point of taking Sweden as an example is because no matter how laughable a conflict would be between us we are potentially much more of a threat than Iraq is to you so you wouldnt lack reasons. It would also be more fun for you because we wouldnt just stand still in the desert having our guts blown out by apaches, more of a challenge so to speak. Dont get me wrong, you would win of course but maybe life wouldnt be so fun after that.

On occasions we harbour terrorists or potentional terrorists as most other european countries indeed do. That is because of the very large number of immigrants we take in compared to our population and especially the countries they come from. Mainly countries where you americans have done your stuff. That is a terrific reason wouldnt you say? We dont train them but what the heck.

We have no nuke program even though we had. We however do sell arms all over the place. Our laws says we cant sell to countries in war but the government does it nevertheless.
We clearly sell far more than Iraq so there you have another reason.
Since we always have seen war with Russia as the most emminent threat we still needed some kind of deterent during the cold war and nukes were out of the question, its there biological weaponry comes into place. It doesnt matter that our population doesnt know it as long as the russians do. There you have the ground for most of the swedish medical and chemical industries. Since we are one of the countries in the world with most scientists per capita we never had any problems keeping fairly up to date with the military development in the world.
In a much debated article one professor at an university here wrote that the time it would take to lay over the production from medical to military in the event of a crisis were somewhere around 3 weeks in the largest medical factories. Probably shorter during the most serious crisis with the russians.
With a little fantasy you can probably imagine that our nation as a very small neutral country during the cold war had little choice but to really plan for retaliation on the russians. Just in case. The price for them always had to be higher the the gains. My point is that you americans could quite easy use this as an excuse for invasion so today basically any western country with a average level of chemical industry could be seen as a potential threat. Iraq is probably 20 years after any european and most asian countries when it comes to military science AND in amount of armsdeals.

Me and my friends just discussed how it comes that the Iraqis use the tactics the do. The logic of the defence of Baghdad is obvious. That they have understood but other than that its like they have absolutely no idea about whats happening or what will happen. What have they done since the last war in preparing for this? Anyone here doing their military service is used to training for a war they will surely lose, the hypothetical war with the russians. The sole purpose of the training and also the weaponry is not to win but rather to create as much terror and destruction as possible. You get my point? Really dirty fighting. The Iraqis are in the same situation but they have no similar doctrine.

The japanese army used anthrax in manchuria during their occupation there and even today the chinese government have problems getting rid of it. The spores lives in the ground. Poor farmers still live with open wounds in the legs that never heals just from moving in certain areas. 60 years after.
Many americans are very naive when you see modern conflicts. You are far to used to battle people that fight on your terms. I hope you nothing bad, I really dont do but you must understand that sooner or later someone will really start to think about military doctrines like that of even my own, pathetic small peaceful welfare state. Invasion can never be an option. Ever.
Had the Iraqis seen it the same way and had they indeed HAD any of the chemical/biological weapons you say they have, they would have striked at you in USA by now.

No matter how cool you feel when seeing your tremendous military power you should realise that the majority of the world sees it too. I dont feel threatened by you. But many people do. Especially arab nations today and I imagine N.korea. How long do you think it takes for anyone finding out effective deterents? What do you think Iran is thinking about now? S.Arabia? When they realise that terrorbalance is indeed possible they will feel much safer.

Im sad this is the truth but it really is. Why would people outside US accept living in fear of attack by you? You lose security and your population are even more threatened by every military victory you have. Not the opposite. Since you never seem to stop your wars I still hope you pick the wrong choice someday anyway. It will learn you that war is hell and war is terror. Depending on who is next I guess we will find out eventually.

I say it will take 2 or 3 more weeks for you to have total victory. That is not a good defence which is the evidence they were never a threat to you. I would much rather fight you now than the russians during the cold war. You are more capable clearly but it would nevertheless be easier in many ways. Mainly regarding propaganda and the public opinions but also because of your doctrine and also the background of your soldiers.

the Iraqis fail to see anything about you but nevertheless I wish them good luck as an invaded nation. You know, you should make your point in fewer words if you really want anyone to take you seriously.

I started laughing at the threat that "swedish warriors" might pose to invaders. Perhaps someone else will fill in the gaps in your knowledge, but if memory serves me, didn't sweden pretty much roll over for the nazis?

Valiant warriors? C.mon now, this isn't the joke and parody thread.

[Northlander]

Nevertheless its about how a weak countrys doctrine MIGHT be against a strong superpower. It will maybe be more interesting when you attack the next nation. Lets say N.Korea.

Iraq does not have the capability but all western countries have. That is why you will not attack any western country regardless. Laugh all you wont but it will not happen. Its not the 40´s anymore.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
Alfred I think you better send that list of the bad europeans and the good americans to the arab nations cause they sure dont know it. What we saw today was pure hate on the streets in S.Arabia,Egypt,Jordan etc etc. Hate towards USA, not europe.

This is about preventing terrorism, yeah right.

ok, Johnny I see calling you white trash did hurt. Im sure you have gotten your share of the american dream. Dont worry I was just trying to provoke you.

Naah. You didn't hurt me. I'm the world's only living heart donor. :p

Hey.. Just between you and me...... do you spend a lot time alone? I'm guessing you do, and that's sad.... Has anyone recommended you seek professional help? You probably hear that pretty often, huh? You probably wouldn't have near the problems you've had with the girls, if you do. I think you'd be a much happier individual if you gave it some serious thought and sought out some intervention. With all those scientists and pharmaceutical companies you have in Sweden, surely there's help available...

My point of taking Sweden as an example is because no matter how laughable a conflict would be between us we are potentially much more of a threat than Iraq is to you so you wouldnt lack reasons. It would also be more fun for you because we wouldnt just stand still in the desert having our guts blown out by apaches, more of a challenge so to speak. Dont get me wrong, you would win of course but maybe life wouldnt be so fun after that.

I think you're right on the money with this one. The Swedes would make formidable opponents. (Someone get the net....)

On occasions we harbour terrorists or potentional terrorists as most other european countries indeed do. That is because of the very large number of immigrants we take in compared to our population and especially the countries they come from. Mainly countries where you americans have done your stuff. That is a terrific reason wouldnt you say? We dont train them but what the heck.

We have no nuke program even though we had. We however do sell arms all over the place. Our laws says we cant sell to countries in war but the government does it nevertheless.
We clearly sell far more than Iraq so there you have another reason.
Since we always have seen war with Russia as the most emminent threat we still needed some kind of deterent during the cold war and nukes were out of the question, its there biological weaponry comes into place. It doesnt matter that our population doesnt know it as long as the russians do. There you have the ground for most of the swedish medical and chemical industries. Since we are one of the countries in the world with most scientists per capita we never had any problems keeping fairly up to date with the military development in the world.
In a much debated article one professor at an university here wrote that the time it would take to lay over the production from medical to military in the event of a crisis were somewhere around 3 weeks in the largest medical factories. Probably shorter during the most serious crisis with the russians.
With a little fantasy you can probably imagine that our nation as a very small neutral country during the cold war had little choice but to really plan for retaliation on the russians. Just in case. The price for them always had to be higher the the gains. My point is that you americans could quite easy use this as an excuse for invasion so today basically any western country with a average level of chemical industry could be seen as a potential threat. Iraq is probably 20 years after any european and most asian countries when it comes to military science AND in amount of armsdeals.

Me and my friends just discussed how it comes that the Iraqis use the tactics the do. The logic of the defence of Baghdad is obvious. That they have understood but other than that its like they have absolutely no idea about whats happening or what will happen. What have they done since the last war in preparing for this? Anyone here doing their military service is used to training for a war they will surely lose, the hypothetical war with the russians. The sole purpose of the training and also the weaponry is not to win but rather to create as much terror and destruction as possible. You get my point? Really dirty fighting. The Iraqis are in the same situation but they have no similar doctrine.

The japanese army used anthrax in manchuria during their occupation there and even today the chinese government have problems getting rid of it. The spores lives in the ground. Poor farmers still live with open wounds in the legs that never heals just from moving in certain areas. 60 years after.
Many americans are very naive when you see modern conflicts. You are far to used to battle people that fight on your terms. I hope you nothing bad, I really dont do but you must understand that sooner or later someone will really start to think about military doctrines like that of even my own, pathetic small peaceful welfare state. Invasion can never be an option. Ever.
Had the Iraqis seen it the same way and had they indeed HAD any of the chemical/biological weapons you say they have, they would have striked at you in USA by now.

No matter how cool you feel when seeing your tremendous military power you should realise that the majority of the world sees it too. I dont feel threatened by you. But many people do. Especially arab nations today and I imagine N.korea. How long do you think it takes for anyone finding out effective deterents? What do you think Iran is thinking about now? S.Arabia? When they realise that terrorbalance is indeed possible they will feel much safer.

Im sad this is the truth but it really is. Why would people outside US accept living in fear of attack by you? You lose security and your population are even more threatened by every military victory you have. Not the opposite. Since you never seem to stop your wars I still hope you pick the wrong choice someday anyway. It will learn you that war is hell and war is terror. Depending on who is next I guess we will find out eventually.

I say it will take 2 or 3 more weeks for you to have total victory. That is not a good defence which is the evidence they were never a threat to you. I would much rather fight you now than the russians during the cold war. You are more capable clearly but it would nevertheless be easier in many ways. Mainly regarding propaganda and the public opinions but also because of your doctrine and also the background of your soldiers.

the Iraqis fail to see anything about you but nevertheless I wish them good luck as an invaded nation.

It breaks my heart, to hear how blatantly insecure you are. It might help if you find a girlfriend, or someone that can prop up your (among other things) sagging ego, and soothe your self-loathing.
( ... forget the net. Someone get the tranquilizer gun.)

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Nevertheless its about how a weak countrys doctrine MIGHT be against a strong superpower. It will maybe be more interesting when you attack the next nation. Lets say N.Korea.

Iraq does not have the capability but all western countries have. That is why you will not attack any western country regardless. Laugh all you wont but it will not happen. Its not the 40´s anymore. America takes care of business where the need arises and the whimpering from sweden means nothing.

I notice how you avoided mentioning sweden's lack of valor when America and others were out kicking Axis butt.

[Alfred]

Northlander.

My good friend is a former Swedish paratrooper..the Special Forces part of it. He shakes his head with the way Sweden has gone. He left about 10 years ago.


Let me be patient and understanding. I won't say bad things about Sweden....or Germany....or Fr...Fr.....frr....well, excluding France in that statement.

You Europeans seem to think that America is trying to take over the world. What have you guys been smoking??

We have been getting killed by Islamic terrorists since the early 1970's...and we have done practically NOTHING to fight back.

How many times have Islamic terrorists killed Swedes?

Well, we have lost probably 1000 people BEFORE September 11 to these raghead fanatics. Setpember 11 we lost 3200 more.

The mistake Bin Laden made was that he gave America a new Pearl Harbor. We woke up. We are at war.

What you and DVC and TAKEO don't seem to be able to understand is that we are NOT at war with the world; we are at war with the Terrorist Nations and those that support them.

What is so bloody difficult to understand???????

I cannot understand why you bozo's keep turning a war agsinst terrorists countries into a war on the world...or France, or Sweden, or Germany.

We are at war with:

1. International Terrorism...Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups that have killed, and who plan to kill, Americans.
2. We are at war with three main States that have supported these terrorists for years: Iran, Libya and North Korea. With Syria, Pakistan and the Palestinian terrorist groups on the watch list

That is all.

Why is it that you Swedes....thousands of miles away from the center of this, give a hoot about our war? Why in the world would you NOT support us??? Are you for the terrorists??

That is what really makes us furious towards the Europeans right now. After all we have done for you. The US is under international attack by the terrorists and their sponsers and YOU fight us.

That is why a major shift has occured in the US. We now know who are friends are in this world.

As Bush said. You are with us, or against us. That does not mean you have to provide troops or money. All we want is support and understanding for the war we are fighting.

Europe has failed the test. Europe....old Europe that is, are no longer our allies. They are not necessarily our enemies, but they are no longer our allies.

All this stupid blather about Sweden or France fighting the US is silly. Our enemies are the countries I mentioned. If Old Europe WANTS to have the US as an enemy....as a rally cry to develop a stronger EU under French domination, then so be it. But realize that you are making it up. You are creating a boogie man to rise up against.

And you know what? France is leading you by the nose. For they are creating the big, bad American boogie man who is fighting the world.

[Johnny Yuma]

:cool: As to why the Swedes are.......... envious?:

www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&postid=46615#post46615

[Kapiti]

If Northlander's concern's about the world arrogant new bully boy in the world were so silly they would not be echoed by most of the public opinion in every country in the world except the US and Israel.

Britain and Australia are the most committed behind the US and in both countries the dissappointment with the US is only exceeded by the dissappointment with the respective prime ministers who have taken their countries into entirely unpopular unjust wars.

Please attack my country, Australia the same way you have attacked Sweden. Is this the best you children can do ? A clear majority in Australia have not supported our participation without UN backing.

Do you really think that the opinions of the rest of the world can be dismissed so easily and without consaquence.

The only fair contest in this war is the contest between the display of American ignorance or arrogance. I am not sure which is greater but its a close contest and no doubt world records are being broken.

[Johnny Yuma]

Peace Activist Etiquette

With all of this talk of impending (now happening) war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
If Northlander's concern's about the world arrogant new bully boy in the world were so silly they would not be echoed by most of the public opinion in every country in the world except the US and Israel.

Britain and Australia are the most committed behind the US and in both countries the dissappointment with the US is only exceeded by the dissappointment with the respective prime ministers who have taken their countries into entirely unpopular unjust wars.

Please attack my country, Australia the same way you have attacked Sweden. Is this the best you children can do ? A clear majority in Australia have not supported our participation without UN backing.

Do you really think that the opinions of the rest of the world can be dismissed so easily and without consaquence.

The only fair contest in this war is the contest between the display of American ignorance or arrogance. I am not sure which is greater but its a close contest and no doubt world records are being broken.

I like Australia. My sister-in-law's from Horsham (sp.). And I've dear old friends in Melbourne. I'm not gonna dis my friends.

Sporting for a fight, are we, mate? Go have Fosters and chill out. No one's got it in for the Aussies. You've got troops over there, as well.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Peace Activist Etiquette

With all of this talk of impending (now happening) war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.

These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed. A great post, Yuma. I will be passing this around.

[euphoria]

I'm new, but God, I love this forum. Kudos to Johnny and ALfred. :)

[Kapiti]

Johny, you sound if you actually have a sense of humour. I am the only Australian who hates Fosters (and all the other beers for that matter) but I appreciate your comments.

In reply I will give all the people who think that war demands better reasons than the US has presented some instructions about what to do when confronted by a group of people who think that the way to solve future terrorism is simply to blast everything.

1 Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. The easiest way to do this is to grunt and groan reguarly and to repeatdly say "Kill those terrorist bastards"

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, point to anyone, anyone at all and say that he or she is a terrorist infiltrator who has been to Iraq.

3 The person you are talking to,(the redneck) will immediately confront the named "terrorist" and ask them to prove that they have never been to Iraq. Don't worry even if the person can show a passport indicating that they have never been outside the US, the person you are talking to will assume that they could have used a different passport.

4 Since the "terrorist" can never prove they have not been to Iraq, the redneck will assume safely in his own mind that they must be a terrorist.

5 The redneck will quickly work out that the best way to secure his own future safety is to eliminate such terrorists and will accordingly kill him with a sub machine gun. (Its OK he had a licence for it). While shooting 500 rounds into him he also kills many of the people around the "terrorist" who obviously were also terrorists also since they were hanging around a proven terrorist.

Punching someone in the nose is not the only way to stop getting a bloody nose yourself.

[Northlander]

No matter how ineffective the iraqi defence are maybe they dont need to defend at all. To me it looks like amerikan soldiers are throwing grenades at other american soldiers and that americans are shooting down their allies.

Your peaceactivist post were really funny Johnny. I will use it on my activist friends. However I think they will disagree and say something about the very true fact that it is indeed possible to hit warmonglers in the face until they realize that violence wasnt such a funny thing after all.

After all, many american soldiers in the vietnamese jungle with their buddys brains in their face, finally realised that. Maybe it is what it takes to keep you people from travelling the world armed to the teeth.

[Northlander]

good one kapiti :)

What you and DVC and TAKEO don't seem to be able to understand is that we are NOT at war with the world; we are at war with the Terrorist Nations and those that support them.

No you are not. You just invaded a non-threat. Regardless of Saddam, they are no threat to you. You just ran over the UN and that means most of the world. That makes you hostile. Sorry, alot of people sees it that way. You just shouldnt have gone outside the security council. It is that simple.

The moment your nation created this pre-emptive strike doctrine you gave us the finger. Its a threat and hostility towards anyone not completely sucking up to the US. So from now on whenever there are hostilities towards USA just remember this new worldorder started with your new security doctrine. Your current administration can either rethink or not. Its not really up to us. In 10 years from now maybe you will have a different policy and different governmet then I will be happy to see you guys as friends.

I feel sorry for the 30percent americans that do not like this worldorder. They are admireble people who must have a hard time. Those americans will have to symbolise what I like and admire about your nation. There is still hope.

[Johnny Yuma]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kapiti
Johny, you sound if you actually have a sense of humour. I am the only Australian who hates Fosters (and all the other beers for that matter) but I appreciate your comments.

You finally figured it out! Took you long enough.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
good one kapiti :) I feel sorry for the 30percent americans that do not like this worldorder. They are admireble people who must have a hard time. Those americans will have to symbolise what I like and admire about your nation. There is still hope.

That would be the coalition of gays and lesbians, the American Comunist Worker's Party, NOW, the Cuban government, etc..

You could be their poster boy.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Northlander

No you are not. You just invaded a non-threat. Regardless of Saddam, they are no threat to you. You just ran over the UN and that means most of the world. That makes you hostile. Sorry, alot of people sees it that way. You just shouldnt have gone outside the security council. It is that simple.
[/B]

I am sorry you feel that way. The reason we have not fought back in the last 30 years is because of too much concern the "international community." You see, the international community wants us to keep getting hit by these fanatics without doing much in return. The international community is not our friend in most instances.

We are growing weary of this line of thought. Especially after Sept. 11. After Sept 11 we cannot humor the little countries of the world.....things are getting too dangerous.

So, you can protest. You can riot, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. But we will defend our country. That is our right and that is our duty.

We are a sovereign country and do not bow down to the UN. The UN is a forum to discuss issues. It is NOT our government and we do not obey its pronouncements unless we agree with them.

The is part of being an independent country. Something you can read about in your history books. You may not like it but this free country helped keep your little country free from your eastern comrades. Do you doubt for one minute that our presence in Europe kept the Soviets from taking over the whole continent?

If you want to feel under attack because we are bombing an enemy then so be it. You must have a good reason....maybe you are helping good olde Sadaam out like you helped out the Nazis.

Like I said earlier:

Iraq
Iran
Libya
North Korea


By the way.

I understand why the Germans are against us. They have been taught since 1946 that war is evil and that the miliatry is evil. They believe that all war is evil because they had to destroy the Prussian militarism within their country. As Germans in general go to extremes in everything they do, they have gone to extreme non-militarism.

The French I can also understand. They envy and hate anyone better than they are. That is why they hate the Brits the Americans and anyone else who is a threat to their self delusionment.

Old Europe no longer has the Soviets to worry about so they are strutting about like roosters making noise. That is fine with me.

Just don't destroy all your ties to America. You may need them at some future point.

[Mediocrates]

My entire life all I've heard abouty is the poor delicate sensibilities of barbarian warrior middle eastern arab muslim countries. The arab street this, OPEC that, they hate us, they mistrust us, they want to kill some Jews, blah blah blah blah.

I say let's civilize them or erase them.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
My entire life all I've heard abouty is the poor delicate sensibilities of barbarian warrior middle eastern arab muslim countries. The arab street this, OPEC that, they hate us, they mistrust us, they want to kill some Jews, blah blah blah blah.

I say let's civilize them or erase them. I second that emotion!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
I second that emotion!

Without objection... passed!

[Alfred]

I would also like to add that with the execution of American POW's (possibly), and the chance that this may occur in the future; that we pay a bit more attention to winning the war than making sure we do not drop a bomb 3 inches off target.

We are also hearing news of Iraqi soldiers "faking" surrender, only to kill our troops trying to take them prisoner.

If you ask American veterans of the Battle of the Bulge about Malmedy, you will discover that "things became much clearer" after that incident.

To make it simple (for our European friends)....in the future, when an American says "surrender" and an Iraqi picks his nose whilst thinking about it...the Iraqi is dead. In the future, you may have fewer Republican Guards POWs.

One of my fond memories of the Israeli war in Lebanon was the rumor going around that the Israeli Army called in F-16's to blow up the building that a sniper was located in.

Now THAT is a way to win a war!

[Northlander]

So, you can protest. You can riot, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. But we will defend our country. That is our right and that is our duty.

Well, its not people like me that are your nations problems. Its the guys that will anthrax you that are.
And they will do it because of your foreign politics and nothing else. Because of your support to Israel and regimes like that of Saddams. Now they will also do it because of your removal of regimes like Saddams. Hadnt you put your nose in it in the first place you wouldnt have to "defend" now.

You do know the difference of defence and aggression do you?

I say let's civilize them or erase them.

I say ask them to leave or send them back to america in plastic bags.

To make it simple (for our European friends)....in the future, when an American says "surrender" and an Iraqi picks his nose whilst thinking about it...the Iraqi is dead. In the future, you may have fewer Republican Guards POWs.

Expected, what else is new? Watch your back when the iraqis surrender though, maybe your own black muslim soldier gives it to you in the back.

One of my fond memories of the Israeli war in Lebanon was the rumor going around that the Israeli Army called in F-16's to blow up the building that a sniper was located in.

Now THAT is a way to win a war!

Fond memories huh? Depends on which war you pick I guess. They are always different and this war wont be the same as the next. I have had fond moments in front of my tele watching documentarys from Vietnam. Absolutely love it. Just mangle them until they leave.

THAT is a way to win a war.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by Alfred
So, you can protest. You can riot, you can hold your breath until you turn blue. But we will defend our country. That is our right and that is our duty.

The best way to defend against arabic extremest groups in the long run would be to support and encourage any native democratic oppositions within those arabic countries. But US dont do that. Infact they dont bother if the rulers are dictatorships at all - as long as they cooperate fully with US. Also US should finally insist on throwing those Israel extremist settlers out of pre-67 Palestina, once and for all.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Alfred
I would also like to add that with the execution of American POW's (possibly), and the chance that this may occur in the future; that we pay a bit more attention to winning the war than making sure we do not drop a bomb 3 inches off target.

We are also hearing news of Iraqi soldiers "faking" surrender, only to kill our troops trying to take them prisoner.

If you ask American veterans of the Battle of the Bulge about Malmedy, you will discover that "things became much clearer" after that incident.

To make it simple (for our European friends)....in the future, when an American says "surrender" and an Iraqi picks his nose whilst thinking about it...the Iraqi is dead. In the future, you may have fewer Republican Guards POWs.

One of my fond memories of the Israeli war in Lebanon was the rumor going around that the Israeli Army called in F-16's to blow up the building that a sniper was located in.

Now THAT is a way to win a war!

Yes, we have given the Iraqi regime multiple opportunities to avoid this war. And we are giving Iraqi soldiers multiple opportunities to save themselves.

Unfortunately, the jihad-genocidal Arab and Islamist terrorists don't think twice about killing innocent civilians, so we should not be surprised when they lure troops to a supposed "surrender" and then ambush them.

The bottomline, clearly, is that we must be prepared to ratchet up our approach as needed. After hearing Gen. Tommy Franks yesterday, I'm confident the Bush Administration and Pentagon are prepared to do that if necessary. They hesitate only to make it clear who is responsible.

The Battle for Baghdad is going to be fierce. Saddam's Islamist terrorist allies - allies the peaceniks insist he doesn't have - are going to fight to the death and use every brutal tactic imaginable. We must gather the will to defeat them, even if that means cutting a path to downtown Baghdad with MOABs or even tactical nukes.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by Ralph63
The best way to defend against arabic extremest groups in the long run would be to support and encourage any native democratic oppositions within those arabic countries. But US dont do that. Infact they dont bother if the rulers are dictatorships at all - as long as they cooperate fully with US. Also US should finally insist on throwing those Israel extremist settlers out of pre-67 Palestina, once and for all.

Nonsense. There is no better way to embolden Arab terrorists than by rewarding decades of terrorism against Israel, only some of which is limited to ethically cleansing the West Bank.

The US has supported too many Arab dictators in the past - though generally for tactical reasons. But it is never too late to fix that, and having once supported dictators does not prohibit a country (particularly one that periodically undergoes a peaceful transfer of power) from acting resolutely against them.

[Alfred]

I agree.

The Battle of Baghdad is going to be tough, and we will lose a lot of guys (should make our european "friends" very happy).

This war has changed. We have been pussy footing around, making sure every bullet is accounted for...making sure we don't run over endangered species of desert rodents..making sure every bomb hits its target to the inch.

Sadaam, who I think is still alive, will use WMD around Baghdad. He is waiting this long to exploit the media and get people like Northlander all excited. Once he is surrounded and is like Hitler in the bunker, then we will get gassed.

There are very few things in this world to Americans highly ticked off than pictures of executed Americans.

I actually feel sorry for the poor bastard Iraqis now. (to paraphrase our greatest...George Patton).

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Northlander
Well, its not people like me that are your nations problems. Its the guys that will anthrax you that are.
And they will do it because of your foreign politics and nothing else. Because of your support to Israel and regimes like that of Saddams. Now they will also do it because of your removal of regimes like Saddams. Hadnt you put your nose in it in the first place you wouldnt have to "defend" now.

[........]

[........]

[........] Watch your back when the iraqis surrender though, maybe your own black muslim soldier gives it to you in the back.



[........] I have had fond moments in front of my tele watching documentarys from Vietnam. Absolutely love it. Just mangle them until they leave.

THAT is a way to win a war.
In the last week you and takeo have shown all of us here just how "anti-war" you actually are. Which is to say, not at all.

Both of you are gleeful over the death of YOUR enemies. How is this different from the behavior that you falsely accuse others of?

You, yourself, seem to revel in and take a peculiar pleasure in the death of Americans. How do you square this sick bloodlust with all the phoney anti-war stands you've pretended to take in the past?

Glorying in the death of others !! You continue to prove yourself to be the cockroach most of us have always known you to be.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Okay... she told me to divulge a little about myself.

I'm not really "from" Arizona, even though I do live here, now. I'm really "from" Florida. And the reason I moved here is because I was offered an attractive position with a local firm.
When I say attractive, I mean very attractive.

We live in an up-scale neighborhood in a 4000 square foot energy devouring money pit; four bedrooms, formal living and dining rooms, den, two offices, three car garage, indoor jacuzzi, and... a snooker table; my personal favorite.

We have a Shar Pei that thinks he's a human being, and he prefers not to walk on grass, because it's not as soft as the carpet in the house. He also loves New York Strips.... medium rare. Just a little A-1 sauce, please. Sorry... I went on about the dog.. I'm fond of him.

I have six vehicles at the house; a 2002 Montero, a 1961 Chevy pickup (cherry), a 1966 Mustang (coupe, not fastback, also cherry), a 2001 Jeep Sahara, and a 1999 "Mini Wini' motorhome. I'm hating the price of gas, right now.... We really need those oil fields...... ;)

That's about all I'm going to tell you, because anything else might be enough for you to make good on your "pre-emptive strike". :rolleyes:

Otherwise, if that's what it means to be white trash, I'll take it any day, over being a pasty effeminate Swede.....

If that's

Beside the problem of filing in your gaz tank, I can see some other arising from your life's description. I wish to give you some advices so as how to solve them. If you have six vehicules and only a three car garage, where can your park them all? Look in your neighbourhood. You could probably find a few of those poor people that would be more than happy to restore their living room so that one of your vehicules can be parked. Afterall they really need the money.

If the shar pei like the soft carpet of the house better than the grass of the garden, you must be facing occasionaly some excrement problems. You could, to avoid the burden of cleaning it yourself, hire a maid from a third world country. For a little more dollars she could even lick it directly from the carpet.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Beside the problem of filing in your gaz tank, I can see some other arising from your life's description. I wish to give you some advices so as how to solve them. If you have six vehicules and only a three car garage, where can your park them all?

I have a three car driveway, and, a storage lot.

Look in your neighbourhood. You could probably find a few of those poor people that would be more than happy to restore their living room so that one of your vehicules can be parked. Afterall they really need the money.

Okay. Let's look around my neighborhood, shall we?

My next door neighbor owns an insurance agency. He made his second million in telecom stocks, before the crash. His wife teaches at a major university. He doesn't need any help from me.

The man across the street retired and sold several thousand acres of his farm, except for the about the 700 acres he developed into commercial real estate. He's worth a couple of million.

The people that live on the other side of me aren't missing any meals, either. He is a civil engineer. She is an internist with a private practice.

Basically, everyone in this area is either a doctor, a lawyer, an attorney, or a prominent business person. I am probably the poorest guy in the neighborhood.

If the shar pei like the soft carpet of the house better than the grass of the garden, you must be facing occasionaly some excrement problems.

Oh! So because I said he doesn't like to walk on grass, you project that to mean that he "doesn't" walk on grass?
Sorry. He "will" go outside, through his own door, to rid himself of bodily waste/fluid. Shar Pei's rarely, if ever, soil in the house.

He did get ill, once, and had an accident. I simply had the carpet replaced....

You could, to avoid the burden of cleaning it yourself, hire a maid from a third world country. For a little more dollars she could even lick it directly from the carpet.

Carmelita, the housekeeper, a Guatemalan native, lives in her own quarters by the swimming pool. She is paid more than the minimum wage. She has two days off a week, and, has comprehensive medical and dental coverage. She gets two weeks paid vacation each year, and, is provided with a vehicle. And yes, I cover the automobile insurance.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by ibrodsky

The Battle for Baghdad is going to be fierce. Saddam's Islamist terrorist allies - allies the peaceniks insist he doesn't have - are going to fight to the death and use every brutal tactic imaginable. We must gather the will to defeat them, even if that means cutting a path to downtown Baghdad with MOABs or even tactical nukes.

This is a PR war as far as I’m concerned and the way it’s run is beginning to stink. I don’t profess to be a five star general but this war should be fought from the skies for a few weeks. To hell with their infrastructure the primary concern should be to minimize US casualties.

It’s becoming obvious that the US has adopted/are going to adopt the persona of the IDF whereas the fighting is going to be from bunker to bunker or house to house.

If this war would have been fought Kosovo/Serb style it would be too drawn out and it would end up with more and more anti US sentiment.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by Northlander
Some army you got there crashing their own helicopters. Isnt it better to use it against the so called enemy?

Wha?

From a person whose national military couldnt withstand an attack from Lichtenstein, perhaps even the Vatican - who has no standing army, your comments about the world's most powerful military are absolutely unsustainable.

For your information my country do have WMD capabilty. Our whole nation is a bloody high-tech, chemical manufactory. We sell a load of regular arms to about anyone that pays. That I call a threat.
I used to think it was a shame not long ago. Now I dont.

And this is somethng to be proud of? Selling arms and WMD to anyone willing to buy them, so that you can retain a monstrous welfare plan for your people becuase you can rely upon the US to clean up the messes that your whoring for sales' leaders create thru these sales?

On the other hand we might not ever meet afterall, maybe its just a sweet dream. Not all people are so stupid that they wait for an attack would you say? Pre-emptive strikes can go both ways and since large part of our population can speak american without accent and [snip]

Are you disturbed or simply jealous of american power? The reason the Nazis didnt attack and occupy Sweden was becuase is was so weak and docile, there was no point in wasting resources there.

And as an american i would gladly look forward to seeing some attractive swedish blond women coming to the US to attack, after all who could blame them from trying to find some real men?

Im sure you wake up with a hard-on every night dreaming about iraqi guts in some desert. I would just love so much to cure you from it. Why are you not in the desert killing children BTW? Basic training was to hard for you? Did you have to pass an IQ test?

Speaking of abused children, why is Sweden, after Saudi Arabia, the leading nation of stolen/abducted children from the US? Why is the swedish govt, who actually signed the Hague Treaty in 1988, refusing to return these kidnapped children to the US?

Speaking of IQ tests, people like you so short of the facts usually dont score well on them. Think of that the next time you open your mouth.

[Northlander]

Abducted children? what are you talking about.

Sweden are no military power. Thats my point. You make all this fuzz about your brave and fantastic army and all you do is going to war against poor incredibly undeveloped countries like Iraq.

The point is that Iraq have not sold more weapons to any country or organisation than for example Sweden. Could as well be Belgium I was speaking about. And Iraq have less WMD capability than ANY western country. Me talking about Swedens potential defence against Russia was just to explain to you the difference between attacking a undeveloped country like Iraq from a more developed. Could again just as well have spoken about another country. The point is that no one is really a threat to you as long as you stay home.

Since our army always have been weak I just explained the doctrine. Which was about retaliation in the event of an attack more than conventional defence even though we HAD a decent airforce belive it or not. Since biological weaponry doesnt need the same readiness as for example nukes it was the prefered deterent here during the cold war. The russians didnt have that many options in form of shipping ports so Im sad to say those ports would have been more or less useless up today if things ever had gone that far. Hence my link to manchuria today where the chinese still have difficulties cleansing the area from anthrax spores.

Luckely for you Iraqs doctrine is somewhat different. They do not have the capability to strike in USA at all. They dont seem to have the real will either. Last time they fought you they hadnt understood that armored divisions against you in a desert is not that smart. Its seems now after the last days of battle that they have rethinked somewhat. My point is that you can not expect to wage many more wars against small, militarely weak opponents without taking into account that they will defend with very nasty weaponry to compensate for it. Today any country with a decent industy can develop WMDs.

It was not about raising Swedens military capability but rather the opposite. We had no capability at all in comparison but nevertheless had to do something to make the russians rethink.

I have a few friends who still speak decent russian from the military service 10 years ago and one that speaks fluently an all of them would beat you any day in near murmansk geography. Why use money on tank brigades when you can do much more damage in other ways?

I am somewhat surprised about the american reactions towards the Iraqi ways of defending. Are you really surprised they fight in civilian clothes? Fake surrenders? Put prisoners on TV? How did the Vietnamese act? The afghans towards the russians? I was surprised just a few days ago they DIDNT start to defend that way. What the hell does their military training look like? Fullscale tankbattle training? For what?

One day I hear americans petronising the stupid and helpless dumb enemy that try to defend against your apaches and comanches. Then war is fun and a great adventure. The next day when the enemy start to think and adapt you blame them for being cowards and fanatics.

Get into your heads that not all people sees war as a nice clean business and that it is no childsplay. If you invade they will try to make you regret it, period. With your new pre-emptive doctrine I think you will see that happen in any conflict now. Maybe N.korea or Iran. Time will tell. Just dont whine about them being cowards for not fighting on your terms.Why should they really? Who cares if the enemy sees you as a fanatical lunatic when your whole life is turned upside down and your loved ones are under attack from bombraids? Again, people are not that different from you. I can easily see USA resorting to WMDs if fighting for real survival. What would you do? Lie down your arms and surrender? I cant really see that happen, doent lie in your nature to do so. But I dont think people here or elsewhere are that much different.

[elke]

It's true that this kind of dishonorable conduct on the part of the Iraqi military and especially, apparently, their secret services, - was to be expected. However, such conduct is not to their credit, as you seem to be implying, Northlander.

Iraqi leadership has been pretending to be legitimate leadership of a legitimate military force. As such, it is subject to the rules of war. What this conduct demonstrates is what US has been saying all along: that is, that Iraq is not ruled by a legitimate representation, but rather a clique of thugs, who pay no attention whatsoever to rules.

It is not difficult to understand why these soldiers were taken POW, that's not what's at issue here. What is at issue is their treatment in the hands of these thugs. It is very difficult to understand why it is necessary for the Iraqi whatever services to execute the POWs, as they seem to have done.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by rhodescholar
From a person whose national military couldnt withstand an attack from Lichtenstein, perhaps even the Vatican - who has no standing army, your comments about the world's most powerful military are absolutely unsustainable.
Everything have its limits, rhodescholar. Try to live with that. ;-)

By the way; why not surf to www.washingtonpost.com and search the article "Unrivaled Military Feels Strains of Unending War" in the archives? It was publiced february 16, 2003.

[Mediocrates]

Paul Johnson, writing in the http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB84/press.htm Wall Street Journal (March 18, 2003):


The outcome of the Azores summit this weekend foreshadows a new era in geopolitics. It reminds us of the old wartime meetings between Roosevelt and Churchill in which the two leaders planned the next phase of the war against Hitler. As President Bush left the meeting assured of a French veto of the resolution, the world finally moved on from the stalemate of the past two weeks at the U.N.
We shall see much more of this kind of diplomacy in the future, in which deals are struck on a bilateral or trilateral basis to suit the needs of the moment. Roosevelt and Churchill's meetings were often attended by one or more government heads, whose presence was deemed relevant to the subjects discussed.

At the heart of the new diplomacy will be, of course, what Charles De Gaulle then (and Jacques Chirac now) bitterly called "Les Anglo-Saxons" -- America and Britain, whose common culture and attachments to freedom and democracy make them not just allies, but "family." Building on this sure foundation, the U.S., as the sole superpower, will make its arrangements with other states on an ad hoc basis rather than through international organizations.

We have to face the ugly fact: Internationalism -- the principle of collective security and the attempt to regulate the world through representative bodies -- has been dealt a vicious blow by Mr. Chirac's bid to present himself as a world statesman, whatever the cost to the world. France is a second-rate power militarily. But because of its geographic position at the center of Western Europe and its nominal possession of nuclear weapons, which ensures its permanent place on the U.N. Security Council, it wields considerable negative and destructive power. On this occasion, it has exercised such power to the full, and the consequences are likely to be permanent.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
Abducted children? what are you talking about.

Sweden are no military power. Thats my point. You make all this fuzz about your brave and fantastic army and all you do is going to war against poor incredibly undeveloped countries like Iraq.

The point is that Iraq have not sold more weapons to any country or organisation than for example Sweden. Could as well be Belgium I was speaking about. And Iraq have less WMD capability than ANY western country. Me talking about Swedens potential defence against Russia was just to explain to you the difference between attacking a undeveloped country like Iraq from a more developed. Could again just as well have spoken about another country. The point is that no one is really a threat to you as long as you stay home.

Since our army always have been weak I just explained the doctrine. Which was about retaliation in the event of an attack more than conventional defence even though we HAD a decent airforce belive it or not. Since biological weaponry doesnt need the same readiness as for example nukes it was the prefered deterent here during the cold war. The russians didnt have that many options in form of shipping ports so Im sad to say those ports would have been more or less useless up today if things ever had gone that far. Hence my link to manchuria today where the chinese still have difficulties cleansing the area from anthrax spores.

Luckely for you Iraqs doctrine is somewhat different. They do not have the capability to strike in USA at all. They dont seem to have the real will either. Last time they fought you they hadnt understood that armored divisions against you in a desert is not that smart. Its seems now after the last days of battle that they have rethinked somewhat. My point is that you can not expect to wage many more wars against small, militarely weak opponents without taking into account that they will defend with very nasty weaponry to compensate for it. Today any country with a decent industy can develop WMDs.

It was not about raising Swedens military capability but rather the opposite. We had no capability at all in comparison but nevertheless had to do something to make the russians rethink.

I have a few friends who still speak decent russian from the military service 10 years ago and one that speaks fluently an all of them would beat you any day in near murmansk geography. Why use money on tank brigades when you can do much more damage in other ways?

I am somewhat surprised about the american reactions towards the Iraqi ways of defending. Are you really surprised they fight in civilian clothes? Fake surrenders? Put prisoners on TV? How did the Vietnamese act? The afghans towards the russians? I was surprised just a few days ago they DIDNT start to defend that way. What the hell does their military training look like? Fullscale tankbattle training? For what?

One day I hear americans petronising the stupid and helpless dumb enemy that try to defend against your apaches and comanches. Then war is fun and a great adventure. The next day when the enemy start to think and adapt you blame them for being cowards and fanatics.

Get into your heads that not all people sees war as a nice clean business and that it is no childsplay. If you invade they will try to make you regret it, period. With your new pre-emptive doctrine I think you will see that happen in any conflict now. Maybe N.korea or Iran. Time will tell. Just dont whine about them being cowards for not fighting on your terms.Why should they really? Who cares if the enemy sees you as a fanatical lunatic when your whole life is turned upside down and your loved ones are under attack from bombraids? Again, people are not that different from you. I can easily see USA resorting to WMDs if fighting for real survival. What would you do? Lie down your arms and surrender? I cant really see that happen, doent lie in your nature to do so. But I dont think people here or elsewhere are that much different.

It doesn't seem like this hatred you have for we Americans is something that has just popped up overnight, because you're all over the page and it's extremely difficult to understand you.

Try and remember that point in the past when you first decided, "I hate the Americans", and tell us where you lived and how old you were, and what events, specifically, put you over the edge. Try and remain calm and collected while you explain. Take it slowly and relax. We'd all like to know.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by Northlander
Abducted children? what are you talking about.

Sweden has one of the worst records of any nation, let alone a signatory to the 1988 Hague Treaty, which requires nations to return abducted children to their parent when another parent illegally kidnaps the child, regardless of parental national origin. This means that Sweden, which is supposed to return kidnapped american minor citizens, and hasnt been doing so. Do you understand now my dear?

Sweden are no military power. Thats my point. You make all this fuzz about your brave and fantastic army and all you do is going to war against poor incredibly undeveloped countries like Iraq.

Others here have accuesed you of being 12 years old; i offer they are being generous.

The US doesnt pick and choose countries to go to war with for the sake of it, it destroys nations/govts that threaten it and world peace.

Already, several massive chemical weapons factories have apparently been located in iraq, and the war is only 6 days old.

Amazing that simple, uneducated GIs (in your estimation) could find these monstrous facilities in only a few days, when your intellectually more gifted European weapons inspectors couldnt in 5 months.

I wonder why....

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
We'd all like to know.

Not I said L@mplighterM!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Not I said L@mplighterM!

You're right. Not everyone, but I'm still curious about the why of it.

[Kapiti]

Already, several massive chemical weapons factories have apparently been located in iraq, and the war is only 6 days old.

Amazing that simple, uneducated GIs (in your estimation) could find these monstrous facilities in only a few days, when your intellectually more gifted European weapons inspectors couldnt in 5 months.

I wonder why....

I guess this is the same source which told us that 8,000 Iraqis had surrendered in the first couple of days.

I think it amazing that anyone actually believes that massive chemical weapons factories have been located. Show me your source ?

Otherwise perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale ??????

[elke]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Already, several massive chemical weapons factories have apparently been located in iraq, and the war is only 6 days old.

Amazing that simple, uneducated GIs (in your estimation) could find these monstrous facilities in only a few days, when your intellectually more gifted European weapons inspectors couldnt in 5 months.

I wonder why....

I guess this is the same source which told us that 8,000 Iraqis had surrendered in the first couple of days.

I think it amazing that anyone actually believes that massive chemical weapons factories have been located. Show me your source ?

Otherwise perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale ??????

I find it amazing that someone actually believes that there weren't any chemical facilities in Iraq, as by their own admission they used to have them - and in fact, used the chemicals.

Why did the inspectors not find them? Well, that's simple: the inspectors are not secret service, they are "bean counters", not to be disrespectful to them. They go where they are told to go, and look at what they are shown.

By the way, who told you that 8,000 Iraqis have surrendered in the first couple of days? I have not seen that report: the latest I saw was about 2000 :confused:

[Kapiti]

Elke,

Early reports in Australia from international press indicated that more than 8,000 Iraqis being a whole batallion had surrendered. The reports did not last long as they were simply wrong.

My point is that not everything you read and especially the hot to press sort of stuff is accurate. To rely as Rhodesscholar did on this as evidence of the failure of the weapons inspectors is jumping in early with an accusation because a bit more time will probably show the factories were not for weapons at all.

Seems very strange that not all the press is jumping on this story as it would indeed be the smoking gun everyone wanted. Unless it is all a figment of Rhodescholars little mind.

[Mediocrates]

Your point seems to be the contrapositive of that. You automatically discount anything 100% that doesn't come from Russian media or purported intelligence sources and that doesn't claim wild Iraqi victories.


Odd, and very simplistic.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Already, several massive chemical weapons factories have apparently been located in iraq, and the war is only 6 days old.

Amazing that simple, uneducated GIs (in your estimation) could find these monstrous facilities in only a few days, when your intellectually more gifted European weapons inspectors couldnt in 5 months.

I wonder why....

I guess this is the same source which told us that 8,000 Iraqis had surrendered in the first couple of days.

I think it amazing that anyone actually believes that massive chemical weapons factories have been located. Show me your source ?

Otherwise perhaps you would be interested in a bridge I have for sale ??????

The American forces might be able to make you guys a better deal on a bridge; we're holding several.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
The American forces might be able to make you guys a better deal on a bridge; we're holding several.

Tou"effen" che, Mr Yuma. I trust you will forgive the french expression as I've gussied it up with some good ole American emphasis.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by Kapiti
I guess this is the same source which told us that 8,000 Iraqis had surrendered in the first couple of days.

I think it amazing that anyone actually believes that massive chemical weapons factories have been located. Show me your source ?

Widespread reports yesterday of US troops investigating a large chemical production factory. Today reports of 3,000 chemical-repellant suits in a hospital.

Do i have any doubts that substantial WMD will be found in Iraq over the next few weeks/months? None at all, and i am hoping Syria faces similar consequences, as I am almost certain saddam had shipped alot of missiles/weapons to Assad for safekeeping, to be used against israel at a later date if he is killed.

But then there is leftwing individuals like you, with your vested agenda, hoping, praying, begging, and stealing that no WMD are found, so you can continue to try to defame the US and her excellent intentions.

[Kapiti]

Can you spot the difference : Rhodescholar a couple of days ago.

quote "Already, several massive chemical weapons factories have apparently been located in iraq, and the war is only 6 days old.

Amazing that simple, uneducated GIs (in your estimation) could find these monstrous facilities in only a few days, when your intellectually more gifted European weapons inspectors couldnt in 5 months. "

Today " Widespread reports yesterday of US troops investigating a large chemical production factory. Today reports of 3,000 chemical-repellant suits in a hospital.
"

Now what is the difference ???????????????????????????????????

WEAPONS WEAPONS WEAPONS WEAPONS WEAPONS.

Ol Mr Gullible Rhodesfailure cannot apparently see the difference. A factory making batteries, cosmetics, paint, fertiliser could be the factory being referred in the second. Totally innocent.

But do we get a retraction from Rhodesfailure or any sort of apolgoy for his mistake.

No instead he accuses me of defaming the US and her "excellant intentions"

What a joke ! No 12 year old I know is this gullible, and this stupid. The US's "excellant intentions" ?? In the end not even Israel or the US will do well out of this war.

I will not vouch that Iraq has no chemical weapons factories but neither am I stupid enough to believe every report coming from the US media machine (so eager to find something to justify their presence there)

What ever credibility you had is now gone but I am sure that is a small loss.

[Mediocrates]

Kapiti

Do you know what dual use technology is? Do you understand process integration from raw chemical production at one end mated to weaponization at the other end?

Do you know what scale is about?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[MichaelC]

Before any commentary, I must point out that kapiti has indicated on another occassion that I am on his ignore list, so any commentary I make with regard to him/her, is solely for the overall sake of the ongoing conversation.
Originally posted by Kapiti

[...]

... Rhodesfailure cannot apparently see the difference. A factory making batteries, cosmetics, paint, fertiliser could be the factory being referred in the second. Totally innocent.

But do we get a retraction from Rhodesfailure or any sort of apolgoy for his mistake.
If I understand kapiti's critique of RhodeScholar, his speculations are somehow considered to be inferior to kapiti's own "speculations".

But kapiti, with no evidence offered for his own characterization of the chemical plants, seems to think that merely stating they "could" be used for the above mentioned reason is, in and of itself, some kind of superior observation.

Such comments serve to demonstrate his animosity, and nothing more.
What a joke ! No 12 year old I know is this gullible
I have always suspected that we would find you among this age group.

[rhodescholar]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Can you spot the difference :

Ol Mr Gullible Rhodesfailure cannot apparently see the difference. A factory making batteries, cosmetics, paint, fertiliser could be the factory being referred in the second. Totally innocent.

But do we get a retraction from Rhodesfailure or any sort of apolgoy for his mistake.

No instead he accuses me of defaming the US and her "excellant intentions"

What a joke ! No 12 year old I know is this gullible, and this stupid. The US's "excellant intentions" ?? In the end not even Israel or the US will do well out of this war.

I will not vouch that Iraq has no chemical weapons factories but neither am I stupid enough to believe every report coming from the US media machine (so eager to find something to justify their presence there)

What ever credibility you had is now gone but I am sure that is a small loss.

Imbecile, let me say it one more time, i said there were reports at the time of chemical weapons plants having been discovered. The press did not retract these findings, nor will I.

The soldiers and specialists are INVESTIGATING these facilities. Once it has been determined WHAT EXACTLY THEY WERE USED FOR, then I will comment further. I never said at any time that every media report was a pure fact. But idiots with agendas like to sit on my every word, and try to undermine my statements. Like a well-known french a-hole here, whose posts i completely ignore, you have failed.

Stop crying like a big baby about it.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Ol Mr Gullible Rhodesfailure cannot apparently see the difference. A factory making batteries, cosmetics, paint, fertiliser could be the factory being referred in the second. Totally innocent.


Do you know why the allies bombed bottling factories in Europe, during WWII? It wasn't because they didn't like the beer....

Can you tell me why?

[elke]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Elke,

Early reports in Australia from international press indicated that more than 8,000 Iraqis being a whole batallion had surrendered. The reports did not last long as they were simply wrong.

My point is that not everything you read and especially the hot to press sort of stuff is accurate. To rely as Rhodesscholar did on this as evidence of the failure of the weapons inspectors is jumping in early with an accusation because a bit more time will probably show the factories were not for weapons at all.

Seems very strange that not all the press is jumping on this story as it would indeed be the smoking gun everyone wanted. Unless it is all a figment of Rhodescholars little mind.

The reports I saw on that subject stated that the commanders of a whole battalion surrendered, and the rank and file soldiers, apparently, went home. I haven't seen anything different since then.

However, you are right in that when the whole war is televized in real time, much information comes in that is not completely accurate - or even not accurate at all.

[Kapiti]

Mediocrates - Explain your relevance and you can hear my thoughts. To you no doubt finding atoms means they have evidence of an atomic bomb.

Rhodesscholar - Your words were and I quote "Amazing that simple, uneducated GIs (in your estimation) could find these monstrous facilities in only a few days, when your intellectually more gifted European weapons inspectors couldnt in 5 months. " IE They had found something which now you accept they did not find"

If you are not a fool show me the present proof of these monstrous facilites which they found.

Otherwise wipe the egg of your face, you are starting to smell.

MichaelC - I would never dream of putting you on my ignore list. Reading your posts is the best comic relief I get.

Johnny. I will readily accept that sometimes apparently innocent facilities have been used or could be used for what many call "evil" purposes.

So far in the press I have read nothing has been turned up which suggests that anything improper has been found. If you have other sources I am happy to read them.

[Mediocrates]

Sure - bear with me. All Chemical weapons are based on the same technology used for agrichemical industries: Pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, sterilizers and so on. There is little difference for example, chemically, between high potency bug sprays that use anticoagulants or choline suppressors and chemical weapons like Cx, Vx, Tabun. They are based on the same materials and manufactured using the same process. The difference is largely a matter of scale. One can produce 10,000 tons of Warfarin and use it on rats or one can produce 1,000,000 tons, reprocess it, purify it and use it on troops and civilians.

That's the essence of dual use technology - take a fairly mundane chemical engineering process, toss in some extra acids, a few extra nitrogen compounds and voila, the poor man's atomic bomb.

So that's the first half of the process - one of scale. Take ricin for example, it is a reprocessed byproduct of castor beans. Certainly any country should be allowed to process castor beans, but if a population of 25 million people suddenly needed to start processing 100 lbs/per person of beans in order to purify the byproducts to the concentrations that derive ricin, one would be suspect.

The second half of the process is where pharmaceutical processing takes over. Weaponization of chemical weapons is very closely allied to the manufacturing techniques used to construct drug dosages. Milling, scintering, grinding, dying, adhesive agent bonding, solution agent suspension are all techniques that are applied to Taxol, Aspirin, Lipitor as well as chemical (and biological) agents. This is what's called "Dry Delivery". Dry delivery renders the agent environmentally stable so that it neither degrades nor prematurely 'fires'. Again this speaks to scale. A country should be allowed to produce drugs and drug delivery system but if a country suddenly acquired enough scintered alumina, drying agents and static bonders to produce a pound of pills for every man woman and child, one would again be very suspect, especially if those pills never showed up on shelves nor were exported.


I hope this was helpful.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Kapiti
MichaelC - I would never dream of putting you on my ignore list. Reading your posts is the best comic relief I get.
You did say in a previous post that you HAD already put my name on your ignore list.

Many people with scant ability to make intelligent reply to the elements of a debate cover thier discomfort with nervous laughter. It is not often mistaken for hilarity by others in the debate.

[NoelMann]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I think we should move France to the top of the list. That way, they won't be able to help build any more breeder reactors, or broker any more third party arms deals to hide their involvement with states that promote and support terrorism.

We may even prevent them from directly selling an already rolled nuke to some murderous bastards.

By "murderous bastards" and "states that promote and support terrorism", you would presumably be referring to those for whom France secretly built and brought on-line the reactor at Dimona between the years 1958 and 1964, n'est-ce pas? And, peut-être, you would also then be one of those "self-loathing Jews" the Anti-Debate League has been so unflaggingly warning us against of late? Just wondering...

-NOëlMANn

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti

Johnny. I will readily accept that sometimes apparently innocent facilities have been used or could be used for what many call "evil" purposes.

So far in the press I have read nothing has been turned up which suggests that anything improper has been found. If you have other sources I am happy to read them.

Well. Then you know that the world rolled on ball-bearings and bottling companies were easily converted into producing them. Today, since factories that create fertilizer and the like, meet the same criteria. That's why they are targeted, or, at the least, under heavy scrutiny.

Few doubt they have the weapons. It's only a matter of time, before they come out. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by NoelMann
By "murderous bastards" and "states that promote and support terrorism", you would presumably be referring to those for whom France secretly built and brought on-line the reactor at Dimona between the years 1958 and 1964, n'est-ce pas? And, peut-être, you would also then be one of those "self-loathing Jews" the Anti-Debate League has been so unflaggingly warning us against of late? Just wondering...

-NOëlMANn

No s..t for brains. I'm not a self-loathing Jew. I'm one of those murderous redneck bastards from America that's spending my hard earned tax money and enjoying every minute of it watching the Iraqis getting their asses kicked.

[Kapiti]

NoelMann : Well Done and welcome. I did not know that the French were involved in helping build Israeli nuclear facilities. This is not commonly revealed around these parts.

Mediocrates : You tell me nothing new. Reveal some sources where some one has found something truly incriminating in Iraq.

Johnny Yuma : Also tell me something new. Everyone knows you are "one of those murderous redneck bastards from America that's spending my hard earned tax money and enjoying every minute of it watching the Iraqis getting their asses kicked"

MichaelC People with no ability to make intelligent reply simply get it all wrong.

Elke : "However, you are right in that when the whole war is televized in real time, much information comes in that is not completely accurate - or even not accurate at all." Thankyou. This is my point. From what I am reading and hearing there are plenty of inaccuracies from early reporting. Those who hang their hats on such early reports sometimes end up looking a bit stupid.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Johnny Yuma : Also tell me something new. Everyone knows you are "one of those murderous redneck bastards from America that's spending my hard earned tax money and enjoying every minute of it watching the Iraqis getting their asses kicked"


See how gullible you are? You don't know half of what you think you do, my friend. The reality is that you "know" nothing. What you believe you know is what I have let you believe; and when or if I decide to reveal to you those parts which may or may not be true, will come, or not come, when I choose; if ever.

In other words, everything I have said here, could be misinformation. All you can do is waste your time trying to figure it out.

Still, I'm flattered that he called me a Jew, and I was remiss in thanking him for that.

[Mediocrates]

Kapiti
What would truly incriminating be to you? A live action movie of Saddam mixing up a batch of drugs in the kitchen into a bottle clearly marked with a skull and crossbones and the label "Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction"? Twirling his moustache and cackling for added effect?

See your point indicates that you know little of how weapons inspectors work and shows instead your blind indoctrination. Let's remember that (even) Scott Ritter is not a scientist - he's an intelligence officer. Weapons inspectors work by indirect and circumstantial evidence.

[Northlander]

So what is the sollution Mediocrates?

That no countries exept US allies are allowed to have dual use factories? That all dual use technologies are banned in most parts of the world?

Impossible to impose and also questionable from a moral point of view. The progress in science made by many countries will obviously come to the less developed countries too eventually. Many things can be used by the military and this hunt after signs of military development in Iraq is basically rediculous.

A company cleaning pots and pans could become a chemical weapons manufactory any day. I cant see why it should be up to the US army to decide which it is since USA are part of this conflict and have interests in it.

Where is the line between when the dual use is not acceptable anymore and when it is? Where you choose it is? What kind of fertilizers are ok and which is not? Is the wrong fertilizer a crime against the UN resolutions?

As it is now its difficult to even take all this talk about WMDs serious.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
Where is the line between when the dual use is not acceptable anymore and when it is? Where you choose it is?

When they are your enemies', or, when you're at war with those that have them, perhaps?


Is the wrong fertilizer a crime against the UN resolutions?

When the UN is spreading the manure, it's the wrong kind of fertilizer.

As it is now its difficult to even take all this talk about WMDs serious.

If you see WMD being used there, will you concede that they do in fact exist, or will you excuse it as being their weapon of last resort, and that it is all they could have used to fight such a force as the United States, as you have already put forth in previous postings?

[Mediocrates]

I look at it this way - The US is the ONLY country that's not used WMD when fighting an enemy that also has them. Arab states have a track record of using them whether their enemies have them or not.

[Northlander]

When they are your enemies', or, when you're at war with those that have them, perhaps?

Very strange logic since you attacked them because of possible possession of WMDs or what mediocrates called dual use technology. With that logic you can attack Canada and then afterwards say its not acceptable that they construct anything chemical since you are now at war.

That you see them as enemies is in my opinion not enough reason that they could have certain technologies for example some chemicals that have dual use.

If you see WMD being used there, will you concede that they do in fact exist, or will you excuse it as being their weapon of last resort, and that it is all they could have used to fight such a force as the United States, as you have already put forth in previous postings?

If that happens I will give you right in that they existed.

But I will also claim that it was the attack that provoced Iraq to use it. I dont think he will use it now if not cornered. That he used it before is different. Especially since he was backed by the very powerful USA that time. That time he thought he could get away with it partly because of that backup and indeed he was right.

Japan attacked USA and USA in the end answered with WMDs against civilians. If that is morally right I cant see the difference from now really apart from what we think of Saddam personally, which is irrelevant when discussing moral rights in general.

We have a very different view of defence and offence you and I.
Its interesting why that is.

I wouldnt stop at anything when defending my country and loved ones. Somehow I cant see americans behaving differently. Its a very weak spot in your reasoning. Because we all know that you would in the end use WMDs if invaded and occupied.
No matter what reason the others had I might add. It wouldnt mean anything for you what they used as reason. It is in the end a matter of opinion who is right.

Maybe you have forgot that many iraqis thinks they have the right to have WMDs in the defence against Iran or Israel. That it is not your or UNs bussines. In a way they are right.
Hadnt it been for Saddam personally they would SURELY be right. As you wouldnt ever accept if UN decided that USA cant no longer have WMDs for last resort defence.

[Northlander]

I look at it this way - The US is the ONLY country that's not used WMD when fighting an enemy that also has them. Arab states have a track record of using them whether their enemies have them or not.

Whats your point?

That Saddam will use it now too?

That all arab leaders are mental?

That USA incouraged Saddam to use WMD towards Iran instead of using it themselves?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
Very strange logic since you attacked them because of possible possession of WMDs or what mediocrates called dual use technology. With that logic you can attack Canada and then afterwards say its not acceptable that they construct anything chemical since you are now at war.

No. We didn't attack them on a possibility. I don't believe the American government is that shallow and goes to war on mere rumors. Most certainly we have hard intelligence that they possess them. Let me ask you this, why do you think the nice lady is appearing on Iraqi television in council with Saddam and his kind associates? You may know that she is the head of Saddam's biological weapons program, or do you think she's just there because they have a shortage of yogurt culture?

That you see them as enemies is in my opinion not enough reason that they could have certain technologies for example some chemicals that have dual use.


My logic is that if deemed an enemy.... not that by virtue of having dual use you are automatically an enemy. Canada is definitely not America's enemy.

Just because you don't think it's our business doesn't really make a difference... The fact remains that Israel is an American ally and "that" is what makes it our business.

Maybe you have forgot that many iraqis thinks they have the right to have WMDs in the defence against Iran or Israel.
That it is not your or UNs bussines. In a way they are right.

Hadnt it been for Saddam personally they would SURELY be right. As you wouldnt ever accept if UN decided that USA cant no longer have WMDs for last resort defence.

Okay. I agree. :eek: Let's say for the sake of argument it's alright for Saddam's forces to use WMD as a last resort. Okay? If Iraq uses WMD on the coalition troops, then would you say it was justified the we use them in response? Let's say... we don't happen to have anything chemical or biological agents in our pockets, would you say it was justified to use tactical nuclear weapons, since that's what we had as a last resort?

Here's something else to think about;

What do you think would happen to the Palestinians in the state of Israel, if Saddam used WMD on the Israelis? Do you think the WMD would behave like some cartoon bullet that recognizes the difference between a good guy and a bad guy? And what about the Jordanians? Do you think there's some magic shield around that country? How long does it take to travel by air from any of those countries to say.... Stockholm? Think in terms of incubation periods and exponential spread. Do you think your country would be unaffected? And what about Europe?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
So what is the sollution Mediocrates?

That no countries exept US allies are allowed to have dual use factories? That all dual use technologies are banned in most parts of the world?

Impossible to impose and also questionable from a moral point of view. The progress in science made by many countries will obviously come to the less developed countries too eventually. Many things can be used by the military and this hunt after signs of military development in Iraq is basically rediculous.

A company cleaning pots and pans could become a chemical weapons manufactory any day. I cant see why it should be up to the US army to decide which it is since USA are part of this conflict and have interests in it.

Where is the line between when the dual use is not acceptable anymore and when it is? Where you choose it is? What kind of fertilizers are ok and which is not? Is the wrong fertilizer a crime against the UN resolutions?

As it is now its difficult to even take all this talk about WMDs serious.



Why do you think it's called the poor man's atomic bomb? What do I propose? Honestly I don't know. I'm guessing you're trying to rope me into a meaningless discussion about if anything is a WMD then why not let anyone do anything as long as we of course disarm Israel.......


It's not really up to the USA and frankly at this point I think we should actively promote the development of WMD everywhere on earth and even prod a few states to use them. I can't wait for Polish dockworkers union to get the BOMB.

Why not?

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
Whats your point?

That Saddam will use it now too?

That all arab leaders are mental?

That USA incouraged Saddam to use WMD towards Iran instead of using it themselves?


I don't know anymore - people like you want to see anarchy overun the world in the name of fairness. Who really cares. Let's give everyone a nuke and prod them to use them on someone so you feel gratified that your political complaints were vindicated.

At this point I hope 'It's' about the oil because honestly all those other things mean very little to me.

Democracy? Civilization? Freedom? Regime Change? Islam?

Screw it - give them their toys and let them turn it into a lunar landscape on the ass end of space. You, them all of it - go sit round the dung fire and complain about something.


I would add though if 'they' are so mad they want to kill us - what are they waiting for? It's can't be that hard to drive a truck bomb into the American Embassy in who-gives-a--istan. It can't be that hard to be a suicide bomber on a NYC subway? You're the expert, you tell me.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I don't know anymore - people like you want to see anarchy overun the world in the name of fairness. Who really cares. Let's give everyone a nuke and prod them to use them on someone so you feel gratified that your political complaints were vindicated.

At this point I hope 'It's' about the oil because honestly all those other things mean very little to me.

Democracy? Civilization? Freedom? Regime Change? Islam?

Screw it - give them their toys and let them turn it into a lunar landscape on the ass end of space. You, them all of it - go sit round the dung fire and complain about something.


I would add though if 'they' are so mad they want to kill us - what are they waiting for? It's can't be that hard to drive a truck bomb into the American Embassy in who-gives-a--istan. It can't be that hard to be a suicide bomber on a NYC subway? You're the expert, you tell me.

The Atom Bomb for home protection? Or.... The Hydrogen Bomb, for neighborhood nuclear supremacy? I like it!

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Kapiti
MichaelC People with no ability to make intelligent reply simply get it all wrong. As you continue to ably demonstrate.

[MichaelC]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Those who hang their hats on such early reports sometimes end up looking a bit stupid. They have a long way to go to catch up with you though.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by elke
The reports I saw on that subject stated that the commanders of a whole battalion surrendered, and the rank and file soldiers, apparently, went home. I haven't seen anything different since then.

However, you are right in that when the whole war is televized in real time, much information comes in that is not completely accurate - or even not accurate at all.

Yes.

Snippets allude that after the rank and file were released, they were forced by Saddam Fehayeen, to reconstitute; that they were being forced to re-take up arms. That, as we may recall, was prior to the feinted surrenders and ambushes. With the totality of the events, the coalition changed operations and the releases have stopped.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by MichaelC
They have a long way to go to catch up with you though.


Ouch!! :rolleyes:

[elke]

Originally posted by Kapiti
Elke : "However, you are right in that when the whole war is televized in real time, much information comes in that is not completely accurate - or even not accurate at all." Thankyou. This is my point. From what I am reading and hearing there are plenty of inaccuracies from early reporting. Those who hang their hats on such early reports sometimes end up looking a bit stupid.

Well, the inaccuracies are really inevitable when reporting is done in "real time". However, I wouldn't go as far as to call people "stupid" for believing the reports of eyewitnesses to the action: most of what has been reported has turned out to be correct information, albeit sometimes misinterpreted.

I saw a report yesterday in NY Times, that talked about that suspected chemical plant in Najaf. The article stated that the general in charge of that plant explained that there were portions of the place to which he and his people were not allowed access. Apparently, they are looking into this now, although the work is difficult as these POWs have been removed from the site to another location.

Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/27/international/worldspecial/27INSP.html
Of greatest interest to intelligence officials is information being provided by an Iraqi general who was a senior official there and who surrendered to American forces when they entered the complex about four days ago. Officials said the general, who claims not to have had any involvement in Iraq's chemical warfare program, told military intelligence analysts that there were special bunkers and underground tunnels in the compound that neither he nor other senior staff were permitted to enter.

[Johnny Yuma]

I have come to the conclusion that the people who are against this war to liberate the Iraqis from the tyranical regime of Saddam Hussein, hate the Iraqi people more than they hate Americans. Why else would they wish these people to remain under his regime?

[Alfred]

No Johnny:

They hate America so much, that they are willing to let the Iraqis die. The most important thing in their mind is to control America. How dare America be so powerful that it can ignore what the world demands? How dare America be so strong that it can ignore the UN?

What you are seeing is a near world wide alliance of the petty, of the weak, of the jealous; to try to thwart America and its power.

They don't give a damn about Iraq.

If we were the Soviets in their power, we would swat these petty countries like a fly. And if America had not been there; these silly countries would have been occupied by the Soviets. But we are America...we actually listen and consider the whiney demands of our former allies.

But we shall not forget....and we are growing weary of their adolescent yapping.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Alfred
No Johnny:

They hate America so much, that they are willing to let the Iraqis die. The most important thing in their mind is to control America. How dare America be so powerful that it can ignore what the world demands? How dare America be so strong that it can ignore the UN?

What you are seeing is a near world wide alliance of the petty, of the weak, of the jealous; to try to thwart America and its power.

They don't give a damn about Iraq.

If we were the Soviets in their power, we would swat these petty countries like a fly. And if America had not been there; these silly countries would have been occupied by the Soviets. But we are America...we actually listen and consider the whiney demands of our former allies.

But we shall not forget....and we are growing weary of their adolescent yapping.

When my children were petulant or acted poorly in other ways, I didn't throw them away and get new ones, and I didn't just walk away from them, either. I did what I knew had to be done, and eventually, they grew to understand.

The current situation between Europe and the United States reminds me more of the role reversal of aging parents and their children; where the adult children end up taking care of the parents.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma


The current situation between Europe and the United States reminds me more of the role reversal of aging parents and their children; where the adult children end up taking care of the parents.


But remember....they allow euthanasia in a few European countries for the old and senile. I propose that we euthanize France but treat Germany with a bit more patience.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Alfred
But remember....they allow euthanasia in a few European countries for the old and senile. I propose that we euthanize France but treat Germany with a bit more patience.

.... and suicide is legal in some of those countries, as well. Perhaps we're observing that on a grand scale?

[Northlander]

I have come to the conclusion that the people who are against this war to liberate the Iraqis from the tyranical regime of Saddam Hussein, hate the Iraqi people more than they hate Americans. Why else would they wish these people to remain under his regime?

Wrong. You make it sound that there are no alternatives to US invasion. How do you think it comes that USA does not use the kurds and the opposition in the south as they used the northern alliance in Afghanistan? How come USA are so afraid about the kurds moving in on Kirkuk now? US contol of the oilfields. Plain and simple.

This is not about just changing regime its about getting the right regime for US interests. I dont claim you are the root to all evil or anything childish but its naive and stupid to belive this whole operation is the free the iraqi people. Its about control in the region in my opinion. Your administration wouldnt pay these amounts for an operation this uncertain if it were plain aid. Not a chance.

Also let me say that its discussions like your last one, about europe being the petulant child and you treating us with patience or not, that will cause problems in the future. Ive said it again and its worth pointing out again that that kind of arrogance are sure to break relations between our continents in the long run.
Childish or not, no men like being inferior and in the hands of others. Im sure you realize that and therefore are being provocative.

If you didnt knew it yet France and Germany have already decided to start their own military cooperation. Belgium and Luxembourg are in too but those are not as important. The plan as I see it must be to lure the eastern EU members from their very much pro-american stance into a EU alternative. A strong military power in EU would probably make them interested. I cant say Im that fond of the idea because of the historical result from prior german build ups. Not that I see it as a threat for peace in europe but if the will is there to really build up it will cost us alot and who knows what will come from it in the future.

Dont be to fast to laugh it of. Germany/France is different from just France. The people in Germany will not accept to much military development now but anything can happen after just a few years work on them. Its obviously not a direct threat to you but the situation is not that good anyway. A large german military industry would mean the usual things. A great deal of selling of cource to finance and test equipments etc. Same as your industry basically. It would also mean alot of contracts and cooperation with some russian companies if I would guess. That might pose a threat to if its ill controlled. Those things tend to spread and it means alot of weapons and technology all over the place. Something I cant see USA applausing either.

[Mediocrates]

North, the EU RRF has been on the table for over a decade. Actually longer - it goes back to Eisenhower's initiatives that go all the way back to 1952. Today they spend a tiny fraction of the money spent by the US. The EU would have to double its outlay as a percentage of GDP - in relation to the US to even approach parity with the US in the next 2 decades. That is, the EU would have to allocate twice as much a portion of their total budgets as the US does for each of the next 20 years to reach something close to parity.

It' not clear to to me that EU countries are willing to do that. So you really have to subsume NATO sans the US into an RRF like organization. But more importantly what would the mission be? Today the UN 'peacekeeping' troops are generally viewed as ineffectual - for example in Bosnia most of the day to day logistics and heavy lifting is done by the US armed forces because UN organizations are too slow, to layered to get much of anything done. But - this isn't really a job for the US armed forces either. It's simply a default condition of filling the role of post war provisional government because there is no one else to do that job. Perhaps the RRF could organize itself around 'light' suppression like putting down revolts, amss riots and smallish civil wars and then working as a civil government to resurrect whatever civilian authority is necessary. Think of the Raj - it's something the EU is actually good at. Be a colonial power once more. Because the alternative of being some sort of military might would neither make economic not political sense for a group of countries who lack the will and the money to do that.

[Alfred]

Battlefield Europe
By Walter Russell Mead
Los Angeles Times | March 31, 2003


The battle of Iraq is over. The battle of Europe has begun.

At least that's how it seems in France and Germany, where the contest over war in the Middle East now shifts to the future of Europe. The recent discovery of bugging devices in the offices of the European Union -- and the near-universal suspicion that they were planted by the U.S.-- only heightens the suspicion and tension between the Cold War allies.

Until now, Europe has meant Germany plus France. Two of the bitterest rivals in the world for more than a century, France and Germany buried the hatchet, sort of, after World War II. With some encouragement from the United States, which hoped a united Europe would help contain the Soviet Union, France and Germany invited neighboring countries into the club that has grown into today's European Union.

They may be partners, but France and Germany have different visions of what that union should be. Think of France as a kid who loves and knows basketball -- how to dribble, shoot and make plays as well as anybody in the world -- but who stopped growing at 5 feet, 5 inches. France loves the game of power politics, and it wants to play in the big leagues, but it's too short for prime time. France hopes the European Union will grow into a superpower that, under French leadership, will challenge the U.S. for world leadership.

That's not the German way. Stung by losses in two world wars, and with a conscience still scalded by the legacy of the Hitler period, Germany sees the EU as an alternative to power politics, not a new and better way to play the old game. Germany is tired of playing games and thinks that it is high time the human race grew up and got serious about problems like the environment and international law.

Here's one way to describe the relationship: Together, Germany and France can afford a fancy sports car. Germany spends all its time polishing it and tinkering under its hood. It is a poky driver, never going more than 40 miles an hour -- even on the autobahn. This drives France crazy. Why have a sports car if you can't lay rubber, the French wonder. Why get the car if you aren't going to go out drag-racing against Uncle Sam?

Until last summer, Germany had always been careful to keep the keys to the car up on a high shelf, where France couldn't reach them. But Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was in big trouble last summer. Unemployment was up, his popularity was down and elections were coming. Desperately reaching around for a popular issue, he attacked the Bush administration's unilateralism and its threats of war against Iraq.

It worked. Schroeder was reelected by a narrow majority and, as his government's popularity continued to plummet, he kept playing the antiwar, anti-American card. With Germany locked into opposing U.S. policy in Iraq, French President Jacques Chirac realized Schroeder had left the car keys on the kitchen table, and France was off to the races.

Since then, Chirac has been driving like a madman -- honking his horn, flashing headlights, cutting in and out of lanes, racing the wrong way up one-way streets and generally having the time of his life. As France obstructed the U.S. at the United Nations -- forcing Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to accept a two-resolution process and then blocking a second resolution while grandstanding its opposition around the world -- Frenchmen everywhere swooned with joy. France was in the big leagues, and the crowd was going wild.

The U.S. response was slow in coming, but when it came, it was a shock to both France and Germany. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said that the Franco-German alliance represented "old Europe." "New Europe," said the Defense secretary, backed the U.S. Within days, he had evidence to support his point of view: Ultimately, about 20 European countries would go on record backing the U.S. in Iraq, against five (including France and Germany) that support "old Europe's" viewpoint and four neutrals.

Suddenly, the Americans were challenging the idea that the French and the Germans together were in charge of Europe. Of the EU's five largest members, Britain, Spain and Italy tilted toward the U.S. With the EU committed to eastward expansion, it was about to include even more pro-U.S. countries. The arithmetic is clear: Even if Germany sticks with France, old Europe won't have the votes it needs to control the future foreign policy of the expanded European Union.

A pro-American EU is France's worst nightmare. British Prime Minister Tony Blair as the leader of Europe? Brussels the poodle of Washington? Poland deciding France's foreign policy? France once vetoed Britain's EU application because Britain was too pro-U.S. to be a good European. Hints and threats from Paris suggest that countries that want into the European Union need to put some distance between themselves and the U.S. That is unlikely to happen. When Russia, Germany and France formed a common front against the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council, Central and Eastern Europe grew more desperate than ever to keep strong ties to Washington.

All this makes Berlin very unhappy. Germany has long borders with Poland and the Czech Republic. It has a long and complicated history in Central and Eastern Europe, and it desperately wants to see these countries integrated into the stable institutions of the European Union. Germany wants new Europe in the club, even if that makes the club less anti-U.S. Germany now has to find a way to pick up the pieces. It must take the car keys away from Chirac and go back to driving the European car in its own slow and careful way. Germany might choose Paris over Washington; it can't choose Paris over Washington and Warsaw.

The Bush administration faces two big jobs to keep the battle of Europe from flaring up further. First, it must reward its friends. The leaders who braved public opinion and Franco-German pressure to support the United States in its hour of need should be able to show their fellow citizens the value of good relations with Washington. The Central and Eastern European countries, in particular, must know that the U.S. is a powerful, reliable friend.

Second, the Bush administration must rebuild its relationship with Germany. That will involve some nose-holding on both sides. Germans still don't like Bush's unilateralism, warlike rhetoric and talk of preventive war. And there are plenty of people in the Bush administration who will never forgive Schroeder.

But U.S.-German relations remain today what they have been for 50 years -- the cornerstone of the Western alliance. Fix that relationship and the rest falls into place. Neglect it and the battle of Europe gets worse -- and the U.S., committed to the war on terror, does not need any distractions.

Walter Russell Mead, a contributing editor to Opinion, is the author of "Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World."

[MichaelC]

This article was great, Alfred. A little hard to find, but I finally located the source article.

[mimil]

The US found the key a long time ago and got a good grip of it:

"Why do people in the Middle East hate the United States," people are asking, in the wake of the events of September 11.


1920-28: U.S. pressures Britain, then the dominant Middle East power, into signing a "Red Line Agreement" providing that Middle Eastern oil will not be developed by any single power without the participation of the others. Standard Oil and Mobil obtain shares of the Iraq Petroleum Company.

1946: President Harry Truman threatens to drop a "super-bomb" on the Soviet Union if it does not withdraw from Kurdestan and Azerbaijan in northern Iran.

March 29, 1949: CIA backs a military coup overthrowing the elected government of Syria and establishes a military dictatorship under Colonel Za'im.

1953: The CIA organizes a coup overthrowing the Mossadeq government of Iran after Mossadeq nationalizes British holdings in Iran's huge oilfields. The Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi, is put on the throne, ruling as an absolute monarch for the next 25 years--torturing, killing and imprisoning his political opponents.

July 1956: After Egypt's nationalist leader, Gamal Abdul Nasser, receives arms from the Soviet Union, the U.S. withdraws promised funding for Aswan Dam, Egypt's main development project. A week later Nasser nationalizes the Suez Canal to fund the project. In October Britain, France and Israel invade Egypt to retake the Suez Canal. President Eisenhower threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Soviet Union intervenes on Egypt's side; and at the same time, the U.S. asserts its regional dominance by forcing Britain, France and Israel to withdraw from Egypt.

April 1957: After anti-government rioting breaks out in Jordan, U.S. rushes 6th fleet to the eastern Mediterranean and lands a battalion of Marines in Lebanon to "prepare for possible future intervention in Jordan." Later that year, the CIA begins making secret payments of millions a year to Jordan's King Hussein.

1958: The merger of Syria and Egypt into the "United Arab Republic," the overthrow of the pro-U.S. King Feisal II in Iraq by nationalist military officers, and the outbreak of anti-government/anti-U.S. rioting in Lebanon, where the CIA had helped install President Camille Caiman and keep him in power, leads the U.S. to dispatch 70 naval vessels, hundreds of aircraft and 14,000 Marines to Lebanon to preserve "stability." The U.S. threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Lebanese army resists, and to prevent an Iraqi move into the oilfields of Kuwait, and draws up secret plans for a joint invasion of Iraq with Turkey. The plan is shelved after the Soviet Union threatens to intervene.

1957-58: Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA agent in charge of the 1953 coup in Iran, plots, without success, to overthrow Egypt's Nasser. "Between July 1957 and October 1958, the Egyptian and Syrian governments and media announced the uncovering of what appear to be at least eight separate conspiracies to overthrow one or the other government, to assassinate Nasser, and/or prevent the expected merger of the two countries." (Blum, p. 93)

1960: U.S. works to covertly undermine the new government of Iraq by supporting anti-government Kurdish rebels and by attempting, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Iraq's leader, Abdul Karim Qassim, an army general who had restored relations with the Soviet Union and lifted the ban on Iraq's Communist Party.

1963: U.S. supports a coup by the Ba'ath party (soon to be headed by Saddam Hussein) to overthrow the Qassim regime, including by giving the Ba'ath names of communists to murder. "Armed with the names and whereabouts of individual communists, the national guards carried out summary executions. Communists held in detention...were dragged out of prison and shot without a hearing... [B]y the end of the rule of the Ba'ath, its terror campaign had claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 communists."

September 17, 1970: With U.S. and Israeli backing, Jordanian troops attack Palestinian guerrilla camps, while Jordan's U.S.-supplied air force drops napalm from above. U.S. deploys the aircraft carrier Independence and six destroyers off the coast of Lebanon and readies troops in Turkey to support the assault. The U.S. threatens to use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union if it intervenes. 5000 Palestinians are killed and 20,000 wounded. This massacre comes to be known as "Black September."

1973-1975: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq in order to strengthen Iran and weaken the then pro-Soviet Iraqi regime. When Iran and Iraq cut a deal, the U.S. withdraws support, denies the Kurds refuge in Iran, and stands by while the Iraqi government kills many Kurdish people.

1978: As the Iranian revolution begins against the hated Shah, the U.S. continues to support him "without reservation" and urges him to act forcefully against the masses. In August 1978, some 400 Iranians are burned to death in the Rex Theater in Abadan after police chain and lock the exit doors. On September 8, 10,000 anti-Shah demonstrators are massacred at Teheran's Jaleh Square.

1979: U.S. President Jimmy Carter designates the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. interest and declares the U.S. will go to war to ensure the flow of oil.

[mimil]

Summer 1979: U.S. begins arming and organizing Islamic fundamentalist "Mujahideen" in Afghanistan. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski writes, "This aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention," drawing the Soviets into an Afghan quagmire. Over the next decade the U.S. alone passed more than $3 billion in arms and aid to the Mujahideen, with another $3 billion provided by the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.

Summer 1980: As the Carter administration tries to bully Iran into surrendering the U.S. hostages, supporters of presidential candidate Ronald Reagan cut a secret deal with the Islamic Republic: promising that the Reagan administration will allow Israel to ship arms to Iran if Iran continues to hold the hostages during the coming presidential campaign to cripple Carter's campaign for re-election. (Gary Sick)

September 22, 1980: Iraq invades Iran with tacit U.S. support, starting a bloody eight-year war. The U.S. supports both sides in the war providing arms to Iran and money, intelligence and political support to Iraq in order to prolong the war and weaken both sides, while trying to draw both countries into the U.S. orbit.

1981: The Reagan administration secretly encourages Israel and other allies, such as South Korea and Turkey, to ship hundreds of millions of U.S.-made arms to Iran despite a ban on the shipment of U.S.-made weapons.

Spring 1983: The U.S. provides the Islamic Republic of Iran with a list of Soviet agents.

1984: U.S. shoots down two Iranian jets over Persian Gulf.

1985-1986: The U.S. secretly ships weapons to Iran, including 1,000 TOW anti-tank missiles, Hawk missile parts, and Hawk radars. The weapons are exchanged for U.S. hostages in Lebanon, and in hopes of increased U.S. leverage in Iran. The secret plot collapses when it is publicly revealed on November 3, 1986, by the Lebanese magazine, Al-Shiraa. (The Chronology)

1986: When a bomb goes off in a Berlin nightclub and kills two Americans, the U.S. blames Libya's Qaddafi. U.S. bombers strike Libyan military facilities, residential areas of Tripoli and Benghazi, and Qaddafi's house, killing 101 people, including Qaddafi's adopted daughter.

1987: The U.S. Navy is dispatched to the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from cutting off Iraq's oil shipments. During these patrols, a U.S. ship shoots down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 onboard.

1988: The Iraqi regime launches mass poison-gas attacks on Kurds, killing thousands and bulldozing many villages. The U.S. responds by increasing its support for the Iraqi regime.

July 1988: A cease-fire ends the Iran-Iraq war with neither side victorious. Over 1 million Iranians and Iraqis are killed during the 8-year war.

July 1990: April Glaspie, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, meets with Saddam Hussein, who threatens military action against Kuwait for overproducing its oil quota, slant drilling for oil in Iraqi territory, and encroaching on Iraqi territory--seriously harming war weakened Iraq. Glaspie replies, "We have no opinion on the Arab- Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait."

August 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. The U.S. seizes the moment to assert its hegemony in the post-Soviet world and strengthen its grip on the Persian Gulf: the U.S. condemns Iraq, rejects a diplomatic settlement, imposes sanctions, and prepares for an all-out military assault on Iraq.

January 16, 1991: After a 6-month military buildup, the U.S.-led coalition launches "Operation Desert Storm." For the next 42 days, U.S. and allied planes pound Iraq, dropping 88,000 tons of bombs, systematically targeting and largely destroying its electrical and water systems. On February 22, 1991, the U.S. coalition begins its 100-hour ground war. Heavily armed U.S. units drive deep into southern Iraq. Overall, 100,000 to 200,000 Iraqis are killed during the war.

Spring 1991: Shi'ites in the south and Kurds in the north rise up against Hussein's regime in Iraq. The U.S., after encouraging these uprisings during the war, now fears turmoil and instability in the region and refuses to support the rebels. The U.S. denies the rebels access to captured Iraqi weapons and allows Iraqi helicopters to attack them.


1995: The U.S. imposes oil and trade sanctions against Iran, reinforcing sanctions in effect since 1979, for alleged sponsorship of 'terrorism', seeking to acquire nuclear arms and hostility to the Middle East process. (BBC, CSM)

1995: With U.S. backing, Turkey launches a major military offensive, involving some 35,000 Turkish troops, against the Kurds in northern Iraq.

1998: Congress passes the "Iraq Liberation Act," giving nearly $100 million to groups attempting to overthrow the Hussein regime.

August 1998: Claiming retaliation for attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, President Clinton sends 75 cruise missiles pounding into rural Afghanistan --supposedly targeting Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. also destroys a factory producing half of Sudan's pharmaceutical supply, claiming the factory is involved in chemical warfare. The U.S. later acknowledges there is no evidence for the chemical warfare charge.

October 2001: U.S. begins bombing Afghanistan, as the first act of war in "Operation Enduring Freedom"--the U.S. "war against global terrorism."

The above is only part of the events mentioned on the following page: http://rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1125/timeline.htm


What was it again? The Central and Eastern European countries, in particular, must know that the U.S. is a powerful, reliable friend. Powerfull, I have to agree, reliable friend, I let you judge.

[Northlander]

Nice Mimil. But arguments and facts like these wont work on most americans. They will say its all lies or that it is history and was defence because of soviet union. Failing to see that it is ever ongoing. West will never let the arabs live in peace and have a chance to develop. Im sure we will have to continue the list the next 50 years with new interventions and new coups. Over and over again.

There will be no war that stops all wars for sure.

[Salim]

Donald Rumsfeld: "The job determines the alliance"

Can you tell me how a friendship can be based on a statement like this?

[Northlander]

Why just focus on Britain as US ally?
S.Arabia is also an ally. What do we all think about that nation? A good example of a free and democratic nation maybe?

Incredible hypocrisy á la USA.

[Gilgamesh]

Originally posted by Salim
Donald Rumsfeld: "The job determines the alliance"

Can you tell me how a friendship can be based on a statement like this?

alliance is made by common intrests and rarely on shared values. Want friends ? Get a dog!

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Northlander
Why just focus on Britain as US ally?
S.Arabia is also an ally. What do we all think about that nation? A good example of a free and democratic nation maybe?

Incredible hypocrisy á la USA.


pointless complaining.

[Northlander]

Yes I know. USA will continue to back S.Arabia regardless.
It doesnt matter they oppress their people and support terrorism.

That is the arguement that finally kills your argument that you are in Iraq to stop terrorism and stop Saddam from oppressing his people.

Pointless complaints yes but its fun to see you ignoring it because you know everything your country do in ME is full of hypocrisy. You just cant defend it anymore.

[Mediocrates]

I don't have to. The wonderful thing about being confronted with people like you who claim for themselves absolute moral purity is that it leaves the interesting, challenging & complex decisions up to me to make. It's empowering. You are of course free to sit on the sidelines and play hooligan though.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by Northlander
Yes I know. USA will continue to back S.Arabia regardless.
It doesnt matter they oppress their people and support terrorism.

That is the arguement that finally kills your argument that you are in Iraq to stop terrorism and stop Saddam from oppressing his people.

Pointless complaints yes but its fun to see you ignoring it because you know everything your country do in ME is full of hypocrisy. You just cant defend it anymore.

I totally agree with you
Saudi Arabian hypocrisy example is to close shops during Salah (prayer). But what to do in supermarket (big stores) you cannot ask every body to leave it so you close the door, reduce the light you drop down the curtains and the customers inside can still do shopping as before Funny ?
One more : Saudi arabia has officially condemned slavism in 1961....not bad.
an over one most famous: They execute people every friday in public and adulterian women by stones (the father gives the first shot) with burying her half body and later emptying a full truck load of stones on her...........................................No
This regime has been fully supported by USA since Roosevelt because of ................oil. It has surprisingly never suffered actions from world opinion. Surely because it is sponsored by the US
Result of this : Mosq financing with the money of oil every where and 15/19 terrorists being saudis. We can discuss later about US/afghanistan, US/Iran, US/Somalia,
<<everything USA do in ME is full of hypocrisy>> man can add US moves in middle east like an elephant in a crystal shop

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by djnvcm
[B
<<everything USA do in ME is full of hypocrisy>> man can add US moves in middle east like an elephant in a crystal shop [/B]

You have made a universal claim that "everything" the US does in the ME is full of hypocrisy. That presupposes that you have knowledge of "everything" the US does in the ME. Therefore, I defy you to tell us "everything" the US does in the ME. What? You can't? Why not? Because you don't know "everything" the US does in the ME. Your argument is fallacious.

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by MichaelC
True, I cannot be certain of your nationality merely from the fact that you list france as your location, but your posts clearly seem to be ESL (English as a Second Language. No offense intended).

So, I am assuming the you are, indeed, french. In which case, I am mystified at your use of the word "our" as highlighted above.

Where does a french guy get off, referring to troops of the "Coalition of the Willing" as "our" troops?

It is Robin Cook saying << our >>. Please look again to my thread

[TDidier]

From IHT :

http://www.iht.com/articles/110140.html

[Mediocrates]

This is as coherent description as I have read. I recommend it to everyone. Both those who feel they have to defend it and the folks who see a secret Jew behind every policy.

Reprinted from "The Economist".

http://www.themedianews.com/DAGGER/Head_Lines/shadowmen.htm

[Israel98]

1) "We need the French about as much as a deer hunter needs an accordian". Donald Rumsfeld

2) Always install the French versions of software on your computer. THEY RUN A LOT FASTER.

3)"We at the French's Mustard Company wish to put an end to statements that our product is manufactured in France. There is no relationship between our mustard and the country of France. Indeed, our mustard is manufactured in Rochester, NY. The only thing we have in common is that we are both yellow".

[TDidier]

"The problem with the French is that they have no word for 'entrepreneur.'"

. . . GW.Bush

:D

That is certainly the reason why english language use so many frenchs words!

[yoyo]

Originally posted by TDidier
That is certainly the reason why english language use so many frenchs words!

The English language may have many French word but unlike the French they don't pass [stupid] law (like the Toubon's law) to make ridiculous translation. So if you now want to connect to the "cadre principal" with your "fenetre XP"?

[yoyo]

Originally posted by Northlander
How come USA are so afraid about the kurds moving in on Kirkuk now? US contol of the oilfields. Plain and simple.

They are afraid because the Turks will get in. And that is primarily because the turks are stupid (I say this constructively). The Kurds will have a state and it I am entirely sure that give it time, the manufactured country of Iraq will split up into 3 regions like yougoslavia, ussr or any country held by one man. Now if I were the Turks I would want to be part of it and give tell them "we will support you if all our kurds live for the new Kurdistan". Like this they prevent kurdistan being born and asking from what is now kurdish territory with planes and tanks.

Originally posted by Northlander
Ive said it again and its worth pointing out again that that kind of arrogance are sure to break relations between our continents in the long run.

Wrong again, Chirac (the leader of the opposition in this case) may love the feel good factor of saying "non" at the UN but he is not stupid. Non of the political echelon are, they know what needs to be done and in the case of France they know that breaking the UN will weaken them more than it will weaken the US. The world has to be redefine in many ways. Instituation like the UN must go and be replaced by a "democratic nation's club" for anyone that fit western standard. For my part, I rather prefer the yanks than the islamists or the communists to be dominant. America has made mistake but it has saved us, in europe, before - at least twice. Not that anyone should follow any countries blindly but I prefer America to any European country from history and from recent events.

[Noam]

"<<everything USA do in ME is full of hypocrisy>> man can add US moves in middle east like an elephant in a crystal shop"

Not sure what world you guys are observing. From the slopes of Mt Carmel (other than the burning tires of The Port strikers and the suffocating smoke going toward Rambam hospital)--this is what I see:

Since 4.9.2003 the world is a MUCH QUIETER PLACE!!!

No Iraqi Saber rattling
Putin is on the side of BUSH (IRAN NUKES)
NK is a muted dog
CHina is only talking about RMB devaluation
Yen is rising (some improvement there)

Egypt is worried about population explosion and shortage of wheat (to say nothing about the Arab male Impotence--see research from TANTA university in Egypt)
Syria is another impotent dog...
Hizbullah is dying

Bin Laden went hiking (literraly , with zwahiri)
Saddam will be hanged just before the 2003 elections-- HOLLYWOOD STYLE... perhaps The new Governor of California will be the last one to tell him: "HASTA LAVISTA BABY"

The AMERICAN ECONOMY ( THE ONLY IMPORTANT FACTOR IN THE WORLD) is showing signs of coming out of a recession (rather soft landing if you ask me)--see corporate profits coming out--everyone beating expert's estimates..

Europe is curbing Fanatic Islamists...

Yup, I would say the GOOD GUYS ARE WINNING.

[TDidier]

Buy glasses...

[djnvcm]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
You have made a universal claim that "everything" the US does in the ME is full of hypocrisy. That presupposes that you have knowledge of "everything" the US does in the ME. Therefore, I defy you to tell us "everything" the US does in the ME. What? You can't? Why not? Because you don't know "everything" the US does in the ME. Your argument is fallacious.

Well the list is long......let me remember.....
Let's start from WWII (before it was more british)
1 - Roosevelt agrees in Feb.1945 onboard the battleship Quincy with King Ibn Saoud to pump oil with later establishing Arabian American Co. and keep quiet with whahabism and human rights....later Saudi arabia was considered as the best colonisation success...........up to 9/11 disaster (Saudi youth blasting themselves on twin towers and pentagon with the money taken from oil by their parents)
2 - Suez canal 1956 affair
3 - Iran hoax with the Shah (3rd air force of the world with F16) and the Savak
4 - Falling of shah to threaten Irak and GCC's arab countries and arm them
5 - Heavy support to Irak for the war against Iran including WMD's (ask Rumsfeld)
6 - Scheme for Kuwait invasion by Irak
7 - Gulf war I stopped after 100 days to keep Saddam on power and let him taking care of kurds and shia
8 - Gulf war II started to get rid of the same Saddam despite many warnings from allies. This war is not finished yet and it is the most delicious dream of Mr Binladin (apparently still alive)

Anything else ??
Oh dear ! yes, I forgot afghanistan and taliban regime installed with the US blessing because it was funny to play Islam against communism and built new pipe line (war still not ended there as well)

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Well the list is long......let me remember.....
Let's start from WWII (before it was more british)
1 - Roosevelt agrees in Feb.1945 onboard the battleship Quincy with King Ibn Saoud to pump oil with later establishing Arabian American Co. and keep quiet with whahabism and human rights....later Saudi arabia was considered as the best colonisation success...........up to 9/11 disaster (Saudi youth blasting themselves on twin towers and pentagon with the money taken from oil by their parents)
2 - Suez canal 1956 affair
3 - Iran hoax with the Shah (3rd air force of the world with F16) and the Savak
4 - Falling of shah to threaten Irak and GCC's arab countries and arm them
5 - Heavy support to Irak for the war against Iran including WMD's (ask Rumsfeld)
6 - Scheme for Kuwait invasion by Irak
7 - Gulf war I stopped after 100 days to keep Saddam on power and let him taking care of kurds and shia
8 - Gulf war II started to get rid of the same Saddam despite many warnings from allies. This war is not finished yet and it is the most delicious dream of Mr Binladin (apparently still alive)

Anything else ??
Oh dear ! yes, I forgot afghanistan and taliban regime installed with the US blessing because it was funny to play Islam against communism and built new pipe line (war still not ended there as well)

Lets see your sources and proof please.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Noam

Yup, I would say the GOOD GUYS ARE WINNING.

You either have to be childish or brainwashed to see anything as Manichein. It is also rather sad that it is still used as a propaganda tool and even sader that it still works.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
Lets see your sources and proof please.

What's that ? :mad:
All that is history, it is time to improve your culture please...

Lack of education is the worst thing that can happend to a democracy.

SeeU, minus.

Didier

[elke]

Originally posted by TDidier
What's that ? :mad:
All that is history, it is time to improve your culture please...

Lack of education is the worst thing that can happend to a democracy.

SeeU, minus.

Didier

You are right - lack of education is indeed the worst thing that can happen to democracy.

Let's take them point by point:

Well the list is long......let me remember.....
Let's start from WWII (before it was more british)

I think you have conveniently forgot the French, along with the British. Does "Algiers" ring a bell? What about "Vichy"?

1 - Roosevelt agrees in Feb.1945 onboard the battleship Quincy with King Ibn Saoud to pump oil with later establishing Arabian American Co. and keep quiet with whahabism and human rights....later Saudi arabia was considered as the best colonisation success...........up to 9/11 disaster (Saudi youth blasting themselves on twin towers and pentagon with the money taken from oil by their parents)

Conceded. However, this is a patently ununique situation, and was - and still is - the modus operandi of other nations as well. You forgot to mention that Ibn Saud was not installed by the US, but rather by the British, while France was under Vichy, and Switzerland "neutrally" holding on to stolen property.

2 - Suez canal 1956 affair

I am not sure what you could possibly be referring to. This was Britain and France's baby, the 1956 affair...

3 - Iran hoax with the Shah (3rd air force of the world with F16) and the Savak

What are you talking about?

4 - Falling of shah to threaten Irak and GCC's arab countries and arm them

How was that US's fault? Or do you presume that US has the power over everything? That needs to be cured by antipsychotic medication, not "history".

5 - Heavy support to Irak for the war against Iran including WMD's (ask Rumsfeld)

Not as heavy as France's; but... yes, conceded... See point 1.

6 - Scheme for Kuwait invasion by Irak

See point 4.

7 - Gulf war I stopped after 100 days to keep Saddam on power and let him taking care of kurds and shia

See point 4. The stoppage can be laid squarely at the door of UN, under the capable leadership of France.

8 - Gulf war II started to get rid of the same Saddam despite many warnings from allies. This war is not finished yet and it is the most delicious dream of Mr Binladin (apparently still alive)

Rome was not built in one day. The fat lady is yet to sing.

Anything else ??
Oh dear ! yes, I forgot afghanistan and taliban regime installed with the US blessing because it was funny to play Islam against communism and built new pipe line (war still not ended there as well)

Ditto to points 4 and 8.

...and all of the above is really irrelevant, anyway. What's your point? That humans are silly creatures? That we do things we regret later? Anyone with a grain of sense can see that.

The real issue is not whether any country is "perfect", but rather that there is a major danger to our lives at this time. A danger that needs to be dealt with, and quickly.

What is your proposal? How can terrorism be overpowered, without losing the very things it is threatening?

[TDidier]

Only one solution, we have to break the circle of violance.
We have to stop the talion law and it will be the job for the most smart...
We have to see back on our history to choose the right way for future...
That's pitty to see that US seem not able to do that.



For the rest:
What said djnvcm was that it is so easy to blame France for everything (France or anybody else).
Anglo-saxon authority on this world since WWII was a catastrophic suite of massacres and supporting tyrans.

(France certainly would do the same things but US empeach us and it was a good thing. They push us (helped in that by "felagas" and "vietcong") to decolonisation...)

-Suez battle was a british initiative.
-US were the suppliers for WMD to Irak, France only for conventionnal weapons.

SeeU, Didier.

[Enuff]

Didier,

See back on our history? Take a good look at your french history in the major conflicts over the past 100 years I don't see the U.S. being a primary contributor to the causes of these wars, I see the French and Europe. When I look at the middle-east, I don't see former U.S. colonies, I see European. I look at southeast asia, Indochina, and guess who pops up after the second world war? Did they put anything in your history books about after the british freed ya'll in French Indochina about the little rampage the soldiers had?

In fact, everytime the french get some grandiose vision, idea or ideal, it seems to portend ill for the world at large.

[Enuff]

opps. didn't mean to post it twice :)

[TDidier]

We told about the 50 past years because it is a recent history.
Why just talk about 100 past years for France's mistakes and faults ? France was a 1000 years empire ! ! !

You don't see an US colony in 50 past years...
And ME with Iran (Shah) or SaudiArabia ?
And SouthAmerica with the undred thousand dead of divers CIA actions when local government didn't please to them ?
And Asia with Japan, Vietnam, Birmania, Indonesia, SouthKorea,... ?
And Africa with Congo (with french help).
And Europe with WestGermany and establishment of a real "protectora" on all the rest of european countries ?
. . .

We have today to do our chooses for future...
Or piraterie continue, the strongest stole everything he want or we build a futur on respect, leading by the state the most clever and smartest on this hearth (never happened until present...).

Many people thought that this state will may be the USA but with bush's derives and lies, many are desapointed...


Originally posted by Enuff
Didier,

See back on our history? Take a good look at your french history in the major conflicts over the past 100 years I don't see the U.S. being a primary contributor to the causes of these wars, I see the French and Europe. When I look at the middle-east, I don't see former U.S. colonies, I see European. I look at southeast asia, Indochina, and guess who pops up after the second world war? Did they put anything in your history books about after the british freed ya'll in French Indochina about the little rampage the soldiers had?

In fact, everytime the french get some grandiose vision, idea or ideal, it seems to portend ill for the world at large.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
We told about the 50 past years because it is a recent history.
Why just talk about 100 past years for France's mistakes and faults ? France was a 1000 years empire ! ! !



France was a 1000 years empire... and your ancestors were a great people. Operative terms are "was" and "were".... Just look at yourselves, "now". Today, you are simply petulant talkers, and you've forgotten where you've put it.....

Your ancestors didn't forget; they had intestinal fortitude and the will to make a stand against evil. Your generation does not. It is more willing to appease and placate it, fantasizing that it will go away, if you hide under the cover, of words; as though words will somehow magically transform themselves into solid matter....

France is no longer the adult she once was. She has become an acrimonious child, jealous of those who are willing to stand and fight.... She doesn't deserve a place at the table.

Go to your room....

[mimil]

Hello Johnny, how have you been?

Sometimes you remind me of myself, always have to disagree with everything for no particular reasons. Now you state that France lost his past glory, the same way you mention a couple of month ago that Germany is on the same track. Your reasons? Because they have lost some of the colonial ambition, they are no longer willing to solve issue through armed conflict. Maybe you miss the napoleons of the past? Spare me their come back please. They left deep marks in history but let’s face it they were completely nuts, not worth more than a Saddam.

I still feel that there is no glory in war, no values in an army, nothing to be proud of when you have served for a country.

To be honest I start to believe it was a good thing to have Saddam removed, even so it is still a little early to foresee all the consequences of what happened. I also feel it would have been easier altogether if an international agreement had been found. I strongly disagree with the reasons given for this war, Irak was not a direct threat to the US security, Irak didn’t have the military power that was claimed. The words of Blair, listing the weapons unaccounted for was amazingly convincing and it ended up being a lie. Dr Kelly story was unnecessary. On the other hand North Korea is openly attempting to test Nuclear weapons, which is a real threat to US interest in that region, but what to do, with Afghanistan and Irak on the way, money is getting short and it is due to the recent bad moves.

In the end conflicts of ideas between Europe and the US has to come to an end. The culture is different and so are the opinions, its about time we understand it and take it as it is and construct from it. This is probably the best way to face the challenges to come, a good starting point to get rid of terrorism.

[elke]

Originally posted by TDidier
We told about the 50 past years because it is a recent history.
Why just talk about 100 past years for France's mistakes and faults ? France was a 1000 years empire ! ! !

You don't see an US colony in 50 past years...
And ME with Iran (Shah) or SaudiArabia ?
And SouthAmerica with the undred thousand dead of divers CIA actions when local government didn't please to them ?
And Asia with Japan, Vietnam, Birmania, Indonesia, SouthKorea,... ?
And Africa with Congo (with french help).
And Europe with WestGermany and establishment of a real "protectora" on all the rest of european countries ?
. . .

We have today to do our chooses for future...
Or piraterie continue, the strongest stole everything he want or we build a futur on respect, leading by the state the most clever and smartest on this hearth (never happened until present...).

Many people thought that this state will may be the USA but with bush's derives and lies, many are desapointed...

I have two suggestions for you:
1. Look up definition of "colony" in a good dictionary. Compare that definition with historical facts regarding all of the above-mentioned places, vis a vis US involvement.

2. Quit waiting for someone to "build" your society. You don't need a "big brother" to tell you what to do.

Also, - sure, we do need to look at history to see where we went wrong. No question about it! However, you a building standing on lies will eventually fall. So, make sure the history you are looking at is composed of facts and not of conspiracy theories.

[Mediocrates]

So I was reading about France's involvement in Cote d'Ivoire (in the Wall St. Journal, yesterday) and here are a few things that jumped off the page.


France quadrupled their initial troop deployment from 1,000 to 4,000 despite repeated public outcry at home. There are now over 300 armored vehicles in country.

The initial mission to extract French nationals out of the up country and move them to Abijan was expanded to in order to quell the civil war and hand pick a new government.

Total expenditures exceeded 30-50 million dollars/month at a time when France is ignoring its own fiduciary rules for EU membership and is in technical default of those rules.

France sought and got clear permission from the UN and from the US to allow troops to shoot and kill whomever they want at any time.

Thousands of civilians have been killed and or massacred by locals in putting down this civil uprising.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Hello Johnny, how have you been?

Sometimes you remind me of myself, always have to disagree with everything for no particular reasons. Now you state that France lost his past glory, the same way you mention a couple of month ago that Germany is on the same track. Your reasons? Because they have lost some of the colonial ambition, they are no longer willing to solve issue through armed conflict. Maybe you miss the napoleons of the past? Spare me their come back please. They left deep marks in history but let’s face it they were completely nuts, not worth more than a Saddam.



You have mistaken me for another. I said nothing of Germany's past glory or that it was on the same track. Please stub out the Marley and provide a link to your evidence, or retract your accusation.

[TDidier]

To Johnny Yuma:

Please let ou heros sleeping in peace (certainly would they prefered staying alive with no glory)
France was an empire and is not now. That's an excellent things.

The people is still the same but with improved education he became adult and tired about war.

To Elke:

They dominated and they ruled...
Somewhere for theyre security: Europe and Asia.
Somewhere else for theyre profits: SouthAmerica, Africa and ME.
That is colonialism even if your dictionnaries don't recognize that...

"(...)Also, - sure, we do need to look at history to see where we went wrong. No question about it! However, you a building standing on lies will eventually fall. So, make sure the history you are looking at is composed of facts and not of conspiracy theories."

Elke, what conspiracy theories in what I said ? About massacres in SouthAmerica ?
The only lies on which are standing some peoples are those coming from GWBush, his administration and his allieds (you just have to buy a book about that, there are plenty of it in US bookstores this Autumne).

To Mediocrates:

In Ivory-Coast there was a degenerative situation which will clearly conduce to ethnics massacres in what local government seemed to preparing an evident ethnic cleanising...
France action is congratulated in whole world for his peace operations in Africa (actualy in two states far from thousand kilometres one from the other :Ivory-Coast intervention and Congo intervention).
A powerfull intervention was need in IC by entry in this territory of Liberian troops and it was a risq of great degeneration of situation ("cannibals-revolts" in Liberia and Sierra-Leonnes since many years, two states under US and UK "protection"...).
France was the only country to send troops to stop massacres in Rwanda. . .


For the rest, we don't need a "big brother" to conduce us, we are trying to permitt to actual Pharaon to do the good choices for humanity... and for himself, that seem he is not able to do that too!

SeeU, Didier.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by djnvcm
Well the list is long......let me remember.....
Let's start from WWII (before it was more british)
1 - Roosevelt agrees in Feb.1945 onboard the battleship Quincy with King Ibn Saoud to pump oil with later establishing Arabian American Co. and keep quiet with whahabism and human rights....later Saudi arabia was considered as the best colonisation success...........up to 9/11 disaster (Saudi youth blasting themselves on twin towers and pentagon with the money taken from oil by their parents)
2 - Suez canal 1956 affair
3 - Iran hoax with the Shah (3rd air force of the world with F16) and the Savak
4 - Falling of shah to threaten Irak and GCC's arab countries and arm them
5 - Heavy support to Irak for the war against Iran including WMD's (ask Rumsfeld)
6 - Scheme for Kuwait invasion by Irak
7 - Gulf war I stopped after 100 days to keep Saddam on power and let him taking care of kurds and shia
8 - Gulf war II started to get rid of the same Saddam despite many warnings from allies. This war is not finished yet and it is the most delicious dream of Mr Binladin (apparently still alive)

Anything else ??
Oh dear ! yes, I forgot afghanistan and taliban regime installed with the US blessing because it was funny to play Islam against communism and built new pipe line (war still not ended there as well)

That's just a biased short list of a "few" of the military involvements we've had; don't you think? That's not every thing America does in the Middle East. Where's the rest of the non-exclusive totality of what America does/has done in the Middle East? How about I add one that you didn't "remember"? (As if you have a teeming store of $hit about America just dancing in your brain....) How about Lebanon in 1958? Why don't you tell/remember for us what America was doing there, then?

[elke]

The whole purpose of words is to make communication possible. In order to do that, the words have to have a more-or-less set meaning, which would conjure up the same images in the minds of those who will hear the words, as in those who are saying them. That's why terminology is so important: muddying the waters with sloppy use of words, whether by design or unintentionally, does not promote communication.

Therefore, it matters a great deal what the dictionary says on the subject, since the dictionary is the reference point for all of us.

Merriam Webster Dictionary definition is as follows:
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control

You say that US "dominated and ruled". What does that mean? Did they come, as the Europeans have, to "civilize" the natives and rob them of everything they got, giving nothing in return? Self-same Saudi Arabia, which was the creation of the British, became one of the wealthiest countries on Earth... I wouldn't call that a robbery; but you, apparently, would. Again, definitions are a problem.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, your notion of sinister control over everyone and everything, by one group of people, is the epidemy of conspiracy theories - that's what they are all about!

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke


Therefore, it matters a great deal what the dictionary says on the subject, since the dictionary is the reference point for all of us.

Merriam Webster Dictionary definition is as follows:
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control

You say that US "dominated and ruled". What does that mean?

They dominated___3a
They ruled_______3b

(at least look at US comportment in SouthAmerica, it is exemplary)

Self-same Saudi Arabia, which was the creation of the British, became one of the wealthiest countries on Earth... I wouldn't call that a robbery; but you, apparently, would. Again, definitions are a problem.

Only because huge oil reserve. On Human right they are one of the most retarded in the world...
Your definition of a good state is a problem.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, your notion of sinister control over everyone and everything, by one group of people, is the epidemy of conspiracy theories - that's what they are all about!

No notion of "sinister control over everyone and everything", nobody in this world is really hable to do that (despite billion dollars to NSA).

Only some notion of history (recent).
You can verify what I said by looking for documentation on SouthAmerica US policy this 50 past years (for exemple in Honduras-it is examplary- or on "CONDOR OPERATION" -the most famous-), and about GWBush policy based of a unreal comprehension of the world and all his lies to justify the Irak war...

SeeU, Didier.

Ps: for the fun look for a biographie of GBush senior and see what was is differents positions in US administration during those differents CIA actions...

[elke]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke


Therefore, it matters a great deal what the dictionary says on the subject, since the dictionary is the reference point for all of us.

Merriam Webster Dictionary definition is as follows:
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control

You say that US "dominated and ruled". What does that mean?

They dominated___3a
They ruled_______3b

(at least look at US comportment in SouthAmerica, it is exemplary)

Self-same Saudi Arabia, which was the creation of the British, became one of the wealthiest countries on Earth... I wouldn't call that a robbery; but you, apparently, would. Again, definitions are a problem.

Only because huge oil reserve. On Human right they are one of the most retarded in the world...
Your definition of a good state is a problem.

As far as conspiracy theories are concerned, your notion of sinister control over everyone and everything, by one group of people, is the epidemy of conspiracy theories - that's what they are all about!

No notion of "sinister control over everyone and everything", nobody in this world is really hable to do that (despite billion dollars to NSA).

Only some notion of history (recent).
You can verify what I said by looking for documentation on SouthAmerica US policy this 50 past years (for exemple in Honduras-it is examplary- or on "CONDOR OPERATION" -the most famous-), and about GWBush policy based of a unreal comprehension of the world and all his lies to justify the Irak war...

SeeU, Didier.

Ps: for the fun look for a biographie of GBush senior and see what was is differents positions in US administration during those differents CIA actions...

Don't get offended, but it may be the problem of language here. I have a very hard time understanding what exactly you are trying to say, because to someone with good grasp of English, the "domination" and "rule" and "dependent" does not seem to mean the same things as it does to you.

I work for a specific Department in a corporation. The ultimate control over my work life - everything, from the clothes I am allowed or not allowed to wear, to the tools of trade I get or do not get, - comes from this central body, "Corporate Headquarters". If this sort of relationship existed between the US and Saudi Arabia, or Honduras, or whatever else you are talking about, - it would be colonial in nature. That's the "dominion" and "rule" and "control" referred to in the definitions.


Under the circumstances, US does not fit the definition of "colonial power". The Saudis, Hondurans, whoever else - are free to close their markets to the US goods, - which they often do, - are free to not allow American corporations help them develop their natural resources, - again, many do just that, - and are free to have no diplomatic relationship with US, if they are stupid enough to decide on that. In fact, if US was more deeply involved in the human rights issues of countries such as Saudi Arabia, that could - and definitely would, - be frowned upon, in the same circles that currently complain that it isn't done. And you know that, - or should know that, if you would bother to think on the subject of who/when/how complains about the "US colonialism".

I do not have a definition of a "good state": I have a definition of politics. I have a definition of colonialism. I also, and most of all, have a definition of responsibility for one's own actions, which every individual human being, as well as every nation, - bears for its own happiness.

...and I have a definition of whining, which is what most are doing, instead of getting off their duffs and getting their lives in order.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Mediocrates

Total expenditures exceeded 30-50 million dollars/month at a time when France is ignoring its own fiduciary rules for EU membership and is in technical default of those rules.


Please, even 50M is ridiculous in the 3% allowed deficit. Compare it to the social security deficit for example and you'll have a better idea of the issue there.

Johnny ? Are you having marital issues ? I wasn't attacking you and you jumped for no reason. Come over for dinner and I'll give you a nice massage, hopefully you'll relax a little. To be more serious, I could be mistaken, I'll try to find out the post if it can be a substitute of the massage :-)

I would like to apologize to Johnny who found the above statement offensive where I only meant it to be sarcastic

[mimil]

Hello elke,

Pardon my intervension, but I still feel uneasy about the current situation and the US policies that you are defending.
The reality out there is that the US hasn't had any good publicity lately. I can't tell you for the entire planet, but from the asian side, they don't have many suporters in the populations. They are usually little appreciated as tourists also.

What do you think is the reaon for that?

Another disturbing constat is that they usually don't manage to keep good relationships where ever they go. To better illustrate that feeling, in singapore a former british colony, there is no anemosity towards the english. In vietnam or algeria where france had military interventions, there is little anemosity towards the french.

Why?

I was wondering about what you said about Saudi Arabia, they are in control and they have power. I feel slightly uneasy about the way they uses that power, uneasy on how they could over use it. Maybe this power is not deserved as it wasn;t the outcome of a social struggle. What I mean is that I am pretty convinced that the Iraki will missude the money generated by petrol. Because they never really fight for it. The same way I don't believe democracy will appear there, because it wasn't won by its own people.
You don't give a teenager your bank account.

So maybe the US should have colonised, maybe the US should now stay in Irak and rule. The problem is that the world allows little colonisation these days, that is also why it is rather tricky to start major military conflicts.

[TDidier]

Certainly is language a problem, my english has to be involved that is clear!

But about "domination" and "rule", no problem they were the good words to explain US attitude.

Maybe my definition don't correspond exactly with yours but if you look for the documentation I told, you will understand...

(a real US colony in SouthAmerica: Panama)


I work for a specific Department in a corporation. The ultimate control over my work life - everything, from the clothes I am allowed or not allowed to wear, to the tools of trade I get or do not get, - comes from this central body, "Corporate Headquarters".

That is the sovietic definition of colonisation.

SeeU, Didier.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by mimil
Please, even 50M is ridiculous in the 3% allowed deficit. Compare it to the social security deficit for example and you'll have a better idea of the issue there.

J

$50 million per month for nearly a year. Those were that facts as reported. The adventure in Coteg d'Ivoire was not popular in France and the expenditure of several hundred million dollars came at a time when France is rolling back pensions and is seen by many of the member EU states as a hypocrite for violating the financial rules that France itself fought so hard in order to keep out the riff raff countries.

[yoyo]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
The adventure in Coteg d'Ivoire was not popular in France...

... neither was it in Ivory Coast. This is a classic situation where France impose terrorist on an elected regime.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
Certainly is language a problem, my english has to be involved that is clear!

But about "domination" and "rule", no problem they were the good words to explain US attitude.

Maybe my definition don't correspond exactly with yours but if you look for the documentation I told, you will understand...

(a real US colony in SouthAmerica: Panama)


You mistake domination and rule for business. The United States isn't ruling anyone; nor dominating them. If you are referring to the US presence in other countries, 99.9% of the time, it's because of American corporations. Those corporations are based in the United States, but they are owned by stock holders. Those stock holders include European and French banking concerns, and private citizens; American, European, African, Asian, etc..

The .1% of the time that our military is conducting operations in other countries, with the exception of the current three locations where either a state of war or armistice is involved, is where we are there at the behest of the host country; for drug abatement, for example, or training/support. The only other time our military is in other countries is where we have leased land (meaning we pay the host country for use of the property/improvements made thereon, which, by the way, we leave when we depart; buildings, runways, and other infrastructure) and are based there as allies.

If you want to blame anyone for the downtrodden of the world, blame multi-national corporations, including French owned corporations; not the United States government.

You really are quite young, aren't you? You honestly believe that ideology makes the world go 'round.....

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Yuma

Hi Jhonny, I don't told about all that.
I spoke about the supporting of the multi-nationnal by criminal actions from the CIA.

Look for information about that, it is easy... And nothing on conspiracy theories.

If you want to blame anyone for the downtrodden of the world, blame multi-national corporations, including French owned corporations; not the United States government.

And France probably had participate in "condor operation" (at least in the first years)

You really are quite young, aren't you? You honestly believe that ideology makes the world go 'round.....

I'm 30. Is that "a quite young"?

I honestly think that profit and money and the taste of the power makes the world go 'round.

Hi.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma

You really are quite young, aren't you? You honestly believe that ideology makes the world go 'round.....

It might not make the economy go round, but it keeps a lot of people going. This world would be rather a sad and uninteresting place without it.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
$50 million per month for nearly a year.

So let say 0.5 B USD, still it is only about 0.032 % of gross domestic product, or you can also see it as 0.8% of this year public deficit. I really don't know much about ivory coat but I think your argument is missleading. The public deficit is a legacy of the socialist not caused by military involvement in ivory coast.

[Mediocrates]

And $87 billion compared to a $10.5 Trillion economy is what?

[elke]

Originally posted by mimil
Hello elke,

Pardon my intervension, but I still feel uneasy about the current situation and the US policies that you are defending.
The reality out there is that the US hasn't had any good publicity lately. I can't tell you for the entire planet, but from the asian side, they don't have many suporters in the populations. They are usually little appreciated as tourists also.

What do you think is the reaon for that?

Another disturbing constat is that they usually don't manage to keep good relationships where ever they go. To better illustrate that feeling, in singapore a former british colony, there is no anemosity towards the english. In vietnam or algeria where france had military interventions, there is little anemosity towards the french.

Why?

I was wondering about what you said about Saudi Arabia, they are in control and they have power. I feel slightly uneasy about the way they uses that power, uneasy on how they could over use it. Maybe this power is not deserved as it wasn;t the outcome of a social struggle. What I mean is that I am pretty convinced that the Iraki will missude the money generated by petrol. Because they never really fight for it. The same way I don't believe democracy will appear there, because it wasn't won by its own people.
You don't give a teenager your bank account.

So maybe the US should have colonised, maybe the US should now stay in Irak and rule. The problem is that the world allows little colonisation these days, that is also why it is rather tricky to start major military conflicts.

Hi, Mimil!

This is an open Forum, so that you are more than welcome to contribute to the discussion, at least as far as I am concerned... :)

What I am really defending is not any specific policy per se; but rather the idea that US is not somehow solely responsible for all the ills of the world, - which is what I am gathering from TDidier's posts, is his point.

I am not adequately familiar with the situation on the ground in the former British or French colonies, to determine whether or not there is animosity towards the former colonizers. I work for a Japanese company, however, and am in contact with quite a few Japanese people. I do not feel any animosity from them, for US in general or for Americans in particular. For the Japanese employees of this company, an assignment in the US is a treat, which is given out to the individuals the Company (the largest, oldest, and most respected insurance company in Japan) wishes to reward. So, no, I do not think that animosity is universal. And the reasons for it are, probably, numerous: some legitimate, and some not so legitimate.

I feel extremely uneasy about the truly Medieval situation in Saudi Arabia. However, just as it was done in South Africa, I believe that the effort must be concerted, not just American, in order to "civilize" that place. Unfortunately, so long as they control the oil, that effort will be just a dream. Because everyone will say "the devil we know is better than the devil we do not know." However, yet again, - it is patently obvious that US does not control SA.

I agree with you that it is entirely possible that Iraqis will yet again misuse their resources. However, I fervently hope that they will not. I also agree that it would possibly be better if true "colonization" was feasible: there would be a better chance at building a democratic, non-agressive Iraq. However, it's not possible, so we must hope for the best...

[elke]

Originally posted by TDidier
Certainly is language a problem, my english has to be involved that is clear!

As I said, please do not be offended: it was not meant as a put-down, but only as an attempt to understand where the disagreement stems from, - as one of the sources.

But about "domination" and "rule", no problem they were the good words to explain US attitude.

Maybe my definition don't correspond exactly with yours but if you look for the documentation I told, you will understand...

(a real US colony in SouthAmerica: Panama)

I do not see that. It's not correct, according to the established definitions of these words. Moreover, you actually didn't provide "documentation"; but rather just a cryptic "at least look at US comportment in SouthAmerica, it is exemplary", and then some mention of "books" that will be available in the bookstores "this autumn".

That is the sovietic definition of colonisation
SeeU, Didier.

Here I really have no clue what you are talking about. What is "sovietic" definition?

[mimil]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
And $87 billion compared to a $10.5 Trillion economy is what?

That was not the point, the point was the coralation between the cost and the deficit, nothing more.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
It might not make the economy go round, but it keeps a lot of people going. This world would be rather a sad and uninteresting place without it.

The Chinese have a curse: "May you live in interesting times..."
And in case you haven't noticed, the world is a sad place, currently.. At least, it looks pretty sad, to me. There again, beautiful world-beautiful people, may hold a different meaning for you, than it does for me..

Can you feel the love? I can't....

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
[BI'm 30. Is that "a quite young"?

I honestly think that profit and money and the taste of the power makes the world go 'round.

Hi. [/B]

Yes, ideologically, I think you are quite young; as I believe the age of thirty to be, by the way. However, that you think that profit and money and the taste of power makes the world go 'round reveals you have a budding grip on harsh reality.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke

"(...) Moreover, you actually didn't provide "documentation"; but rather just a cryptic "at least look at US comportment in SouthAmerica, it is exemplary", and then some mention of "books" that will be available in the bookstores "this autumn".

List from Reuters:
-"The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception" by David Corn.
-"Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason.
-"Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.
-"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced. Look at the Right" by political humorist Al Franken.
-. . .
And of course the excellent Michael Moore and his next book wich will coming soon...

For the rest, please look for... It is your citizen job.
(Google will be your best friend ;) )

"Here I really have no clue what you are talking about. What is "sovietic" definition? "

It was a joke about former communist tendency to rule everything...

SeeU, Didier.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Yes, ideologically, I think you are quite young; as I believe the age of thirty to be, by the way. However, that you think that profit and money and the taste of power makes the world go 'round reveals you have a budding grip on harsh reality.

Maybe are you right, maybe not.
But look for what I said, it will certainly desapoint your certitudes or confirm them...

SeeU, Didier.

[elke]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke

"(...) Moreover, you actually didn't provide "documentation"; but rather just a cryptic "at least look at US comportment in SouthAmerica, it is exemplary", and then some mention of "books" that will be available in the bookstores "this autumn".

List from Reuters:
-"The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception" by David Corn.
-"Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason.
-"Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.
-"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced. Look at the Right" by political humorist Al Franken.
-. . .
And of course the excellent Michael Moore and his next book wich will coming soon...

For the rest, please look for... It is your citizen job.
(Google will be your best friend ;) )

"Here I really have no clue what you are talking about. What is "sovietic" definition? "

It was a joke about former communist tendency to rule everything...

SeeU, Didier.

Quite frankly, any time I see something that says "right-wing" or "left-wing" - all my interest immediately wanes, since all the hope of getting real info from such a source is dashed by the partisan mudslinging these two groups whack each other with.

As far as Reuters is concerned, I have little respect for veracity of their information, especially that of their columnists (as opposed to the newsmen, who supposedly, report straight news). I do not consider Michael Moore as someone "unbiased" or "excellent" for that matter - he strikes me as someone who will sell his soul to make facts fit the ideology he selected. Given the fact that I have limited time, I would not consider wasting it on his railing on "society" and "right-wingers"

To be sure, I am not GWB's greatest fan, far from it. However, the dirt and garbage slung at him, makes me sick, for its mindless vitriole and stupid following of the "party line"

The "former communist tendency to rule everything" is alive and well. What's more, that's exactly the definition of colonialism, but not of the economic globalization, which is a completely separate concept. Words do change their meaning over time, but when the changing meaning is consciously implanted into a word that has negative connotations, - precisely with the purpose of fooling the public by using this negative connotation, - then it's a dishonest attempt at muddying the waters via semantics. Which is what is being done, when globalization is called colonization.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
Maybe are you right, maybe not.
But look for what I said, it will certainly desapoint your certitudes or confirm them...

SeeU, Didier.

Right or wrong... hmmm.... what other options would there be?

(So pompous......these French. Don't ya just wanna slap 'em?)

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Right or wrong... hmmm.... what other options would there be?

(So pompous......these French. Don't ya just wanna slap 'em?)

The other option: improve your connaissances...

As I said:
"But look for what I said, it will certainly desapoint your certitudes or confirm them..."

:cool:

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
Quite frankly, any time I see something that says "right-wing" or "left-wing" - all my interest immediately wanes, since all the hope of getting real info from such a source is dashed by the partisan mudslinging these two groups whack each other with.

You have not to be "left-wing" or "right-wing" to have an opinion about theyre points.
It is you citizen job to have an opinion about policy and to look for improving your connaissances about your own history.

I don't spoke about "globalization", I spoke about facts you don't accept to be informe about that.
Look for and you will understand...
Key-words are:

"condor operation cia", good luck...

SeeU, Didier.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
The other option: improve your connaissances...

As I said:
"But look for what I said, it will certainly desapoint your certitudes or confirm them..."

:cool:

Oh... my certitudes are confirmed alright.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Oh... my certitudes are confirmed alright.

I had no really doubt about that... ;)

[elke]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
Quite frankly, any time I see something that says "right-wing" or "left-wing" - all my interest immediately wanes, since all the hope of getting real info from such a source is dashed by the partisan mudslinging these two groups whack each other with.

You have not to be "left-wing" or "right-wing" to have an opinion about theyre points.
It is you citizen job to have an opinion about policy and to look for improving your connaissances about your own history.

I don't spoke about "globalization", I spoke about facts you don't accept to be informe about that.
Look for and you will understand...
Key-words are:

"condor operation cia", good luck...

SeeU, Didier.

Well, yes, you are right: I don't have to be a "wing" to have an opinion. I checked out the "Operation Condor" and find it ugly. So? What's your point? That secret service personnel is involved in dirty business? I could tell you that without knowing the specifics of Condor. Anyone with a grain of sense should be able to tell that it would happen: "when the cat's away, the mice will play" - and again, it's not the point.

The point is that US is not responsible for all the ills of the world. Whether or not it was involved in specific policies of specific foreign governments, the extent of that involvement was - and is still minor; and at best, has tilted the internal balance of power, rather than imposed its will, as the colonizers would do.

You did not speak about "facts". You spoke of "colonialism". As support for your use of this word, which you insisted expressed precisely US policy, you used arguments, such as Condor operation (last); for some reason, 1956 Suez Canal thing - in which American involvement, if any, was absolutely minimal; - and a few other such dubious events and shaky history. I assumed that you must be talking of something nevertheless, that there must be some specific, cogent thing you are calling "colonialism"; and from prior experience with such arguments, decided that you must be talking about globalization: i.e. economic specialization by country, which often leads to abuse. If you did not mean that, then I have no clue what exactly you are talking about altogether.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
"Well, yes, you are right: I don't have to be a "wing" to have an opinion. I checked out the "Operation Condor" and find it ugly. "

This "condor operation" is only the door to real secret US history, you have to continue searching to know the rest. Look about cia-honduras or cia-paraguay... And do a quick count of the victims.

"So? What's your point?"

My point is that, when you do so many and important change in another state without (and generaly opposed) to the population will, you are a colonialist and you colonize.
Historicaly, colonization is nothing else but a commercial establisment ...

" That secret service personnel is involved in dirty business? I could tell you that without knowing the specifics of Condor. Anyone with a grain of sense should be able to tell that it would happen: "when the cat's away, the mice will play" - and again, it's not the point. "

Nothing to do with a game... Only profits and deaths.

"The point is that US is not responsible for all the ills of the world. "

That is right (but that they are a part of the problem is right too).
It is not the problem, that you have to understand is just that US are not a "wihte angel" and they have at least as much blood on the hands than the others.
US needs the rest of the world and the world needs US.
US does not play the predator (that they do now in Irak (and they atempted to do in Venezuela last year) for oil or about climatics negociations or about medicament negociations...).

" Whether or not it was involved in specific policies of specific foreign governments, the extent of that involvement was - and is still minor; and at best, has tilted the internal balance of power, rather than imposed its will, as the colonizers would do. ""

Sorry but US implication in many coup was (and still is) a form of colonialism.

"You did not speak about "facts". You spoke of "colonialism". As support for your use of this word, which you insisted expressed precisely US policy, you used arguments, such as Condor operation (last);"

What I said are facts, it is history. The problem is a lack of informations... As I said to you condor operation is for you the open door to this knowledge.

" for some reason, 1956 Suez Canal thing - in which American involvement, if any, was absolutely minimal;"

You right (But I don't spoke about Suez for a US act, look to the writer name of the post...)

"- and a few other such dubious events and shaky history. I assumed that you must be talking of something nevertheless, that there must be some specific, cogent thing you are calling "colonialism"; and from prior experience with such arguments, decided that you must be talking about globalization: i.e. economic specialization by country, which often leads to abuse. If you did not mean that, then I have no clue what exactly you are talking about altogether. "

My response is on the top.

Bye, Didier.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by elke
"Well, yes, you are right: I don't have to be a "wing" to have an opinion. I checked out the "Operation Condor" and find it ugly. "

This "condor operation" is only the door to real secret US history, you have to continue searching to know the rest. Look about cia-honduras or cia-paraguay... And do a quick count of the victims.

"So? What's your point?"

My point is that, when you do so many and important change in another state without (and generaly opposed) to the population will, you are a colonialist and you colonize.
Historicaly, colonization is nothing else but a commercial establisment ...

" That secret service personnel is involved in dirty business? I could tell you that without knowing the specifics of Condor. Anyone with a grain of sense should be able to tell that it would happen: "when the cat's away, the mice will play" - and again, it's not the point. "

Nothing to do with a game... Only profits and deaths.

"The point is that US is not responsible for all the ills of the world. "

That is right (but that they are a part of the problem is right too).
It is not the problem, that you have to understand is just that US are not a "wihte angel" and they have at least as much blood on the hands than the others.
US needs the rest of the world and the world needs US.
US does not play the predator (that they do now in Irak (and they atempted to do in Venezuela last year) for oil or about climatics negociations or about medicament negociations...).

" Whether or not it was involved in specific policies of specific foreign governments, the extent of that involvement was - and is still minor; and at best, has tilted the internal balance of power, rather than imposed its will, as the colonizers would do. ""

Sorry but US implication in many coup was (and still is) a form of colonialism.

"You did not speak about "facts". You spoke of "colonialism". As support for your use of this word, which you insisted expressed precisely US policy, you used arguments, such as Condor operation (last);"

What I said are facts, it is history. The problem is a lack of informations... As I said to you condor operation is for you the open door to this knowledge.

" for some reason, 1956 Suez Canal thing - in which American involvement, if any, was absolutely minimal;"

You right (But I don't spoke about Suez for a US act, look to the writer name of the post...)

"- and a few other such dubious events and shaky history. I assumed that you must be talking of something nevertheless, that there must be some specific, cogent thing you are calling "colonialism"; and from prior experience with such arguments, decided that you must be talking about globalization: i.e. economic specialization by country, which often leads to abuse. If you did not mean that, then I have no clue what exactly you are talking about altogether. "

My response is on the top.

Bye, Didier.

Look, Didier. I'll come clean and tell you the truth about who's really behind all the evil in the world, okay? I'm serious. I'm going to tell you who is really behind all these conspiracies and you can trust me on this. All you have to do is go online and research it for yourself and you'll see the truth behind it. Okay? Here it is: It's the Freemasons. It's the Masons who rule the world. The CIA and every other security service on this planet are simply their lap dogs. They run all the major corporations and governments. Check it out! Increase your connaisance!

[mimil]

Freemasons !!!

A friend of mine joined. It made his life a lot easier actually. But they say that you never know the truth about what is going in these orders. They have all kind of funny behaviors such as specific handshakes and secret reunion. The more you climb, the more it gets secret, its scary. That what sucks about secret society, they keep everything secret and you never know the truth.

It reminds me of "Carrion Comfort" by Dan Simmons, kind of scary also all those leader with psychic power. Sadly I don't know any of those.

Yesterday I watched underworld to relax after work, hey those vampires are quite cool, but its all b*ll, first vampires cannot have babies and mixing blood between vampire and werewolves is really a joke. I don't think its a true story.

[elke]

No one in world politics is lily white. No one! And while the purpose of colonialism was economic, so is the purpose of all politics. Politics is all about economics, both colonial and other.

Involvement in coups does not constitute colonialism, because a coup will not succeed without the internal support for it. Therefore, if the coup was successful, then the populace was at least lukewarmly behind it. If it's unsuccessful, then the control exercized by the involved third party is, obviously, inadequate to change things. Therefore, that third party is no colonialist: not only do they not rule outright, but they don't even have vicarious control over the internal situation.

You can call what the FSU used to do with the Eastern Block anything you like, but even that wasn't colonialism. Simply because there was adequate internal support for the changes USSR helped implement, - with outright military might, at times! The proof is in the pudding - Afghanistan.

[TDidier]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Look, Didier. I'll come clean and tell you the truth about who's really behind all the evil in the world, okay? I'm serious. I'm going to tell you who is really behind all these conspiracies and you can trust me on this. All you have to do is go online and research it for yourself and you'll see the truth behind it. Okay? Here it is: It's the Freemasons. It's the Masons who rule the world. The CIA and every other security service on this planet are simply their lap dogs. They run all the major corporations and governments. Check it out! Increase your connaisance!

Really funny, Johnny my friend! :D

Masons are generaly accompagnated by sionnists in 19th century usual conspiracy theories...

They are very closed and they both have the same final goal :
rebuild the temple of Salomon...

GWBush has joined the "skull and bone" masonic lodge and you ?

SeeU, Didier.

[Donna]

Originally posted by mimil
That what sucks about secret society, they keep everything secret and you never know the truth.

That's what makes them secret societies.

Originally posted by mimil
It reminds me of "Carrion Comfort" by Dan Simmons, kind of scary also all those leader with psychic power. Sadly I don't know any of those.

I knew you would say that.

Originally posted by mimil
Yesterday I watched underworld to relax after work, hey those vampires are quite cool, but its all b*ll, first vampires cannot have babies and mixing blood between vampire and werewolves is really a joke. I don't think its a true story.

Hmm, genes are funny things. Just try to explain Herman, Lily, and Eddie Munster, not to mention Marilyn.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
Really funny, Johnny my friend! :D

Masons are generaly accompagnated by sionnists in 19th century usual conspiracy theories...

They are very closed and they both have the same final goal :
rebuild the temple of Salomon...

GWBush has joined the "skull and bone" masonic lodge and you ?

SeeU, Didier.

Ahh.... now here is where you betray your education. I now reveal to you that I myself am Master Mason of The Blue Lodge, and a Knight Templar of the York Rite. Furthermore, I have sat in the East in the Lodge, meaning, I have acted as Master of the Lodge.

The Masonic order is no more secret or closed than the Elks, or the Knights of Columbus. You will have no trouble finding the phone number and address of any local Lodge in your telephone directory; if they have a phone, that is. The members are easily identified by the rings they wear or emblems affixed to their automobiles. The Lodge is usually open several days a week, and the secretary of the lodge will answer most all questions you have regarding Masonry. That doesn't sound very closed, to me....

Actually, it is quite easy to become a Mason. All one need do is express the interest to a Mason and, depending upon your willingness to pursue the issue, he may present you with a petition to join the lodge. After a background investigation to determine if you are a man of good character and that you do not have ulterior motives for joining, are not a madman, or a fool, then, if accepted by the members of the lodge to which you petitioned for membership, you could be initiated into the fraternity.

And, BTW, the "skull and bones" is not a part of the Masonic order, Didier.

[mimil]

Guess what? I am the "dark servant" of my household and known as the "Smiling Buddha disciple" to my friends.

And so what? If 1 out of 30 men belongs to the freemason, why on earth would you want to join when such a significant number of people are already part of it? It reminds me of this High IQ group where you can only enter if you score more than 130 on an IQ test. They then play chess or whatever other game an feel so special. I also have a member card at my video shop, my poor neighbor couldn't get one because he couldn't prove 15 generations of pure blood. People really need to segregate and create groups and members to feel important

Anyway, whether the freemason is a not so secret, secret society or not, doesn't stop them from having some more secret involvement in any affairs. I don't see either the point, or the relevance of the issue.

BTW the way "skull and bone" is part of the masonic order, but the secret one.

[TDidier]

Hey Johnny!

I prefer to know you a mason than a sionnist !
The masons act for humanity and sionnists act for only a part...

You are mason AND Templar knight !!!
(I thought that they were the same, templar knights became mason in Scotland after their destruction in France...).

As a templar knight (the "poor knight of X", those who gives masons, not a similar sionnist creation), your first job is to work at the reunification and comprehension of all monotheist cults (but based on respect of all of them).
Saladin himself accepted to become a templar knight, what sort of hand will you give to muslims (for christian there is no problem actualy) ?

SeeU, Didier :cool: .

[Communication]

Fools!


You know, Soloman, as wise as he was, fell into the occult. Jewish sources blame at least one of his wives. In fact, archeologists have found pagan symbols in several of the synagouges of ancient Israel. The so called "star of David" is a pagan symbol. It's got nothing to do with Judaism. It's Soloman's seal, not David's. So what's a pagan symbol doing on the flag of the modern nation state of Israel when it should really be the menorah, the true national symbol of Israel? It's there because a very powerful family wanted it there, and that family was....bum bum bum...the Rothschilds.

And Rothschilds, along with all the other international bankers, several of the Popes, many heads of international business, and all but two US presidents were all masons. These people are responsible for starting up the Federal Reserve, the IMF and World Bank and thus whole notion of what constitutes legal tender.

The legal tender law states that if a creditor refuses to accept legal tender in payment of a debt, the debt is cancelled.

The problem is that "money" is really the liquid asset that settles a contract. So, in any economy in which the law of contracts is important, then the government which is required to enforce the civil law of contracts determines what is money.

Most people pay the government in the form of checks because it's easy, it's convenient. But that only reinforces the government's definition of "money," which is currently an artifical definition, lacking substance because it is backed only by debt. How can you pay the debt when you have to "borrow" the currency to pay the debt? The government is creating value that isn't there. The check itself is worthless because it's backed only by newly created debt rather than assests. We need to find a way to force the government to honor the products that we create with our own human capital because the way the situation is set up now, the government is engaging in fraud, not unlike the type of scheme that Enron ran only unlike Enron, the government is acting with greater transparency.

BTW, the seal of Soloman is also on our money, assuming you know how to connect the dots. And you can't buy or sell without it.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Guess what? I am the "dark servant" of my household and known as the "Smiling Buddha disciple" to my friends.



And so what? If 1 out of 30 men belongs to the freemason, why on earth would you want to join when such a significant number of people are already part of it? It reminds me of this High IQ group where you can only enter if you score more than 130 on an IQ test. They then play chess or whatever other game an feel so special. I also have a member card at my video shop, my poor neighbor couldn't get one because he couldn't prove 15 generations of pure blood. People really need to segregate and create groups and members to feel important

Your estimate of the percentage of men that belongs to the Masonic Order is too high; way too high..... And the purpose is not to feel important, but to be of service to our fellow men; to walk uprightly before G_d and man, to deal with people on the square, and to circumscribe our desires and keep our passions within due bounds; just so you know.....

Anyway, whether the freemason is a not so secret, secret society or not, doesn't stop them from having some more secret involvement in any affairs. I don't see either the point, or the relevance of the issue.

So you think that by virtue of being a member of a frat that holds its rituals close to the vest, well... never mind. You won't see the point or relevance, if I tried to explain it to you. Aliens could be stealing your luggage, and you'd probably blame it on the Freemasons.....

BTW the way "skull and bone" is part of the masonic order, but the secret one.

Child, you are so, so wrong..... The "Skull and Bones" is a college fraternity; exclusively at Yale University, to be precise. It has absolutely nothing to do with Masons. Some who were/are "Boners" may, later, go on to become Masons, but you have committed a causal fallacy; you've put the cart before the horse.

First of all, most are initiated into the skull and bones in their junior years. That puts the average age of the pledges at 20 years old. To join the Masonic Order, you must be a minimum of 21 years old. Most lodges don't accept petitions of men less than 25 years of age, and some don't accept younger than 30 years old; some even 40..... Quite frankly, even if they wanted to join while in college, it would be a rarity.

There "are" two groups involving youth, affilitiated with the Masons. The first is for girls and known as "Job's Daughters (http://www.iojd.org/) " and is open to girls aged 11 through 20 years of age . The second is for boys and is known as "Demolay (http://www.demolay.org/home/index.shtml) " and is open to boys aged 12 to 21 years old. Still, even though these two groups are "affiliated" with Masons, those that are members are not Masons.

The Masons are simply a benevolent, fraternal order of men. They teach men to become better men through allegory and symbology. They are not a charity but do charitable things; usually with little to no publicity; not letting the left hand know that the right hand is giving.. And they do not take bad men and make them into good men.... and they have no future aspirations of ruling the world, and why should we? We already do.......... ( How :cool: is that?) (By the way, that was just a little joke of mine; guaranteed to invoke the paranoia in many people's mythology.... )

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Communication
Fools!


You know, Soloman, as wise as he was, fell into the occult. Jewish sources blame at least one of his wives. In fact, archeologists have found pagan symbols in several of the synagouges of ancient Israel. The so called "star of David" is a pagan symbol. It's got nothing to do with Judaism. It's Soloman's seal, not David's. So what's a pagan symbol doing on the flag of the modern nation state of Israel when it should really be the menorah, the true national symbol of Israel? It's there because a very powerful family wanted it there, and that family was....bum bum bum...the Rothschilds.

And Rothschilds, along with all the other international bankers, several of the Popes, many heads of international business, and all but two US presidents were all masons. These people are responsible for starting up the Federal Reserve, the IMF and World Bank and thus whole notion of what constitutes legal tender.

You are unaware of the rift between the Masonic Order and the Roman Catholic Church, apparently. It's like this....
Waaaaaay back in 1738, Pope Clement XII issued a papal bull which condemned and excommunicated all Freemasons from the Catholic Church; declaring them enemies of the church. That papal bull is still in effect, today.

So.... I would like to see your list of Popes who are/were Freemasons.... (he said, chuckling to himself..)

The legal tender law states that if a creditor refuses to accept legal tender in payment of a debt, the debt is cancelled.

The problem is that "money" is really the liquid asset that settles a contract. So, in any economy in which the law of contracts is important, then the government which is required to enforce the civil law of contracts determines what is money.

Most people pay the government in the form of checks because it's easy, it's convenient. But that only reinforces the government's definition of "money," which is currently an artifical definition, lacking substance because it is backed only by debt. How can you pay the debt when you have to "borrow" the currency to pay the debt? The government is creating value that isn't there. The check itself is worthless because it's backed only by newly created debt rather than assests. We need to find a way to force the government to honor the products that we create with our own human capital because the way the situation is set up now, the government is engaging in fraud, not unlike the type of scheme that Enron ran only unlike Enron, the government is acting with greater transparency.

So exercise your constitutional rights: petition your government for a redress of grievances and argue a case for going back on the gold standard....

BTW, the seal of Soloman is also on our money, assuming you know how to connect the dots. And you can't buy or sell without it.

Yeah, yeah... There's a lot of other "Masonic" symbols spread all over the world. Geometry, among other things, figures prominately in Masonic allegory. I've seen squares and triangles tattooed on people. I wonder if they know they're wearing Masonic symbols....

Back to that nasty money thing....

You can have your paycheck electronically deposited, pay with a debit or credit card, and or write checks, and never have to handle nor look at the green stuff... the more colorful stuff is on the way...

Besides, paper money is the greatest vector for disease in this country. You should handle it as little as possible, but, if you must, please wash your hands afterwards.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Communication
Fools!


You know, Soloman, as wise as he was, fell into the occult. Jewish sources blame at least one of his wives. In fact, archeologists have found pagan symbols in several of the synagouges of ancient Israel. The so called "star of David" is a pagan symbol. It's got nothing to do with Judaism. It's Soloman's seal, not David's. So what's a pagan symbol doing on the flag of the modern nation state of Israel when it should really be the menorah, the true national symbol of Israel? It's there because a very powerful family wanted it there, and that family was....bum bum bum...the Rothschilds.



... I forgot. Most importantly, Masonry is not an occult thing. First and foremost is the utter reverence for the Supreme Being; the great architect of the universe; we call him, "G_d". At the mere mentioning of his name, you will see a Mason bow his head. Look around at the next public gathering where the Pledge of Allegiance is being performed, or, any other speaking of "his" name in public. You can pick the Masons out of the crowd, if you are observant.

Also, you will see the initial for "his" name at the center of the compass, in the Masonic symbol of the square and compass; the "G".

That is more than I am supposed to tell; but it is important that you (and others) know, and to remove the myth that Masonry is somehow connected with the occult. (Actually, you can find out much more than this is any public library. But I will caution that there are some who have left Masonry -especially some "born-again Christians" - who have told horrrendous lies about the fraternity, for reasons I cannot fathom.)

May the peace which passeth all understanding be with you all.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
The Masons are simply a benevolent, fraternal order of men. They teach men to become better men through allegory and symbology. They are not a charity but do charitable things; usually with little to no publicity; not letting the left hand know that the right hand is giving.. And they do not take bad men and make them into good men....


Funny that you are doing the opposite, also openly acknowledging you are part of such a wise order.


Funny also that someone needs to belong to a fraternity in order to do charitable things, to be more serene in his inner self, as the Masonic order doesn't have any other purpose than serving the very noble parts of the human spirit. It sounds like any other megalomaniac order where people marvel at there own magnificence.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Funny that you are doing the opposite, also openly acknowledging you are part of such a wise order.

Wise? Who said anything about being wise? I said we were a fraternity that does charitable things, and not looking for publicity for doing them.


Funny also that someone needs to belong to a fraternity in order to do charitable things, to be more serene in his inner self, as the Masonic order doesn't have any other purpose than serving the very noble parts of the human spirit. It sounds like any other megalomaniac order where people marvel at there own magnificence.

I, also, don't recall saying anything about "needing" to belong to a fraternity in order to do charitable things... Where did you extract/excrete that? And as far as marveling at ones own magnificence, now would be a good time to reflect on the text of your last paragraph and ask yourself where your noble parts are hiding... Smiling Buddha becomes snarling dark servant, too easily...

But better yet, I don't recall telling you much more than just a tiny snippet of what the Masonic fraternity is about. How do you know it doesn't have any other purpose? I didn't say the only thing we did was charitable things..... We may have barbecues and charge money for the meals. But there again, we may do something charitable with the money; like buy a homeless person a bus ticket out of town.....; or not. ;) We might just spend it fixing up the lodge, or for paying the bills; that is, if we don't own the utilities...... :rolleyes:

[Communication]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
You are unaware of the rift between the Masonic Order and the Roman Catholic Church, apparently. It's like this....
Waaaaaay back in 1738, Pope Clement XII issued a papal bull which condemned and excommunicated all Freemasons from the Catholic Church; declaring them enemies of the church. That papal bull is still in effect, today.

So.... I would like to see your list of Popes who are/were Freemasons.... (he said, chuckling to himself..)

It is my understanding that Pope John Paul II lifted the ban against freemasonry. Here is a list of all the people purported to be freemasons in the Vatican, according to: the Bulletin de l'Occident Chrétien Nr.12, July, 1976, (Directeur Pierre Fautrad a Fye - 72490 Bourg Le Roi.)


1. Albondi, Alberto. Bishop of Livorno, (Leghorn). Initiated 8-5-58; I.D. # 7-2431.
2. Abrech, Pio. In the Sacred Congregation Bishops. 11-27-67; # 63-143.
3. Acquaviva, Sabino. Professor of Religion at the University of Padova, (Padua). 12-3-69; # 275-69.
4. Alessandro, Father Gottardi. (Addressed as Doctor in Masonic meetings.) President of Fratelli Maristi. 6-14-59.
5. Angelini Fiorenzo. Bishop of Messenel Greece. 10-14-57; # 14-005.
6. Argentieri, Benedetto. Patriarch to the Holy See. 3-11-70; # 298-A.
7. Bea, Augustin. Cardinal. Secretary of State (next to Pope) under Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.
8. Baggio, Sebastiano. Cardinal. Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. (This is a crucial Congregation since it appoints new Bishops.) Secretary of State under Pope John Paul II from 1989 to 1992. 8-14-57; # 85-1640. Masonic code name "SEBA." He controls consecration of Bishops.
9. Balboni, Dante. Assistant to the Vatican Pontifical . Commission for Biblical Studies. 7-23-68; # 79-14 "BALDA."
10. Baldassarri Salvatore. Bishop of Ravenna, Italy. 2-19-58; # 4315-19. "BALSA."
11. Balducci, Ernesto. Religious sculpture artist. 5-16-66; # 1452-3.
12. Basadonna, Ernesto. Prelate of Milan, 9-14-63; # 9-243. "BASE."
13. Batelli, Guilio. Lay member of many scientific academies. 8-24-59; # 29-A. "GIBA."
14. Bedeschi, Lorenzo. 2-19-59; # 24-041. "BELO."
15. Belloli, Luigi. Rector of Seminar; Lombardy, Ita- ly. 4-6-58; # 22-04. "BELLU."
16. Belluchi, Cleto. Coadjutor Bishop of Fermo, Italy. 6-4-68; # 12-217.
17. Bettazzi, Luigi. Bishop of Ivera, Italy. 5-11-66; # 1347-45. "LUBE."
18. Bianchi, Ciovanni. 10-23-69; # 2215-11. "BIGI."
19. Biffi, Franco, Msgr. Rector of Church of St. John Lateran Pontifical University. He is head of this University and controls what is being taught. He heard confessions of Pope Paul VI. 8-15-59. "BIFRA."
20. Bicarella, Mario. Prelate of Vicenza, Italy. 9-23-64; # 21-014. "BIMA."
21. Bonicelli, Gaetano. Bishop of Albano, Italy. 5-12-59; # 63-1428, "BOGA."
He mocked at John Paul's recent confession commonly called "Mia Culpa"
22. Boretti, Giancarlo. 3-21-65; # 0-241. "BORGI."
23. Bovone, Alberto. Substitute Secretary of the Sacred Office. 3-30-67; # 254-3. "ALBO."
24. Brini, Mario. Archbishop. Secretary of Chinese, Oriental, and Pagans. Member of Pontifical Commission to Russia. Has control of rewriting Canon Law. 7-7-68; # 15670. "MABRI."
25. Bugnini, Annibale. Archbishop.Wrote Novus Ordo (New Order) Mass. Envoy to Iran, 4-23-63; # 1365-75. "BUAN."
26. Buro, Michele. Bishop. Prelate of Pontifical Commission to Latin America, 3-21-69; # 140-2. "BUMI."
27. Cacciavillan, Agostino. Secretariat of State. 11-6-60; # 13-154.
28. Cameli, Umberto. Director in Office of the Ecclesiastical Affairs of Italy in regard to education in Catholic doctrine. 11-17-60; # 9-1436.
29. Caprile, Giovanni. Director of Catholic Civil Affairs. 9-5-57; # 21-014. "GICA."
30. Caputo, Giuseppe. 11-15-71; # 6125-63. "GICAP."
31. Casaroli, Agostino. Cardinal. Secretary of State (next to Pope) under Pope John Paul II since July 1, 1979 until retired in 1989. 9-28-57; # 41-076. "CASA."
32. Cerruti, Flaminio. Chief of the Office of the University of Congregation Studies. 4-2-60; # 76-2154. "CEFLA."
33. Ciarrocchi, Mario. Bishop. 8-23-62; # 123-A. "CIMA."
34. Chiavacci, Enrico. Professor of Moral Theology, University of Florence, Italy. 7-2-70; # 121-34. "CHIE."
35. Conte, Carmelo. 9-16-67; # 43-096. "CONCA."
36. Csele, Alessandro. 3-25-60; # 1354-09. "ALCSE."
37. Dadagio, Luigi. Papal Nuncio to Spain. Archbishop of Lero. 9-8-67. # 43-B. "LUDA."
38. D'Antonio, Enzio. Archbishop of Trivento. 6-21-69; # 214-53.
39. De Bous, Donate. Bishop. 6-24-68; # 321-02. "DEBO."
40. Del Gallo Reoccagiovane, Luigi. Bishop.
41. Del Monte, Aldo. Bishop of Novara, Italy. 8-25-69; # 32-012. "ADELMO."
42. Faltin, Danielle. 6-4-70; # 9-1207. "FADA."
43. Ferraioli, Giuseppe. Member of Sacred Congregation for Public Affairs. 11-24-69; # 004-125. "GIFE."
44. Franzoni, Giovanni. 3-2-65; # 2246-47. "FRAGI."
45. Gemmiti, Vito. Sacred Congregation of Bishops. 3-25-68; # 54-13. "VIGE."
46. Girardi, Giulio. 9-8-70; # 1471-52. "GIG."
47. Fiorenzo, Angelinin. Bishop. Title of Commendator of the Holy Spirit. Vicar General of Roman Hospitals. Controls hospital trust funds. Consecrated Bishop 7-19-56; joined Masons 10-14-57.
48. Giustetti, Massimo. 4-12-70; # 13-065. "GIUMA."
49. Gottardi, Alessandro. Procurator and Postulator General of Fratelli Maristi. Archbishop of Trent. 6-13-59; # 2437-14. "ALGO."
50. Gozzini, Mario. 5-14-70; # 31-11. "MAGO."
51. Grazinai, Carlo. Rector of the Vatican Minor Seminary. 7-23-61; # 156-3. "GRACA."
52. Gregagnin, Antonio. Tribune of First Causes for Beatification. 10-19-67; # 8-45. "GREA."
53. Gualdrini, Franco. Rector of Capranica. 5-22-61; # 21-352. "GUFRA."

[Communication]

cont-


54. Ilari, Annibale. Abbot. 3-16-69; # 43-86. "ILA."
55. Laghi, Pio. Nunzio, Apostolic Delegate to Argentina, and then to U.S.A. until 1995. 8-24-69; # 0-538. "LAPI."
56. Lajolo, Giovanni. Member of Council of Public Affairs of the Church. 7-27-70; # 21-1397. "LAGI."
57. Lanzoni, Angelo. Chief of the Office of Secretary of State. 9-24-56; # 6-324. "LANA."
58. Levi, Virgillio (alias Levine), Monsignor. Assistant Director of Official Vatican Newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano. Manages Vatican Radio Station. 7-4 -58; # 241-3. "VILE."
59. Lozza, Lino. Chancellor of Rome Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas of Catholic Religion. 7-23-69; # 12-768. "LOLI."
60. Lienart, Achille. Cardinal. Grand Master top Mason. Bishop of Lille, France. Recruits Masons. Was leader of progressive forces at Vatican II Council.
61. Macchi, Pasquale. Cardinal. Pope Paul's Prelate of Honour and Private Secretary until he was excommunicated for heresy by Pope Paul VI. Was reinstated by Secretary of State Jean Villot, and made a Cardinal. 4-23-58; # 5463-2. "MAPA."
62. Mancini, Italo. Director of Sua Santita. 3-18-68; # l551-142. "MANI."
63. Manfrini, Enrico. Lay Consultor of Pontifical Commission of Sacred Art. 2-21-68; # 968-c. "MANE."
64. Marchisano, Francesco. Prelate Honour of the Pope. Secretary Congregation for Seminaries and Universities of Studies. 2-4-61; 4536-3. "FRAMA."
65. Marcinkus, Paul. American bodyguard for imposter Pope. From Cicero, Illinois. Stands 6'4". President for Institute for Training Religious. 8-21-67; # 43-649. Called "GORILLA." Code name "MARPA."
66. Marsili, Saltvatore. Abbot of Order of St. Benedict of Finalpia near Modena, Italy. 7-2-63; # 1278-49. "SALMA."
67. Mazza, Antonio. Titular Bishop of Velia. Secretary General of Holy Year, 1975. 4-14-71. # 054-329. "MANU."
68. Mazzi, Venerio. Member of Council of Public Affairs of the Church. 10-13-66; # 052-s. "MAVE."
69. Mazzoni, Pier Luigi. Congregation of Bishops. 9-14-59; # 59-2. "PILUM."
70. Maverna, Luigi. Bishop of Chiavari, Genoa, Italy. Assistant General of Italian Catholic Azione. 6-3-68; # 441-c. "LUMA."
71. Mensa, Albino. Archbishop of Vercelli, Piedmont, Italy. 7-23-59; # 53-23. " MENA."
72. Messina, Carlo. 3-21-70; # 21-045. "MECA."
73. Messina, Zanon (Adele). 9-25-68; # 045-329. " AMEZ."
74. Monduzzi, Dino. Regent to the Prefect of the Pontifical House. 3-11 -67; # 190-2. "MONDI."
75. Mongillo, Daimazio. Professor of Dominican Moral Theology, Holy Angels Institute of Roma. 2-16-69; # 2145-22. "MONDA."
76. Morgante, Marcello. Bishop of Ascoli Piceno in East Italy. 7-22-55; # 78-3601. MORMA."
77. Natalini, Teuzo. Vice President of the Archives of Secretariat of the Vatican. 6-17-67; # 21-44d. "NATE."
78. Nigro, Carmelo. Rector of the Seminary, Pontifical of Major Studies. 12-21-70; # 23-154. "CARNI."
79. Noe, Virgillio. Head of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship. He and Bugnini paid 5 Protestant Ministers and one Jewish Rabbi to create the Novus Ordo Mass. 4-3-61; # 43652-21. "VINO."
80. Palestra, Vittorie. He is Legal Council of the Sacred Rota of the Vatican State. 5-6-43; # 1965. "PAVI."
81. Pappalardo, Salvatore. Cardinal. Archbishop of Palermo, Sicily. 4-15-68; # 234-07. "SALPA."
82. Pasqualetti, Gottardo. 6-15-60; # 4-231. "COPA."
83. Pasquinelli, Dante. Council of Nunzio of Madrid. 1-12-69; # 32-124. "PADA."
84. Pellegrino, Michele. Cardinal. Called "Protector of the Church", Archbishop of Torino (Turin, where the Holy Shroud of Jesus is kept). 5-2-60; # 352-36. "PALMI."
85. Piana, Giannino. 9-2-70; # 314-52. "GIPI."
86. Pimpo, Mario. Vicar of Office of General Affairs. 3-15-70; # 793-43. "PIMA."
87. Pinto, Monsignor Pio Vito. Attaché of Secretary of State and Notare of Second Section of Supreme Tribunal and of Apostolic Signature. 4-2-70; # 3317-42. "PIPIVI."
88. Poletti, Ugo. Cardinal. Vicar of S.S. Diocese of Rome. Controls clergy of Rome since 3-6-73. Member of Sacred Congregation of Sacraments and of Divine Worship. He is President of Pontifical Works and Preservation of the Faith. Also President of the Liturgical Academy. 2-17-69; # 32-1425. "UPO."
89. Rizzi, Monsignor Mario. Sacred Congregation of Oriental Rites. Listed as "Prelate Bishop of Honour of the Holy Father, the Pope." Works under top-Mason Mario Brini in manipulating Canon Law. 9-16-69; # 43-179. "MARI," "MONMARI."
90. Romita, Florenzo. Was in Sacred Congregation of Clergy. 4-21-56; # 52-142. "FIRO."
91. Rogger, Igine. Officer in S.S. (Diocese of Rome). 4-16-68; # 319-13. "IGRO."
92. Rossano, Pietro. Sacred Congregation of Non-Christian Religions. 2-12-68; # 3421-a. "PIRO."
93. Rovela, Virgillio. 6-12-64; # 32-14. "ROVI."
94. Sabbatani, Aurelio. Archbishop of Giustiniana (Giusgno, Milar Province, Italy). First Secretary Supreme Apostolic Segnatura. 6-22-69; # 87-43. "ASA"
95. Sacchetti, Guilio. Delegate of Governors - Marchese. 8-23-59; # 0991-b. "SAGI."
96. Salerno, Francesco. Bishop. Prefect Atti. Eccles. 5-4-62; # 0437-1. "SAFRA"
97. Santangelo, Franceso. Substitute General of Defense Legal Counsel. 11-12-70; # 32-096. "FRASA."
98. Santini, Pietro. Vice Official of the Vicar. 8-23-64; # 326-11. "SAPI."
99. Savorelli, Fernando. 1-14-69; # 004-51. "SAFE."
100. Savorelli, Renzo. 6-12-65; # 34-692. "RESA."
101. Scanagatta, Gaetano. Sacred Congregation of the Clergy. Member of Commission of Pomei and Loreto, Italy. 9-23-71; # 42-023. "GASCA."
102. Schasching, Giovanni. 3-18-65; # 6374-23. "GISCHA," "GESUITA."
103. Schierano, Mario. Titular Bishop of Acrida (Acri in Cosenza Province, Italy.) Chief Military Chaplain of the Italian Armed Forces. 7-3-59; #14-3641. "MASCHI."
104. Semproni, Domenico. Tribunal of the Vicarate of the Vatican. 4-16-60; # 00-12. "DOSE."
105. Sensi, Giuseppe Mario. Titular Archbishop of Sardi (Asia Minor near Smyrna). Papal Nunzio to Portugal. 11-2-67; # 18911-47. "GIMASE."
106. Sposito, Luigi. Pontifical Commission for the Archives of the Church in Italy. Head Administrator of the Apostolic Seat of the Vatican.
107. Suenens, Leo. Cardinal. Title: Protector of the Church of St. Peter in Chains, outside Rome. Promotes Protestant Pentecostalism (Charismatics). Destroyed much Church dogma when he worked in 3 Sacred Congregations: 1) Propagation of the Faith; 2) Rites and Ceremonies in the Liturgy; 3) Seminaries. 6-15-67; # 21-64. "LESU."
108. Trabalzini, Dino. Bishop of Rieti (Reate, Peruga, Italy). Auxiliary Bishop of Southern Rome. 2-6-65; # 61-956. "TRADI."
109. Travia, Antonio. Titular Archbishop of Termini Imerese. Head of Catholic schools. 9-15-67; # 16-141. "ATRA."
110. Trocchi, Vittorio. Secretary for Catholic Laity in Consistory of the Vatican State Consultations. 7-12-62; # 3-896. "TROVI."
111. Tucci, Roberto. Director General of Vatican Radio. 6-21-57; # 42-58. "TURO."
112. Turoldo, David. 6-9-67; # 191-44. "DATU."
113. Vale, Georgio. Priest. Official of Rome Diocese. 2-21-71; # 21-328. "VAGI."
114. Vergari, Piero. Head Protocol Officer of the Vatican Office Segnatura. 12-14-70; # 3241-6. "PIVE."
115. Villot, Jean. Cardinal. Secretary of State during Pope Paul VI. He is Camerlengo (Treasurer). "JEANNI," "ZURIGO."
116. Zanini, Lino. Titular Archbishop of Adrianopoli, which is Andrianopolis, Turkey. Apostolic Nuncio. Member of the Revered Fabric of St. Peter's Basilica.
117. Fregi, Francesco Egisto. 2-14-63; # 1435-87.
118. Tirelli, Sotiro. 5-16-63; # 1257-9. "TIRSO."
119. Cresti, Osvaldo. 5-22-63; # 1653-6. "CRESO."
120. Rotardi, Tito. 8-13-63; # 1865-34. "TROTA."
121. Orbasi, Igino. 9-17-73; # 1326-97. "ORBI."
122. Drusilla, Italia. 10-12-63; # 1653-2. "'DRUSI "
123. Ratosi, Tito. 11-22-63; # 1542-74 "TRATO."
124. Crosta, Sante. 11-17-63; # 1254-65. "CROSTAS.

[Communication]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma

Back to that nasty money thing....

You can have your paycheck electronically deposited, pay with a debit or credit card, and or write checks, and never have to handle nor look at the green stuff... the more colorful stuff is on the way...

Besides, paper money is the greatest vector for disease in this country. You should handle it as little as possible, but, if you must, please wash your hands afterwards.


Actually, it would be best to go back to a barter system, although I fully realize what kind of undertaking that would be. Get rid of usury all together.

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
... I forgot. Most importantly, Masonry is not an occult thing. First and foremost is the utter reverence for the Supreme Being; the great architect of the universe; we call him, "G_d". At the mere mentioning of his name, you will see a Mason bow his head. Look around at the next public gathering where the Pledge of Allegiance is being performed, or, any other speaking of "his" name in public. You can pick the Masons out of the crowd, if you are observant.

Also, you will see the initial for "his" name at the center of the compass, in the Masonic symbol of the square and compass; the "G".

That is more than I am supposed to tell; but it is important that you (and others) know, and to remove the myth that Masonry is somehow connected with the occult. (Actually, you can find out much more than this is any public library. But I will caution that there are some who have left Masonry -especially some "born-again Christians" - who have told horrrendous lies about the fraternity, for reasons I cannot fathom.)

May the peace which passeth all understanding be with you all.


Maybe, maybe not. There are some branches of mysticism that venture off into the realm of the occult and like I said, I think it's a strange coincidence that the Seal of Soloman, which is an Egyptian pagan symbol, is also a major symbol in freemasonry. You guys also have an interest in rebuilding the temple, no?

[mimil]

Wise: probably some interpretation of mine while reading The Masons are simply a benevolent, fraternal order of men. They teach men to become better men through allegory and symbology. They are not a charity but do charitable things; usually with little to no publicity; not letting the left hand know that the right hand is giving.. And they do not take bad men and make them into good men....

Needing to belong to something to either feel important or special is also some interpretation of mine while reading That is more than I am supposed to tell

The megalomaniac assumption as to come from all the symbolic attached to the order or phrases such as we call him, "G_d" or Most lodges don't accept petitions of men less than 25 years of age, and some don't accept younger than 30 years old; some even 40..... Quite frankly, even if they wanted to join while in college, it would be a rarity.

The freemason are doing BBQ to buy the homeless a bus ticket, how nice of them!!! I which I could participate and be part of such a grand cause. It makes me wonder, why people do those things. I apologize before continuing to anyone who believes in confession but it reminds me of a lot of Catholics who go and confess on Sundays to be clean of their sins of the weak, so has to be able to start all over again the following one.

It also remind me of the charity shows here in Singapore, if you don't give out a car or a house as a price, forget about the cash. Donors must be thinking, well if I don't win the car, I would have done something charitable. It defeats the purpose. Anyone ever mentioned at a BBQ, that was well worth the donation! I'll be back next time, these burgers were fantastic!
They also have kids collecting money on Sunday, if you give 20c they give you a sticker to put on your shirt so that everyone can see how charitable you are. And a lot actually wears it with pride!

Anyway, again here in Singapore, belonging to any secret society will earn you life in prison if convicted. I don't believe it’s a bad move.

BTW, "dark servant" was something that just popped out of my mind, the "smiling Buddha" is true so and refers to my round belly rather than any particular skills :)

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Communication
Actually, it would be best to go back to a barter system, although I fully realize what kind of undertaking that would be. Get rid of usury all together.




Maybe, maybe not. There are some branches of mysticism that venture off into the realm of the occult and like I said, I think it's a strange coincidence that the Seal of Soloman, which is an Egyptian pagan symbol, is also a major symbol in freemasonry. You guys also have an interest in rebuilding the temple, no?

So... how many popes were on the list? I scanned it but didn't see any. Are you sure you haven't mistaken these guys on your list for Knights of Columbus, as opposed to Masons? I think you're out on a limb with this one, kiddo. They're not Masons.

Stilll... and what I loved the most are the Masonic "code names"... I'm ROTHFLMFAO! Oh.. sorry. I'll be serious... Call me "Baldar". I'm really from the Masonic home-world; Remulak.... (haw!)

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Wise: probably some interpretation of mine while reading The Masons are simply a benevolent, fraternal order of men. They teach men to become better men through allegory and symbology. They are not a charity but do charitable things; usually with little to no publicity; not letting the left hand know that the right hand is giving.. And they do not take bad men and make them into good men....

Okay, okay. We're wise... Do you feel better?

Needing to belong to something to either feel important or special is also some interpretation of mine while reading That is more than I am supposed to tell

Then you haven't heard of the blood oaths we take? Some are horrified by them....

The megalomaniac assumption as to come from all the symbolic attached to the order or phrases such as we call him, "G_d" or Most lodges don't accept petitions of men less than 25 years of age, and some don't accept younger than 30 years old; some even 40..... Quite frankly, even if they wanted to join while in college, it would be a rarity.

Nope. No brag, just fact. We hold the Supreme Being in complete reverence, and we don't take men in their non-age or dotage. Pretty simple.

The freemason are doing BBQ to buy the homeless a bus ticket, how nice of them!!! I which I could participate and be part of such a grand cause. It makes me wonder, why people do those things.

No, I didn't say we did a barbecue for the purpose of buying a bus ticket for a homeless person. What I said was that we have barbecues and charge for the meals then we "may" buy a homeless person a bus ticket out of town...; "or not". ... or that we may use the money for other things. I said we did charitable things. I did not say we were a charity. But to go a step further, if you really paid attention to what I wrote, you may have recognized it as a tongue-in-cheek remark; that of "buy a bus ticket out of town for a homeless person"; meaning that there would then be one less person in need of assistance in our community... (wake up... it was a joke. I had considered writing: "We may, then, take the money and buy a family on welfare, bus tickets out of town.", but I thought that was too obvious and went for the subtle telling.....)

I apologize before continuing to anyone who believes in confession but it reminds me of a lot of Catholics who go and confess on Sundays to be clean of their sins of the week, so has to be able to start all over again the following one.

We call it, "Pray on Sunday, sin on Monday.." It's not peculiar to Catholics.... I would venture to say that some number in most sects do the same thing. Besides, Christian churches are supposed to be workhouses for sinners, not warehouses for saints. Saints don't need saving from their sins, do they?

It also remind me of the charity shows here in Singapore, if you don't give out a car or a house as a price, forget about the cash. Donors must be thinking, well if I don't win the car, I would have done something charitable. It defeats the purpose. Anyone ever mentioned at a BBQ, that was well worth the donation! I'll be back next time, these burgers were fantastic!
They also have kids collecting money on Sunday, if you give 20c they give you a sticker to put on your shirt so that everyone can see how charitable you are. And a lot actually wears it with pride!/b]

(Too bizarre to comment on this, so I won't...)

[b]Anyway, again here in Singapore, belonging to any secret society will earn you life in prison if convicted. I don't believe it’s a bad move.

... and you get caned for spray painting graffiti, too. What happens if you spit your gum on the sidewalk; or can you walk and chew gum, simultaneously, in Sing-Sing; I mean, Singapore? Can you chew gum in Singapore, without fear?

BTW, "dark servant" was something that just popped out of my mind, the "smiling Buddha" is true so and refers to my round belly rather than any particular skills :)

And I thought I was going to be able to sleep peacefully tonight. Now I'm going to be thinking about in which direction your belly is round; to the sides, or to the front?

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
But to go a step further, if you really paid attention to what I wrote, you may have recognized it as a tongue-in-cheek remark; that of "buy a bus ticket out of town for a homeless person"; meaning that there would then be one less person in need of assistance in our community... (wake up... it was a joke. I had considered writing: "We may, then, take the money and buy a family on welfare, bus tickets out of town.", but I thought that was too obvious and went for the subtle telling.....)


I did get it! Suprisingly you might think :) And the reference got me pissed even though it was not to be taken literally.
And as usual I got carried away to something else.

We all already belong to a social class, a gender, a race. We are citizens of countries, are being classified according to our skills, background, skin color. Is it really necessary to create more caste, groups, and orders?

[elke]

How bizarre! :D

I like that!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
I did get it! Suprisingly you might think :) And the reference got me pissed even though it was not to be taken literally.
And as usual I got carried away to something else.

We all already belong to a social class, a gender, a race. We are citizens of countries, are being classified according to our skills, background, skin color. Is it really necessary to create more caste, groups, and orders?

Oh yes! I agree. It really isn't necessary to create more groups, but there will always be like-minded people that "will" group together, regardless. As far as new, the Masonic fraternity has been around a lot longer than Singapore and the cultural identity of the Singaporese, and many other countries, including the United States. So all I can say is that we were here first. All of those that don't like it will, well, just have to deal with it, 'cause we're not going away just because it may currently go against the grain of what's politically correct.

[mimil]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Oh yes! I agree. It really isn't necessary to create more groups, but there will always be like-minded people that "will" group together, regardless. As far as new, the Masonic fraternity has been around a lot longer than Singapore and the cultural identity of the Singaporese, and many other countries, including the United States. So all I can say is that we were here first. All of those that don't like it will, well, just have to deal with it, 'cause we're not going away just because it may currently go against the grain of what's politically correct.

You make it sound so deep. The "we" actually make it almost solemn.

We were there first has to be the best argument and justification I have had to ear.

[TDidier]

All esotheric symbols are pagan, actuals monotheist religions are coming from old Egypt, the TOTALITY of hebraics symbols are coming from old egyptian Sun cult (monotheist).
The cruX was an esotheric symbol long befor Xmas...

Nothing new under the sun.

No allegence needed to reach some "secrets" or comprehension of our world...

No need for new casts systems. I totally agree Mimil.

SeeU, Didier.

Ps, for you Johnny:
What sort of "education" did I betray to you? ;)

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier

Ps, for you Johnny:
What sort of "education" did I betray to you? ;)

Nothing, except how little education you have of what true Masonry is about. Let me bring you up to speed.

Back in the day when most buildings were made of stone, and before there were trade unions, there were guilds of masons. These masons became masters of their craft, as in most labor trades to this day, through an apprenticeship under a master or journeyman builder.

Theses masons didn't have union cards to prove their level of mastery of their craft, so it was difficult for them to go from one job site to another and command the wages commensurate with their skill level. Together with this, most of them were illiterate. That meant that some system of identifying where you stood in the hierarchy of your chosen field, or training level, and, some way of conveying understanding of job plans, and the teaching of the craft to those in the apprenticeship program had to be formulated. Also, a system of ethical business practices had to be inculcated into the workers.

The ethical system revolved around the lessons gleaned from the Holy Bible, and the method of identification involved handshakes and signs; think of them as gang signs; pun intended. The trade was passed on to the apprentices by word of mouth and by drawings on small black boards called "trestle boards"; the use of tools, architecture, and geometry, for the most part. We'll call this "hands on" masonry.

Once a man became a journeyman, or master mason, he was free to move about and could demand "guild" scale wages. In short, he became a free agent, or, a free mason.

Well... as you know, these masons were employed by the hundreds, if not thousands, for the purpose of building cathedrals and castles, all across Europe. This means they traveled to their job sites and could be away from their homes and families for a long time. So while they worked at the various job sites, they would build structures against the sides of the buildings and called them "lodges", and that's were they lived, while on site.

Later, these guilds grew and the ethical system attracted men who were not "hands on" masons, but intellectuals interested in the philosophy that grew out of this ethical system; a rarity in Medieval Europe.

So before you know it, "hands on" masonry wanes and all that is left is the philosophy and ethics aspects that grew out of the original masonry guild. That's the long and the short of it, Didier....

There is no tangible proof that the Masonic order as we know it today, is older than the early 1700's, although many have tried to retroject it back to Egypt, but it is only a pipe dream; castles in the air. It is simply not true.

It is doubly true that there is nothing more esoteric about Masonry than belief and reverence for the supreme being. There is no witchcraft, no black magic, no magic amulets or potions; nothing of the sort. Anyone that tells you differently is full of $hit.

[Northlander]

The only interesting thing with the freemasonry order is how a bunch of constuction workers going philosophical a few hundred years ago can make an impact on a political forum today.

But I already knew it. I have had to rebuild my whole perception of the world because of this. Gardeners and nurses in secret societies trying to reach nirvana or whatever is more common than you know.

As I see it nothing can stop the order of the bike repairers from becoming the most important society in the 21st century. Being a divine knight of the golden chain is of course honourable for anyone but it will lead you to the dark side so beware.

[TDidier]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Yuma

" Anyone that tells you differently is full of $hit."

Who is full of don't smell very good.
Wise proverb.

Thank you for your key to recognise those who lie... If they don't smell good they are liars, ok.

What about GWBush ? ;)

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by TDidier
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Johnny Yuma

" Anyone that tells you differently is full of $hit."

Who is full of don't smell very good.
Wise proverb.

Thank you for your key to recognise those who lie... If they don't smell good they are liars, ok.

What about GWBush ? ;)

The conclusion was Freemasonry and those who say it is connected with witchcraft or the dark side being full of $hit; not liars in general. It is a fallacy, in logic, to go from the specific to general. But as far as Bush, who is saying he lied? If you are told that Freemasonry is connected with the dark side, by someone else, one that you believe to be an authority on the subject, and you repeat that, does that make you a liar, or, have you simply been misinformed?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Northlander
The only interesting thing with the freemasonry order is how a bunch of constuction workers going philosophical a few hundred years ago can make an impact on a political forum today.

But I already knew it. I have had to rebuild my whole perception of the world because of this. Gardeners and nurses in secret societies trying to reach nirvana or whatever is more common than you know.

As I see it nothing can stop the order of the bike repairers from becoming the most important society in the 21st century. Being a divine knight of the golden chain is of course honourable for anyone but it will lead you to the dark side so beware.

I agree, there's no telling what contribution can be made by ordinary people.

Isn't it interesting that a group of hominids knapping stone 4.5 to 6.5 million years ago can become a people that can build pyramids and other monumental structures, and eventually, became bike repairers that laid foundations for those that put men in space.

BTW, if you are still eating, I think you owe gardeners a bit more respect; and a nurse may some day save your life, if one hasn't already done so.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants, although we oftentimes forget how we got where we are today and who it was that got us here; no matter how lowly their station in life....

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
Yesterday I watched underworld to relax after work, hey those vampires are quite cool, but its all b*ll, first vampires cannot have babies and mixing blood between vampire and werewolves is really a joke. I don't think its a true story.

Hey! How do you know vampires cannot have babies? My ex-wife is a vampire and she had two babies.... I know, I know... you're going to say she isn't a real vampire, but it's true (at least as true as your not thinking Underworld is a true story... :rolleyes: ); but she really is: She slept during the day and ran around all night, and she could vanish into thin air, plus, she hissed a lot.... Also, she's a life sucking parasite that hates garlic, and there's no way she'd go into a church. Sounds like she fits the profile to me....

Also, I once heard a guy say he saw a werewolf drinking a Pina Colado at Trader Vics; and his hair was perfect. Said he was from London......

[elke]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Hey! How do you know vampires cannot have babies? My ex-wife is a vampire and she had two babies.... I know, I know... you're going to say she isn't a real vampire, but it's true (at least as true as your not thinking Underworld is a true story... :rolleyes: ); but she really is: She slept during the day and ran around all night, and she could vanish into thin air, plus, she hissed a lot.... Also, she's a life sucking parasite that hates garlic, and there's no way she'd go into a church. Sounds like she fits the profile to me....

Also, I once heard a guy say he saw a werewolf drinking a Pina Colado at Trader Vics; and his hair was perfect. Said he was from London......

Hey, Johnny, what does that make you though? Having been married to a vampire? In the immortal words of The Mask, "You MARRIED her!" ;)

(just to make sure: this is a joke, albeit a bad one... :D)

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by elke
Hey, Johnny, what does that make you though? Having been married to a vampire? In the immortal words of The Mask, "You MARRIED her!" ;)

(just to make sure: this is a joke, albeit a bad one... :D)

Hmmm... How about... Once bitten, twice shy?

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Hey! How do you know vampires cannot have babies? My ex-wife is a vampire and she had two babies.... I know, I know... you're going to say she isn't a real vampire, but it's true (at least as true as your not thinking Underworld is a true story... :rolleyes: ); but she really is: She slept during the day and ran around all night, and she could vanish into thin air, plus, she hissed a lot.... Also, she's a life sucking parasite that hates garlic, and there's no way she'd go into a church. Sounds like she fits the profile to me....

Also, I once heard a guy say he saw a werewolf drinking a Pina Colado at Trader Vics; and his hair was perfect. Said he was from London......

Hey, I heard about him. But the last I heard was that he was looking for a little hole in the wall chinese restaurant 'cause he wanted some beef chow mein.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
Hey, I heard about him. But the last I heard was that he was looking for a little hole in the wall chinese restaurant 'cause he wanted some beef chow mein.

Lee Ho Fooks? I heard about that place, too. They have big dishes...

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Lee Ho Fooks? I heard about that place, too. They have big dishes...

A little old lady got mutilated late that night. Just terrible.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
A little old lady got mutilated late that night. Just terrible.

Heard the suspect was a hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent, and lately, he's been overheard in Mayfair.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Heard the suspect was a hairy-handed gent who ran amuck in Kent, and lately, he's been overheard in Mayfair.

I had a friend once, a red-head, who started dating some guy she met when she was on the way to her grandma's house.

He didn't seem a baaa-aad sort, at first. . . .

[Donna]

Hey...how'd that happen?

Gettin' spooky in here.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
Hey...how'd that happen?

Gettin' spooky in here.

I don't think little big girls should go walkin' in these spooky ol' woods alone. I think you ought to walk with me and be safe.
I'm gonna keep my sheep suit on, til I'm sure that you've been shown that I can be trusted, walking with you, alone.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
I don't think little big girls should go walkin' in these spooky ol' woods alone. I think you ought to walk with me and be safe.
I'm gonna keep my sheep suit on, til I'm sure that you've been shown that I can be trusted, walking with you, alone.

Now see, that just shows what a big heart you've got!

[Lowell]

Originally posted by mimil
Anyway, again here in Singapore, belonging to any secret society will earn you life in prison if convicted. I don't believe it’s a bad move.

BTW, "dark servant" was something that just popped out of my mind, the "smiling Buddha" is true so and refers to my round belly rather than any particular skills :)

Seems to me that if belonging to the secret Round Belly Society can get you life in prison it'd be a kindness to buy a homeless man a ticket out of town... before the government catches him. What would Singapore do to a walking bundle of graffitti?

[Donna]

Originally posted by Lowell
Seems to me that if belonging to the secret Round Belly Society can get you life in prison it'd be a kindness to buy a homeless man a ticket out of town... before the government catches him. What would Singapore do to a walking bundle of graffitti?


Said walking bundle of graffiti was chewing gum. I heard they were real stick-lers for toeing the line there.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
Now see, that just shows what a big heart you've got!

.... and what big eyes you have; the kind of eyes that drive wolves mad. So just to see that you don't get chased, I think I ought to walk with you for a ways.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
Said walking bundle of graffiti was chewing gum. I heard they were real stick-lers for toeing the line there.

Singapore urban legends tell that you'll get a bad back, if you walk and chew gum at the same time, but the government will give you a cane, thinking that'll cure the ill.....

[Lowell]

Originally posted by Donna
Said walking bundle of graffiti was chewing gum. I heard they were real stick-lers for toeing the line there.

Best you toe the line with that wolf, or is it a vamwolf?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Lowell
Best you toe the line with that wolf, or is it a vamwolf?

With envy and anger an evil spirit endured the dole in his dark abode, that he heard each day the din of revel high in the hall: there harps rang out, clear song of the singer. He sang who knew tales of the early time of man, how the Almighty made the earth,fairest fields enfolded by water, set, triumphant, sun and moon for a light to lighten the land-dwellers, and braided bright the breast of earth with limbs and leaves, made life for all of mortal beings that breathe and move.

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
With envy and anger an evil spirit endured the dole in his dark abode, that he heard each day the din of revel high in the hall: there harps rang out, clear song of the singer. He sang who knew tales of the early time of man, how the Almighty made the earth,fairest fields enfolded by water, set, triumphant, sun and moon for a light to lighten the land-dwellers, and braided bright the breast of earth with limbs and leaves, made life for all of mortal beings that breathe and move.

We still are reveling, with cheer and all. Fiends of hell must vanish.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
We still are reveling, with cheer and all. Fiends of hell must vanish.

……march-riever mighty, in moorland living, in fen and fastness; fief of the giants the hapless wight a while had kept since the Creator his exile doomed. On kin of Cain was the killing avenged by sovran G_d for slaughtered Abel. Ill fared his feud and far was he driven, for the slaughter's sake, from sight of men. Of Cain awoke all that woful breed, Etins and elves and evil-spirits, as well as the giants that warred with G_d weary while: but their wage was paid them! ;)

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
……march-riever mighty, in moorland living, in fen and fastness; fief of the giants the hapless wight a while had kept since the Creator his exile doomed. On kin of Cain was the killing avenged by sovran G_d for slaughtered Abel. Ill fared his feud and far was he driven, for the slaughter's sake, from sight of men. Of Cain awoke all that woful breed, Etins and elves and evil-spirits, as well as the giants that warred with G_d weary while: but their wage was paid them! ;)

WENT he forth to find at fall of night that haughty house, and heed wherever the Ring-Danes, outrevelled, to rest had gone.
Found within it the atheling band asleep after feasting and fearless of sorrow, of human hardship. Unhallowed wight,
grim and greedy, he grasped betimes, wrathful, reckless, from resting-places, thirty of the thanes, and thence he rushed
fain of his fell spoil, faring homeward, laden with slaughter, his lair to seek.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
WENT he forth to find at fall of night that haughty house, and heed wherever the Ring-Danes, outrevelled, to rest had gone.
Found within it the atheling band asleep after feasting and fearless of sorrow, of human hardship. Unhallowed wight,
grim and greedy, he grasped betimes, wrathful, reckless, from resting-places, thirty of the thanes, and thence he rushed
fain of his fell spoil, faring homeward, laden with slaughter, his lair to seek.

But the evil one ambushed old and young death-shadow dark, and dogged them still, lured, or lurked in the livelong night of misty moorlands: men may say not where the haunts of these Hell-Runes be. Such heaping of horrors the hater of men, lonely roamer, wrought unceasing, harassings heavy. :(

[Donna]

Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
But the evil one ambushed old and young death-shadow dark, and dogged them still, lured, or lurked in the livelong night of misty moorlands: men may say not where the haunts of these Hell-Runes be. Such heaping of horrors the hater of men, lonely roamer, wrought unceasing, harassings heavy. :(


Almighty they knew not, Doomsman of Deeds and dreadful Lord, nor Heaven’-Helmet heeded they ever, Wielder-of-Wonder.—Woe for that man who in harm and hatred hales his soul to fiery embraces;—nor favor nor change awaits he ever. But well for him that after death-day may draw to his Lord, and friendship find in the Father’s arms!

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
Almighty they knew not, Doomsman of Deeds and dreadful Lord, nor Heaven’-Helmet heeded they ever, Wielder-of-Wonder.—Woe for that man who in harm and hatred hales his soul to fiery embraces;—nor favor nor change awaits he ever. But well for him that after death-day may draw to his Lord, and friendship find in the Father’s arms!

The most fantastic contrasts could be flashed before us with a speed which the writer can only toil after in vain; the dream architecture of arches and battlements, of cascades falling and fountains rising, which sometimes visits us in sleep or shapes itself in half-darkened rooms, could be realized before our waking eyes. No fantasy could be too far-fetched or insubstantial. The past could be unrolled, distances annihilated, and the gulfs which dislocate novels............

[Johnny Yuma]

Yet if so much of our thinking and feeling is connected with seeing, some residue of visual emotion which is of no use to either painter or to poet may still await the cinema. That such symbols will be quite unlike the real objects which we see before us seems highly probable. Something abstract, something which moves with controlled and conscious art, something which calls for the very slightest help from words or music to make itself intelligible, yet justly uses them subserviently -- of such movements and abstractions the films may, in time to come, be composed. Then, indeed, when some new symbol for expressing thought is found, the film-maker has enormous riches at his command. The exactitude of reality and its surprising power of suggestion are to be had for the asking.

[Donna]

"...the curtain parts, and we behold far off, some unknown and unexpected beauty."


Originally posted by Johnny Yuma
Yet if so much of our thinking and feeling is connected with seeing, some residue of visual emotion which is of no use to either painter or to poet may still await the cinema. That such symbols will be quite unlike the real objects which we see before us seems highly probable. Something abstract, something which moves with controlled and conscious art, something which calls for the very slightest help from words or music to make itself intelligible, yet justly uses them subserviently -- of such movements and abstractions the films may, in time to come, be composed. Then, indeed, when some new symbol for expressing thought is found, the film-maker has enormous riches at his command. The exactitude of reality and its surprising power of suggestion are to be had for the asking.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Donna
"...the curtain parts, and we behold far off, some unknown and unexpected beauty."

..... or imagined beast.

[Johnny Yuma]

The skeleton lies on the the prairie with arrows sticking out of its back..... (http://keyserfan.home.mindspring.com/sounds/why_dont_she_write.wav) :confused: