Justifiable War?

[Nickatilynx]

I was wondering how you would say a war was justified.

My brief thoughts on few

WW1 last of the empiratical wars , not justified.
WW2 stopping of an aggressive looney. Justified.
Korea - half assed war , not justified
Vietnam - ok...........
First Iraq war..invaded a soveriegn nation and refused to leave , justified.
Falklands - people invaded by Argentina against there will , justified.

Just jotting down these notes makes you realise how fucked up it all is..

ie , in WW2 we outta continued and fought against Stalin...didn't
Should have taken out Saddam at the end of Iraq/Kuwait war...didn't

The current war in Iraq is totally in my book unjustifiable.

It is being waged without the consent of the majority opf nations.
Iraq invaded no soveriegn nation.
There was no threat (WMD did not exist.Bush jumped the gun on weapons inspectors I beleive cause he knew it)
9/11 terrorist were not from Iraq , but were predominately Saudis.

So why the fuck are foriegn troops dying in Iraq?

Yeah..."oil"...well fuck , should have blamed the Saudis for 9/11 and ganked there shit.

[leedsfan]

the US is borrowing 2 billion a day from the rest of the world to keep its economy afloat. Mostly from China. Everyone has a vested interest in helping the US economy, because the US owes everyone bucket loads of money. If the US economy goes under, everyone stands to lose. But we must give US consumers every increasing amounts of imported product to buy...to keep the economy from collapsing, so the deficit will always grow.

With that being said, there is still a massive opportunity to make money from war, for the larger US corporations. Most of which give huge amounts of money to keep republicans in power. So the guv'ment gives them big contracts to feed soldiers abroad, rebuild nations after they have been demolished by weapons built by other corporations, rebuild oil pipelines, syphon oil (illegally), you name it. All in the name of giving the gift of peace. You see many media stories of happy Iraqi's these days? Wonder why?

Frankly I am amazed that anyone believed the bullshit the president said about going to war, given that no-one else outside the US supported his bullshit reasoning.

Media is the reason that war is executed. Media gives attention (and diverts it from other more pressing issues domestically), and media glorifies the war (imbedding journalists within the theatre of war). Media makes the war justified, because the US media is owned by government allies. If you see nothing but glorification of the war "effort" you might eventually be braindead enough to believe that you live in the greatest nation under god, delivery "peace" bomb by dirty bomb.

[JoesHO]

War has always been about power and greed many in the name of religion, many in the name of peace.


The question is, will you be a pitcher or a catcher ?

I do not believe in this war, or in this administration.
I believe that isolantiost regimes, and or world domination has always led to the downfall of the agressor.

However I do believe that war is an inevitable reality that has been with us since we shaved the monkey hair from our faces for darwin on the gallipigos islands.

Human nature is unchangable ( or animalistic dominat survives) you pick

The reality is that one must prepare to fight in order to not have to fight.

I believe the saying goes " Live to train, train to fight, fight to live"

in modern times many have tried to equilize the world by laws that opress the strong or the defenders. However at the end of the day

He who controls the gold controls the world, and he who controls the strength controls the gold.

[Nickatilynx]

I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 01:28 PM
I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.
who shows first ?

[Trev]

The current war is unjustified, Bush went after oil using 9/11 and WMD. Blair was more than happy to support this farce but it’s too late for anyone to say anything now, the troops have been placed in harms way and some have died. More will die, yet both nations re-elected both state heads!

I did then and do now fully back going into Iraq but only because I’d rather be hung as someone who sticks to his views instead of a low down skin shedder.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Trev@May 30 2005, 01:34 PM
The current war is unjustified, Bush went after oil using 9/11 and WMD. Blair was more than happy to support this farce but it’s too late for anyone to say anything now, the troops have been placed in harms way and some have died. More will die, yet both nations re-elected both state heads!

I did then and do now fully back going into Iraq but only because I’d rather be hung as someone who sticks to his views instead of a low down skin shedder.
ahahahahahahahha

Or as is more commonly known as "stubborn"

Someone who despite finding a course of action is unsafe and unsound continues with it?

Ok......

(if we still used the ""mouth of morons"" section I'd nominate that post "war was unjustified"..."still support it ")

ahahahahahahahahahaha



"I don't think that stove is hot" (puts hand on it - it is , refuses to take off hand and suffers 3rd degree burns) " Nope it wasn't""

[Nickatilynx]

Dude could you build some free hosts for me , I know they won't make any money , but hey I DID think they would and I'll be damned if I'll change my mind.

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(I'm crying laughing at yr post still ,Trev)

ahahahahahahahhahahaha

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by JoesHO1+May 30 2005, 01:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JoesHO1 @ May 30 2005, 01:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 01:28 PM
I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.
who shows first ? [/b][/quote]
Switzerland.


"""Everyone put down your guns or the stashed money gets it....""""

:ph34r:

[Trev]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 10:43 PM
Dude could you build some free hosts for me , I know they won't make any money , but hey I DID think they would and I'll be damned if I'll change my mind.

ahahahahahahahahahahahaha

(I'm crying laughing at yr post still ,Trev)

ahahahahahahahhahahaha
I'm glad I brought a smile to your face :)


I'm not being stubborn, if I was I'd still insist we went into Iran, Saudi, Korea and all the others I listed in MikeAI's first thread on this over a year ago...

[Trev]

Shit!!

I must be stubborn because I still do insist :(

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Trev@May 30 2005, 02:44 PM
Shit!!

I must be stubborn because I still do insist :(
:)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 01:28 PM
I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.
hippy;)

idealism is nice, thats why its called "ideal". broad stroke statements like that are easy to spit out a dozen a minute, but really mean nothing when applied to the real world.

to apply broad stroak qualification of wars is inherently bad logic. you are judging them in hindsight, after all, so it is easy to sound byte the validity of a war effort. The conflict and future conflicts in the middle east will be judged the day it is all said and done, in hindsight. Preemtive action, in business and in war, is sometimes the best strategy. anyone who can look at the middle east over the last 50 years cannot honestly say this wasn't coming down the barrel since day 1. peace efforts were exhausted long ago, strategic positioning for the coming decades is necessary, though not pretty. The situation has gone downhill at at an ever increasing pace, the next 5 decades would be exactly the same.

As for people in the middle east hating the US. it is not possible for them to hate us more now. they have hated the US since the formation of israel, the putting of US bases in saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. these were unavoidable problems due to the instability and actions of middle eastern nations.

Sure, the reason for going to war was wrong. the American people were most likely lied to, or at the very least the government played the fool in the intelligence communities leading to bad decision making. but to sit on the outside and cluck at the effort now is a dumb attitude. Since hindsight has shown the reasons for going to war to have not come to be, we should discount the good that has come of it (directly and indirectly)? come on.

[JR]

"war is the natural state of man" - i believe that you can't possibly align the interests of all those in power (or who would take power), of all countries, of all economies, of all religions and of all cultures to have lasting peace.

peace has always been the single greatest cause of war.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by JR@May 30 2005, 03:20 PM

peace has always been the single greatest cause of war.
Yeah .

People wanting a little peice of this or a little peice of that country :)


And Grimm,

Firstly , look man just mellow your ruining my vibe , and secondly, what good has come out of the war in Iraq?

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 30 2005, 03:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 30 2005, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JR@May 30 2005, 03:20 PM

peace has always been the single greatest cause of war.
Yeah .

People wanting a little peice of this or a little peice of that country :)


And Grimm,

Firstly , look man just mellow your ruining my vibe , and secondly, what good has come out of the war in Iraq? [/b][/quote]
free elections for one, and not just in iraq. pressure on syria, Iran, etc. lybia forgoing its nuclear program, and more to come for sure. 1500 lost lives is nothing to be happy about, but compared to conflicts around the world, isnt much more than a drop in the bucket.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 30 2005, 03:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 30 2005, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 03:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-JR@May 30 2005, 03:20 PM

peace has always been the single greatest cause of war.
Yeah .

People wanting a little peice of this or a little peice of that country :)


And Grimm,

Firstly , look man just mellow your ruining my vibe , and secondly, what good has come out of the war in Iraq?
free elections for one, and not just in iraq. pressure on syria, Iran, etc. lybia forgoing its nuclear program, and more to come for sure. 1500 lost lives is nothing to be happy about, but compared to conflicts around the world, isnt much more than a drop in the bucket. [/b][/quote]
Pressure I agree...

ADDING to the pressure in the long run.....

100s of thousand of Muslims who despise the US and everything western with a hatred the west can only imagine.

That in itself is no big deal , but give that hatred the will power and intent to do something about it , thats dangerous in the long run.

The United States has recruited far more than Bin Laden ever could of what to the west are terrorists and to themselves are freedom fighters.

The war isn't won.

All thats happened is the first few skirmishes seem to have gone ok.

Wait for the coming years.

The United States is to diplomacy what I am too kind treatment of surfers.

So using the same lofgc , if you are going to war ,go to fucking war

Lets say the war was unsound , lets say it wasn't smart , but its gonna be continued with.

If thats the case , when you get them down , don't let the fuckers get back up.

The US has a habit of quitting just before they have actually won.

Vietnam , Korea..etc etc...

If the will of the people is to finish this war , then fucking finish it.

Shoot a few of the cunts.

Shit on the fucking Koran.,If someone complains.Shoot the fucker. Then shoot 5 of his relatives.

Its a war.Remove the journos.

:)

[JR]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 30 2005, 03:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 30 2005, 03:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-JR@May 30 2005, 03:20 PM

peace has always been the single greatest cause of war.
Yeah .

People wanting a little peice of this or a little peice of that country :)
[/b][/quote]


the scary truth about the humanity is that i could have more success organizing people to murder on a large scale than you could in organizing people for world peace.

care to wager anything on that? i need a new hobby.

[leedsfan]

Originally posted by grimm+May 30 2005, 03:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 30 2005, 03:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 01:28 PM
I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.
hippy;)

idealism is nice, thats why its called "ideal". broad stroke statements like that are easy to spit out a dozen a minute, but really mean nothing when applied to the real world.

to apply broad stroak qualification of wars is inherently bad logic. you are judging them in hindsight, after all, so it is easy to sound byte the validity of a war effort. The conflict and future conflicts in the middle east will be judged the day it is all said and done, in hindsight. Preemtive action, in business and in war, is sometimes the best strategy. anyone who can look at the middle east over the last 50 years cannot honestly say this wasn't coming down the barrel since day 1. peace efforts were exhausted long ago, strategic positioning for the coming decades is necessary, though not pretty. The situation has gone downhill at at an ever increasing pace, the next 5 decades would be exactly the same.

As for people in the middle east hating the US. it is not possible for them to hate us more now. they have hated the US since the formation of israel, the putting of US bases in saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. these were unavoidable problems due to the instability and actions of middle eastern nations.

Sure, the reason for going to war was wrong. the American people were most likely lied to, or at the very least the government played the fool in the intelligence communities leading to bad decision making. but to sit on the outside and cluck at the effort now is a dumb attitude. Since hindsight has shown the reasons for going to war to have not come to be, we should discount the good that has come of it (directly and indirectly)? come on. [/b][/quote]
you sound like a german from the thirties and forties.

preemtive force is necessary...strategic planning...read "killing of tens of thousands of civilians defending their country"

[grimm]

Originally posted by leedsfan+May 30 2005, 05:18 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leedsfan @ May 30 2005, 05:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@May 30 2005, 03:17 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 01:28 PM
I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.
hippy;)

idealism is nice, thats why its called "ideal". broad stroke statements like that are easy to spit out a dozen a minute, but really mean nothing when applied to the real world.

to apply broad stroak qualification of wars is inherently bad logic. you are judging them in hindsight, after all, so it is easy to sound byte the validity of a war effort. The conflict and future conflicts in the middle east will be judged the day it is all said and done, in hindsight. Preemtive action, in business and in war, is sometimes the best strategy. anyone who can look at the middle east over the last 50 years cannot honestly say this wasn't coming down the barrel since day 1. peace efforts were exhausted long ago, strategic positioning for the coming decades is necessary, though not pretty. The situation has gone downhill at at an ever increasing pace, the next 5 decades would be exactly the same.

As for people in the middle east hating the US. it is not possible for them to hate us more now. they have hated the US since the formation of israel, the putting of US bases in saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. these were unavoidable problems due to the instability and actions of middle eastern nations.

Sure, the reason for going to war was wrong. the American people were most likely lied to, or at the very least the government played the fool in the intelligence communities leading to bad decision making. but to sit on the outside and cluck at the effort now is a dumb attitude. Since hindsight has shown the reasons for going to war to have not come to be, we should discount the good that has come of it (directly and indirectly)? come on.
you sound like a german from the thirties and forties.

preemtive force is necessary...strategic planning...read "killing of tens of thousands of civilians defending their country" [/b][/quote]
the goal of the actions makes a world of difference. this isnt imperialism in the slightest.

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by grimm+May 30 2005, 05:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 30 2005, 05:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by leedsfan@May 30 2005, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 30 2005, 03:17 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 30 2005, 01:28 PM
I think that is antiquated.

In order for us to survive we will have to learn to live together , peacefully and on a global level.

If not we will all go the way of the dodo.
hippy;)

idealism is nice, thats why its called "ideal". broad stroke statements like that are easy to spit out a dozen a minute, but really mean nothing when applied to the real world.

to apply broad stroak qualification of wars is inherently bad logic. you are judging them in hindsight, after all, so it is easy to sound byte the validity of a war effort. The conflict and future conflicts in the middle east will be judged the day it is all said and done, in hindsight. Preemtive action, in business and in war, is sometimes the best strategy. anyone who can look at the middle east over the last 50 years cannot honestly say this wasn't coming down the barrel since day 1. peace efforts were exhausted long ago, strategic positioning for the coming decades is necessary, though not pretty. The situation has gone downhill at at an ever increasing pace, the next 5 decades would be exactly the same.

As for people in the middle east hating the US. it is not possible for them to hate us more now. they have hated the US since the formation of israel, the putting of US bases in saudi arabia, kuwait, etc. these were unavoidable problems due to the instability and actions of middle eastern nations.

Sure, the reason for going to war was wrong. the American people were most likely lied to, or at the very least the government played the fool in the intelligence communities leading to bad decision making. but to sit on the outside and cluck at the effort now is a dumb attitude. Since hindsight has shown the reasons for going to war to have not come to be, we should discount the good that has come of it (directly and indirectly)? come on.
you sound like a german from the thirties and forties.

preemtive force is necessary...strategic planning...read "killing of tens of thousands of civilians defending their country"
the goal of the actions makes a world of difference. this isnt imperialism in the slightest. [/b][/quote]
world domination? isolanitionism? what is the goal exactly?

Make people feel better cause WE say what is best for them ?

[PornoDoggy]

Agree with you about World War I.

The thing that has always seemed remarkable to me is that a repeat of World War I - "we have to go to war now, old chap - there is no 'off' swithch to our mobilization plan" didn't happen during the "Cold War" [meaning mostly brown, black, and yellow people died].

I agree about World War II as well - although I think it could have been prevented by the French had they not been stabbed in the back by their own right wing, and had they developed a set of testicles large enough to operate without the blessing of the King.

I think, however, that you should put down the crack pipe before you say "in WW2 we outta continued and fought against Stalin." That may sound really good in theory, but by 1945 Uncle Joe had some pretty formidable forces at his disposal, and most of what he was expending in the field was produced domestically. Not really sure the US/UK had the military might to do it, and there's that whole inconvenient thing about democracies - you'd have to sell the people on it, and I don't think the people on either side of the Atlantic would have bought it.

Although, at least in theory - such a thing MIGHT have been possible if the elections of 1945 had gone differently. Truman is quoted in the Congressional Record as suggesting from the floor of the Senate that the U.S. should support the Soviets as long as the Nazis were winning, but support the Nazis if it looked like the Soviets were winning.

Not sure I agree on Korea either. North Korea's invasion of the south was as clear an act of agression as anything Saddam ever contemplated. The mistake was in getting greedy - in trying to go all the way to the Chinese border.

I will avoid making any remarks about sheep or the Malvinas, just because I'm a nice guy, and I'm grateful that it did not become necessary for the United States to enter the conflict.

[Timon]

The Iraq war was totally justified for it's incredible TV entertainment value.

Now it's becoming pretty old though, I think they should leave Iraq and let them sort it out on their own so they can focus their resources on starting a new war with another country.

All on live television of course :D

[Timon]

Nick, when did you become such a whiney ass tree hugger? ;-)

[JoesHO]

Originally posted by Timon@May 30 2005, 07:51 PM
Nick, when did you become such a whiney ass tree hugger? ;-)
Blame Canada ( hell they have tons of frenchmen there )

[Timon]

Originally posted by JoesHO1+May 30 2005, 10:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JoesHO1 @ May 30 2005, 10:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Timon@May 30 2005, 07:51 PM
Nick, when did you become such a whiney ass tree hugger? ;-)
Blame Canada ( hell they have tons of frenchmen there ) [/b][/quote]
Canadians are lame, that's a fact, but I bet you have plenty of bark chips on your shirt :lol:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by leedsfan@May 30 2005, 04:06 PM
the US is borrowing 2 billion a day from the rest of the world to keep its economy afloat. Mostly from China. Everyone has a vested interest in helping the US economy, because the US owes everyone bucket loads of money. If the US economy goes under, everyone stands to lose. But we must give US consumers every increasing amounts of imported product to buy...to keep the economy from collapsing, so the deficit will always grow.

With that being said, there is still a massive opportunity to make money from war, for the larger US corporations. Most of which give huge amounts of money to keep republicans in power. So the guv'ment gives them big contracts to feed soldiers abroad, rebuild nations after they have been demolished by weapons built by other corporations, rebuild oil pipelines, syphon oil (illegally), you name it. All in the name of giving the gift of peace. You see many media stories of happy Iraqi's these days? Wonder why?

Frankly I am amazed that anyone believed the bullshit the president said about going to war, given that no-one else outside the US supported his bullshit reasoning.

Media is the reason that war is executed. Media gives attention (and diverts it from other more pressing issues domestically), and media glorifies the war (imbedding journalists within the theatre of war). Media makes the war justified, because the US media is owned by government allies. If you see nothing but glorification of the war "effort" you might eventually be braindead enough to believe that you live in the greatest nation under god, delivery "peace" bomb by dirty bomb.
ditto! with few exceptions of the "media owned",
I say very keen and good analysis from economic point of view.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Timon@May 30 2005, 10:51 PM
Nick, when did you become such a whiney ass tree hugger? ;-)
since he got rich....being rich allowes one to stop worrying about his/hers wellbeing and start thinking about the Humanity as a whole.

JR,
this is a fucking PEARL!
"the scary truth about the humanity is that i could have more success organizing people to murder on a large scale than you could in organizing people for world peace.
"
:pearl:

[Timon]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 05:49 AM

since he got rich....being rich allowes one to stop worrying about his/hers wellbeing and start thinking about the Humanity as a whole.

It's good to know that Nick is not worried about his wellbeing and has "the Humanity as a whole" on his mind while he rapes their inboxes with "your woman will worship you all night long" and "eminem wears rolex bling bling" :D

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Timon+May 31 2005, 06:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Timon @ May 31 2005, 06:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 05:49 AM

since he got rich....being rich allowes one to stop worrying about his/hers wellbeing and start thinking about the Humanity as a whole.

It's good to know that Nick is not worried about his wellbeing and has "the Humanity as a whole" on his mind while he rapes their inboxes with "your woman will worship you all night long" and "eminem wears rolex bling bling" :D [/b][/quote]
Timon,
because Nick cares about MANKIND...as I just said, thank you for pointing the obvious
;)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 04:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 04:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Timon@May 31 2005, 06:14 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 05:49 AM

since he got rich....being rich allowes one to stop worrying about his/hers wellbeing and start thinking about the Humanity as a whole.

It's good to know that Nick is not worried about his wellbeing and has "the Humanity as a whole" on his mind while he rapes their inboxes with "your woman will worship you all night long" and "eminem wears rolex bling bling" :D
Timon,
because Nick cares about MANKIND...as I just said, thank you for pointing the obvious
;) [/b][/quote]
Thank you serge for recognising my humanitarian traits :)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Timon+May 31 2005, 03:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Timon @ May 31 2005, 03:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 05:49 AM

since he got rich....being rich allowes one to stop worrying about his/hers wellbeing and start thinking about the Humanity as a whole.

It's good to know that Nick is not worried about his wellbeing and has "the Humanity as a whole" on his mind while he rapes their inboxes with "your woman will worship you all night long" and "eminem wears rolex bling bling" :D [/b][/quote]
Timon,

I had a dream!!!!

That one day , ALL the people in the world ( provided they have a valid credit card) could one day own a folex like emimem , celebrate the benefits of a hard cock , get the best possible mortgage rates , be made aware of some undervalued stock and GOD DAMN IT get a Credit card that suited todays modern demands!!!

I had a dream today!!!!!

That all people of the world were entitled to the best rates on Volcanbo insurance (really good deals for residents of the UK actually) , should have the benefit of a nice poem in there mailbox EVERY FUCKING morning without fail , possibly as many as 10 , and should be made aware that modern medicine can probably solve whatever it is that ails them merely by clicking on the enclosed link and pulling out there credit card.

I had a dream today!!!!

Later in the dream I looked at webcam offers , young girls available now , married woman near the receipient dying to be fucked and the delights of never before seen video of some celeb performing some act.
But NAY!!!!!! I could not in all good conscious send mail to pornographic websites!!!

The money isn't enough :)

[Timon]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:55 AM
The money isn't enough :)
Serge, what was that about Nick's wellbeing? ;-))

[el pres]

There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?

Same can be said of the UK although to a lesser extent , they did get the shit bombed out of them during WWII.

I'm aware of the huge importantce of the US during the war, but whilst their young men were fighting in Europe, they didnt have to worry about their wife and kids getting blown up.

***NOTE***
This is not a bash America comment just a statement of fact. :awinky:

[Timon]

el pres, that's exactly why we need to have this type of thing on live television, it is missing from all our lives

[el pres]

Originally posted by Timon@May 31 2005, 08:17 AM
el pres, that's exactly why we need to have this type of thing on live television, it is missing from all our lives
Couldn't they just put 'The Long Good Friday' on :agrin:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors"

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 05:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 05:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors" [/b][/quote]
I watched a documentary on the seige of Leningrad last night.

Simply Horrific.

[Mike AI]

El Pres - the point that no major war has been fought on US soil in 20th Century certainly has a bearing on our use of military overseas. However, without the attacks in 9-11 we would not have had such a juicy excuse to go into Iraq.


Leeds you make some interesting points, however I think you do not understand the media in the US. The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.

Only Murdoch was pro-war.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 08:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 08:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors" [/b][/quote]


One must put this in perspective. How many mass horrors did Stalin bring on his own people? (before, during and after WWII ) What about the countries that fell into the USSR's zone of influence after WWII?

Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler did.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 09:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 09:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 08:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors"


One must put this in perspective. How many mass horrors did Stalin bring on his own people? (before, during and after WWII ) What about the countries that fell into the USSR's zone of influence after WWII?

Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler did. [/b][/quote]
very good retort in the style of Fox TV I had the misfortune to watch in Granada, Spain....
Instead of answering the opponent legitimate questions, Fox TV and you Michael, redirect the issue. Won't work on me, I've seen better execution by Communist Party propaganda machine and their typical MO was ABSOLUTELLY the same-
"It's not bad in USSR, because the exploited masses of capitalist countries suffer more and more exploited by their capitalist masters"


Have more ammo up your sleeve, something I haven't seen before on Fox or Communism? Surprise me, ambush me with NEW debate tactics and I'll capitulate...beaten to the pulp.

[Winetalk.com]

BTW, I'll entertain your non sequitor-
Stalin and Hitler killed the SAME numbers of Russians, 20 mils each.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?

[Mike AI]

Serge, I was merely pointing out that Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler.

Both Hitler and Stalin were bad.

FDR and Churchill were wrong for making a deal with Stalin to turn over "liberated Eastern Europe" to the USSR.

It is ironic that the British ( Churchill) went to war with Germany when Hilter invaded Poland. Yet a few years later, the allies were willing to turn over Poland to the same fate from another totalitarian dictator. Even more ironic is that Hitler and Stalin had agreed to divide Poland in the first place!!

Serge, have you seen the latest version of Machurian Candidate? I think your some of the reminants of brainwashing from the same regime Stalin built is starting to show.

Heck you still have come to grips that Russian pilots were flying against US pilots in the Korean war - even after I sent you a bunch of links from Google and Yahoo. ( I know they are 2 capitalist pig companies who spray out nothing but propaganda)

:lol: :lol:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 09:32 AM
BTW, I'll entertain your non sequitor-
Stalin and Hitler killed the SAME numbers of Russians, 20 mils each.


Well that makes Stalin OK then!

:okthumb:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 09:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 09:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat? [/b][/quote]


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 09:37 AM





Serge, I was merely pointing out that Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler.
which has the SAME relevance to the discussion at hand as the number condoms sold in Malaysia in 1976... - NON SEQUITOR!

Both Hitler and Stalin were bad.
Lambskins condoms do not protect one from AIDS - another non sequitor.

Serge, have you seen the latest version of Machurian Candidate? I think your some of the reminants of brainwashing from the same regime Stalin built is starting to show.

another shot and NON SEQUITOR which missed the mark...KGB headquarters in St Petersburg, has my dossier, listing my anti-soviet activities, as was reported by Palestinians living with me in the student hostel. I have veryfyable record of my anti soviet activities...care to compare MY RECORD and yours? Talk is cheap, Michael.

Heck you still have come to grips that Russian pilots were flying against US pilots in the Korean war - even after I sent you a bunch of links from Google and Yahoo. ( I know they are 2 capitalist pig companies who spray out nothing but propaganda)

:lol: :lol:

not really...I was presented with "evidence" in the form of the clips from History Channel and took them for what they worth, true or false I have bought it.
Because...I am older, and my EARS are better developed with age than my mouth. Children cry from the moment they get born, LISTENING and understanding one;s opponent takes practise. You'll get there one day for your own sake
:)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 06:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather. [/b][/quote]
Reagan?

You mean the guy who was diagnosed as senile during the last 9mths of his Presidency?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 09:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 09:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 09:37 AM





Serge, I was merely pointing out that Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler.
which has the SAME relevance to the discussion at hand as the number condoms sold in Malaysia in 1976... - NON SEQUITOR!

Both Hitler and Stalin were bad.
Lambskins condoms do not protect one from AIDS - another non sequitor.

Serge, have you seen the latest version of Machurian Candidate? I think your some of the reminants of brainwashing from the same regime Stalin built is starting to show.

another shot and NON SEQUITOR which missed the mark...KGB headquarters in St Petersburg, has my dossier, listing my anti-soviet activities, as was reported by Palestinians living with me in the student hostel. I have veryfyable record of my anti soviet activities...care to compare MY RECORD and yours? Talk is cheap, Michael.

Heck you still have come to grips that Russian pilots were flying against US pilots in the Korean war - even after I sent you a bunch of links from Google and Yahoo. ( I know they are 2 capitalist pig companies who spray out nothing but propaganda)

:lol: :lol:

not really...I was presented with "evidence" in the form of the clips from History Channel and took them for what they worth, true or false I have bought it.
Because...I am older, and my EARS are better developed with age than my mouth. Children cry from the moment they get born, LISTENING and understanding one;s opponent takes practise. You'll get there one day for your own sake
:) [/b][/quote]


Serge, you are learning well.

When you cannot win a debate on the merits, change the topic.

I am sure no one even recognized it.

Very SMOOOOOOOOOTH!

:lol:

[Winetalk.com]

Nick, now you compiling history....don't get "Foxized",
it's a non winner in the argument.

[Mike AI]

Serge, in referance to your anti-USSR activities that are documented. That is interesting.

Could it be that this is just a ruse, and it was just planted by the KGB to make you appear to be a strient anti-Communist?

The KGB, and USSR were pretty sneaky - heck Putin has the world thinking he is not a communist!!

With your latest arguements, I think the "evidence" could be manufactured. Just like the evidence from Google on the soviet pilots who flew against Americans in Korea.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 09:57 AM



Serge, you are learning well.

When you cannot win a debate on the merits, change the topic.

I am sure no one even recognized it.

Very SMOOOOOOOOOTH!

:lol:
very good attempt to project, but once again it failed. I was on the topic, you brought non sequitors, I pointed it out and you abandoned the topic.

Good try, but won't work on me as the previous attempts haven't worked.

Care to get back to the topic at hand and drop all the non sequitors?

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 09:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 09:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather.
Reagan?

You mean the guy who was diagnosed as senile during the last 9mths of his Presidency? [/b][/quote]

That is him - remember his funeral last year?

:lol:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 10:00 AM
Serge, in referance to your anti-USSR activities that are documented. That is interesting.

Could it be that this is just a ruse, and it was just planted by the KGB to make you appear to be a strient anti-Communist?

The KGB, and USSR were pretty sneaky - heck Putin has the world thinking he is not a communist!!

With your latest arguements, I think the "evidence" could be manufactured. Just like the evidence from Google on the soviet pilots who flew against Americans in Korea.
another good try -
if you can't produce the RECORD of your own -
put mine in doubt.


Yes, it was manufactured by KGB for the sole of me impressing you on Oprano.
You got me!
:)

Now...can you master ONE debate technique I haven't seen in Communist Russia before?
I don't ask for much....or do I?

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather.
Reagan?

You mean the guy who was diagnosed as senile during the last 9mths of his Presidency?

That is him - remember his funeral last year?

:lol: [/b][/quote]
Wasn't he the guy that was senile for his last 9 mths as King Penguin of Moriava?

[Winetalk.com]

Nick, you see how easy it is to be dragged into gutter by bringing items which has NOTHING to do with the topic? Do you really beleive ALL your references to Reagan has ANYTHING to do with topic at hand?

[JoesHO]

I Love it when Serge gets inspired....

This is making for a great day... :okthumb:

[PornoDoggy]

Life is so much simpler when the world is flat ...

Mike - it's not as if Churchill and Roosevelt had a whole lot of choice. They didn't GIVE him Poland - his armies took it, and I don't think we had enough military power to take it back from them.

They (Roosevelt and Churchill) also still had that little scrap going on in the Pacific, which Stalin had sat out.

Roosevelt, let alone Truman, could not have gotten political support from anyone in either party for continuing or resuming a war against the Soviet Union. Hell's bells, even Mr. Republican himself (Taft) was opposed to most of the efforts Truman undertook in the early days of the "Cold War."

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 31 2005, 10:18 AM
Life is so much simpler when the world is flat ...

Mike - it's not as if Churchill and Roosevelt had a whole lot of choice. They didn't GIVE him Poland - his armies took it, and I don't think we had enough military power to take it back from them.

They (Roosevelt and Churchill) also still had that little scrap going on in the Pacific, which Stalin had sat out.

Roosevelt, let alone Truman, could not have gotten political support from anyone in either party for continuing or resuming a war against the Soviet Union. Hell's bells, even Mr. Republican himself (Taft) was opposed to most of the efforts Truman undertook in the early days of the "Cold War."
PD, Michael meant Czechoslovakia and Chamberlain's pronouncement to the British Parliament:
"I brought you Peace" after he assured Hitler that he can take it.

He is busy researching Soviet pilots in Korea and got confused a bit with Chamberlain due to the preasure I put on him
:)

[Nickatilynx]

Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 31 2005, 10:18 AM
I Love it when Serge gets inspired....

This is making for a great day... :okthumb:
you betcha,
today is my
"go get 'em all" day
;)

http://www.winetalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1300

P.S. Michael and me have a pent up demand,
even before we have left for Spain, we signed the Boca Accord-
no political discussions on the trip!
;)

[Rolo]

The iraq war was stupid - it could have been solved by a simple headshot at Saddam :snipe: :papow: however somehow politicians and dictators have ruled good old assassinations out off modern warfare (probably because they know they would be next ;-)))

But since we couldn´t just kill Saddam and his close associates, then we had to invade... was it justifiable? Thinking on how much damage Saddam had done, then YES it was justifiable! - thinking on the 1000s of dead iraqies and western, then no it was not justifiable... bottomline I think assassinations could solve alot of problems in this world :ph34r:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Rolo@May 31 2005, 10:47 AM
bottomline I think assassinations could solve alot of problems in this world :ph34r:
fallacy...they NEVER solved anything...ever.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 08:00 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 08:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rolo@May 31 2005, 10:47 AM
bottomline I think assassinations could solve alot of problems in this world :ph34r:
fallacy...they NEVER solved anything...ever. [/b][/quote]
They solve isolated problems - ex. Saddam dead, then we got a new situation with another possible solution... However you are right, that in the end all solutions only leads to new problems - this is the curse or gift of mankind :unsure:

[Mike AI]

Nick - laws are created by men, to be re-inturperted by other men, and then broken when convinient. Why isn't Tony Blair in jail with Saddam?

Serge, I was talking about Poland - that is when England declared war on Germany. Of course the Germans assumed the British would back down just like they did with Czechoslovakia.

PD you have points, they were in a tough posistion - I just found it ironic what started the war, did not get solved until the lates 1980s. Though the US did have a monopoly on nuclear weapons at the time, so defeating the Russians - at least booting them out of Eastern Europe was feasable.

Funny how group think is starting to effect Oprano.... even on politics.

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM

Serge, I was talking about Poland - that is when England declared war on Germany. Of course the Germans assumed the British would back down just like they did with Czechoslovakia.


assumed...Britan GAVE Czeckoslovakia away, assuring Hitler that they will do nothing.

Do you have any evidence giving the credibility to your asumption about German assumption?

I say Germany was looking forward to the war with England, and got when they wanted when they atacked Poland.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:
Me boring? Your have a lot to learn from Tom G from Winetalk.
He arguments his points better, more presize, executes better, has better oratorial skills, avoids using labels on his opponents. We learn somethinjg from each other and I am looking forward to the day I can learn something from you
:)

As for me changing my views of the world...sorry, I don't watch the same TV station, my mind is not influenced by "ANALysts" from neither left nor the right, neither in politics, nor the stock market and PERSONAL expereince is a good foundation for the views...beats FOX "ANALysts", CBC "ANALysts" ...being a "doer" since the age of 15 rather than "watcher" gives one more credible ammunition in life.

:nyanya:

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 02:04 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 02:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:
Me boring? Your have a lot to learn from Tom G from Winetalk.
He arguments his points better, more presize, executes better, has better oratorial skills, avoids using labels on his opponents. We learn somethinjg from each other and I am looking forward to the day I can learn something from you
:)

As for me changing my views of the world...sorry, I don't watch the same TV station, my mind is not influenced by "ANALysts" from neither left nor the right, neither in politics, nor the stock market and PERSONAL expereince is a good foundation for the views...beats FOX "ANALysts", CBC "ANALysts" ...being a "doer" since the age of 15 rather than "watcher" gives one more credible ammunition in life.

:nyanya: [/b][/quote]


Serge - I understand you are a doer.... I am but a mere lazy, ignorant, uneducated, barely successful cad, who cannot live up to his father's debating skills. Gosh I guess anytime my bubble will bust, and I will be forced to live on my parents porch again....



:lol:


One day Serge, I hope to be as big of a DOER as YOU think YOU are! Imagine what I could accomplish if I actually applied myself??

[PornoDoggy]

The estimates of the number of Americans who would die were an invasion of the Japanese home islands were more than a million. The numbers resulting from an offensive against the Soviets would have dwarfed that, even given the advantage presented by nuclear weapons.

There are more than enough ironies surrounding World War II to go around. If the Japanese had invaded Russia when or shortly after Hitler did, the whole war would have been different. If the Japanese had gone after American shipping destined for Russia before or after Pearl Harbor, some of the offensives launched by Russia would have been delayed.

If the Isolationists (the niave who believed that we could avoid the war, the cynical Nazi/Facist sympathizers of America First and other organizations, traitors like Lindbergh) had not prevented Roosevelt from preparing for the inevitable, the United States might have been an effective player in the war before 1943.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 02:40 PM
One day Serge, I hope to be as big of a DOER as YOU think YOU are! Imagine what I could accomplish if I actually applied myself??
if you applied yourself,
you'd stop being a faithful Fox TV viewr and become an INDEPENDENT thinker,
isn't it obvious!?

..and I doubt you'd be able to achive what I have achieved...I brought USSR to the end,
short 6 years after I left it just collapsed, couldn't do it without me
:)

Beat that, Michael
:)

[PornoDoggy]

What is the difference between a boring, typical liberal and a boring, typical conservative?

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@May 31 2005, 02:56 PM
What is the difference between a boring, typical liberal and a boring, typical conservative?
I'd venture to say that the boring Liberal repeats everything he/she have heard in the Liberal Media,
boring Conservative repeats everything he/she have heard in Conservative Media.

I enjoy debates with Michaels' father, they are more based on personal experiences than on "they said, I'll repeat"...which pisses Michael off
:)

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 02:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 02:40 PM
One day Serge, I hope to be as big of a DOER as YOU think YOU are! Imagine what I could accomplish if I actually applied myself??
if you applied yourself,
you'd stop being a faithful Fox TV viewr and become an INDEPENDENT thinker,
isn't it obvious!?

..and I doubt you'd be able to achive what I have achieved...I brought USSR to the end,
short 6 years after I left it just collapsed, couldn't do it without me
:)

Beat that, Michael
:) [/b][/quote]


Serge, your assumptions are pretty damn amusing with my TV habits. Maybe the Neilsons have been spending way to much time tracing peoples viewing habits, they should just call "Know it all Serge".

Take your time and read this - it was on Fox, according to your ignorant rants above, this type of analysis would never be on Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157960,00.html

Serge, I figured by now you know what ASSUMING gets you.

I am sure you are comfortable knowing that PD, JoeSho, both Nicks, agree with you 100%.... I am comfortable with them dissagreeing with me 100%.

[leedsfan]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 06:56 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 06:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather.
Reagan?

You mean the guy who was diagnosed as senile during the last 9mths of his Presidency? [/b][/quote]
i thought he was senile since that show with the monkey. or was that his presidency and his wife they meant.

[leedsfan]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
El Pres - the point that no major war has been fought on US soil in 20th Century certainly has a bearing on our use of military overseas. However, without the attacks in 9-11 we would not have had such a juicy excuse to go into Iraq.


Leeds you make some interesting points, however I think you do not understand the media in the US. The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.

Only Murdoch was pro-war.
i lived the in the US for a few years. I have a good understanding of it. If you think the media is liberal bised, that means you start your political spectrum somewhere to the right of reagan.

why has there been no truth on 9-11 yet, with the air force stand down....what the fuck is that about? 9-11 widows trying to find the truth about why their husband are dead...being shut down by congress. Don't you wonder why, or is it easy to be blinkered.....if you prefer blinkers I have a saddle and can run you in the 2.20 at newmarket.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by leedsfan+May 31 2005, 03:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leedsfan @ May 31 2005, 03:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
El Pres - the point that no major war has been fought on US soil in 20th Century certainly has a bearing on our use of military overseas. However, without the attacks in 9-11 we would not have had such a juicy excuse to go into Iraq.


Leeds you make some interesting points, however I think you do not understand the media in the US. The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.

Only Murdoch was pro-war.
i lived the in the US for a few years. I have a good understanding of it. If you think the media is liberal bised, that means you start your political spectrum somewhere to the right of reagan.

why has there been no truth on 9-11 yet, with the air force stand down....what the fuck is that about? 9-11 widows trying to find the truth about why their husband are dead...being shut down by congress. Don't you wonder why, or is it easy to be blinkered.....if you prefer blinkers I have a saddle and can run you in the 2.20 at newmarket. [/b][/quote]


Oh I am sorry, you are one of the tin foil 9-11 conspiracy guys.

So who did it? Was it Bush family with Halliburton and tripartite council?

Was it Israel/Jewish plot?

Please tell us....

I am sure Serge Knows as well. Heck he might even be part of the plot!

:yowsa:

I will refrain from political discussions on Oprano, now that I know it has turned into GFY.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 03:41 PM



Serge, your assumptions are pretty damn amusing with my TV habits. Maybe the Neilsons have been spending way to much time tracing peoples viewing habits, they should just call "Know it all Serge".

Take your time and read this - it was on Fox, according to your ignorant rants above, this type of analysis would never be on Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157960,00.html

Serge, I figured by now you know what ASSUMING gets you.

I am sure you are comfortable knowing that PD, JoeSho, both Nicks, agree with you 100%.... I am comfortable with them dissagreeing with me 100%.
once again,
you are trying to express your "own opinion" thru the "ANALysts"...why don't you use your own words? You can do it!?

as for others agreeing or disagreeing with me,
being an Independent Thinker,
I am not looking for consensus, even though, I have to take heart being a "Uniter" and not "Devider" of people....
please being olive branch to put on my head stone to remember me by...
;)

(if it's made out of gold, I suggest you insure it first)
;)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 03:59 PM


I will refrain from political discussions on Oprano, now that I know it has turned into GFY.
Oprano has turned into GFY????

I think we sold it way too cheap than! I told you:
Let's have a call option on the sale!!!! we'd be soaking in cash now
;)

TomG haven't walked out from Winetalk in protest and his Conservative Voice is a bit lonely at times...."uts" should learn "staying power" from the "old guards"...and it ain't making us blind!
;)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 05:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 05:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors" [/b][/quote]
wasnt that stalingrad?:)

[Peaches]

Here's my question: Did Michael and Serge debate politics in Italy or did the wine and food mellow them both out? :D

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
El Pres - the point that no major war has been fought on US soil in 20th Century certainly has a bearing on our use of military overseas. However, without the attacks in 9-11 we would not have had such a juicy excuse to go into Iraq.


Leeds you make some interesting points, however I think you do not understand the media in the US. The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.

Only Murdoch was pro-war.
and it shows in his programming as much as CNN shows in its anti-war

although i dont think any news organization is "anti-war" it gives them hours and hours of programming and coverage and much more advertising dollars.:)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 06:22 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 06:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 08:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors"


One must put this in perspective. How many mass horrors did Stalin bring on his own people? (before, during and after WWII ) What about the countries that fell into the USSR's zone of influence after WWII?

Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler did. [/b][/quote]
thats a hell of a way to talk about our allies, our brethren;)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 06:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 06:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 08:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors"


One must put this in perspective. How many mass horrors did Stalin bring on his own people? (before, during and after WWII ) What about the countries that fell into the USSR's zone of influence after WWII?

Stalin killed more Russians then Hitler did.
very good retort in the style of Fox TV I had the misfortune to watch in Granada, Spain....
Instead of answering the opponent legitimate questions, Fox TV and you Michael, redirect the issue. Won't work on me, I've seen better execution by Communist Party propaganda machine and their typical MO was ABSOLUTELLY the same-
"It's not bad in USSR, because the exploited masses of capitalist countries suffer more and more exploited by their capitalist masters"


Have more ammo up your sleeve, something I haven't seen before on Fox or Communism? Surprise me, ambush me with NEW debate tactics and I'll capitulate...beaten to the pulp. [/b][/quote]
But serge.. Communism and Right wing propoganda are all there is;) anyone who reads or thinks outside of that box of thinking is... a communist, or at very least a socialist, and does not know anything about history, and is bad for our country, etc, etc, etc, etc ;) ;)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 06:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 06:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat? [/b][/quote]
i am anti bush because he has no idea what he is doing domestically.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 06:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 06:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather. [/b][/quote]
dan rather is far from mainstream, he also doesnt have a job;)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 01:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 06:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?
i am anti bush because he has no idea what he is doing domestically. [/b][/quote]
Domestically he is a total fuck up.

Internationally he is dangerous.

Could you Americans try and keep him focused on domestic matters for the next 3 yrs?

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 01:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 01:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 06:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?
i am anti bush because he has no idea what he is doing domestically. [/b][/quote]
Oh, but Grimm, how can you say that, when he's solved the social security crisis, eliminated the deficit through taxcuts, and gotten rid of some of that pesky en-vi-ro-men-tal red tape that's holding us all back from being the best that we can be!

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 07:00 AM
Serge, in referance to your anti-USSR activities that are documented. That is interesting.

Could it be that this is just a ruse, and it was just planted by the KGB to make you appear to be a strient anti-Communist?

The KGB, and USSR were pretty sneaky - heck Putin has the world thinking he is not a communist!!

With your latest arguements, I think the "evidence" could be manufactured. Just like the evidence from Google on the soviet pilots who flew against Americans in Korea.
For the record, i have heard it from your mouth that Joe McCarthy was "a great man." not the self serving power hungry man with an agenda that plunged America into an unneccessary furvor over "reds". THE COMMIES ARE IN THE BUSHES, HIDE, TURN IN YOUR FRIENDS!

Pro integration? you are a communist, a hollywood screenwriter, a teacher, a free thinker, PINKO!


;)

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 09:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?


Wow, what keen thinking - that thought never came to my mind.

The same group did the same with Reagan too.

The mainstream media is never wrong. Ask Dan Rather.
Reagan?

You mean the guy who was diagnosed as senile during the last 9mths of his Presidency?

That is him - remember his funeral last year?

:lol: [/b][/quote]
what does his funeral have to do with anything?

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 07:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 07:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 31 2005, 10:18 AM
I Love it when Serge gets inspired....

This is making for a great day... :okthumb:
you betcha,
today is my
"go get 'em all" day
;)

http://www.winetalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1300

P.S. Michael and me have a pent up demand,
even before we have left for Spain, we signed the Boca Accord-
no political discussions on the trip!
;) [/b][/quote]
serge, between you two, i was worried how that flight would make it:) i sent michael a package lol:)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 01:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 01:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light. [/b][/quote]
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 01:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 01:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 06:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?
i am anti bush because he has no idea what he is doing domestically.
Domestically he is a total fuck up.

Internationally he is dangerous.

Could you Americans try and keep him focused on domestic matters for the next 3 yrs? [/b][/quote]
I dont think he is dangerous internationally. quite contrary, i think countries like canada and france are more dangerous in their refusal to nip problems in the bud. they have such a wonderful track record of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping that everything will be alright. at least britain understands how instability can lead to terrible things, and they are a hell of a lot closer to the region.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 01:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever [/b][/quote]
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 01:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 06:33 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.


Could it be they are anti him because he is a twat?
i am anti bush because he has no idea what he is doing domestically.
Domestically he is a total fuck up.

Internationally he is dangerous.

Could you Americans try and keep him focused on domestic matters for the next 3 yrs?
I dont think he is dangerous internationally. quite contrary, i think countries like canada and france are more dangerous in their refusal to nip problems in the bud. they have such a wonderful track record of hiding their heads in the sand and hoping that everything will be alright. at least britain understands how instability can lead to terrible things, and they are a hell of a lot closer to the region. [/b][/quote]
Hiding there head in the sand?

Course they fucking do!!!!

The leading cause of death in the last 20 yrs to Canadian Service men are American Service off there faces on amphetimines men bombing them !!!





(mmmmm , amphetimines)

;-))

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 04:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 04:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 05:25 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-el pres@May 31 2005, 08:09 AM
There has not been any modern warfare fought on US soil, could that be a reason that the people cant really understand the true horror of civilian casualties?


very keen observation...the year was 1980, I just came to USA and was talking to an older female collegue about the USSR, The Second World War, about the blockade of Leningrad by Germans when 3/4 of the city population have died from starvation...she interrupted me with:
Yes, I remember those war days in USA, it was real difficult times,
I couldn't even get my husband a white shirt for Xmass!"

THAT was her definition of "war horrors"
wasnt that stalingrad?:) [/b][/quote]
no

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 01:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 01:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all. [/b][/quote]
75% of your Army had the following career choices....

Unemployment
Crime
Forces.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Peaches@May 31 2005, 04:29 PM
Here's my question: Did Michael and Serge debate politics in Italy or did the wine and food mellow them both out? :D
1) we haven't been to Italy, we were in Spain
2) we haven't talked politics, period, we signed the pact just before we have left.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI@May 31 2005, 10:45 AM
Nick - laws are created by men, to be re-inturperted by other men, and then broken when convinient. Why isn't Tony Blair in jail with Saddam?

Serge, I was talking about Poland - that is when England declared war on Germany. Of course the Germans assumed the British would back down just like they did with Czechoslovakia.

PD you have points, they were in a tough posistion - I just found it ironic what started the war, did not get solved until the lates 1980s. Though the US did have a monopoly on nuclear weapons at the time, so defeating the Russians - at least booting them out of Eastern Europe was feasable.

Funny how group think is starting to effect Oprano.... even on politics.

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:
be fair, conservatives drink the kool aid and read off the same cue cards as every other conservative, just like the liberal side does. both sides are droids. to be a truly independant thinker you have to shut off the tv, no matter what your views are.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 01:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 01:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all.
75% of your Army had the following career choices....

Unemployment
Crime
Forces. [/b][/quote]
and yours?

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 05:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 05:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Peaches@May 31 2005, 04:29 PM
Here's my question: Did Michael and Serge debate politics in Italy or did the wine and food mellow them both out? :D
1) we haven't been to Italy, we were in Spain
2) we haven't talked politics, period, we signed the pact just before we have left. [/b][/quote]
My brain is fried these days - I'm amazed I remembered you had gone on a trip together :awinky:

Good idea about the pact :)

[JoesHO]

I must ad that it is not actually the army fighting it is the reserves, in most cases, and they are refusing to let them out after their term is served as well.

also they are even calling up old reserves and making them go back. so the all volunteer part is a little misleading.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com+May 31 2005, 11:04 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winetalk.com @ May 31 2005, 11:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:
Me boring? Your have a lot to learn from Tom G from Winetalk.
He arguments his points better, more presize, executes better, has better oratorial skills, avoids using labels on his opponents. We learn somethinjg from each other and I am looking forward to the day I can learn something from you
:)

As for me changing my views of the world...sorry, I don't watch the same TV station, my mind is not influenced by "ANALysts" from neither left nor the right, neither in politics, nor the stock market and PERSONAL expereince is a good foundation for the views...beats FOX "ANALysts", CBC "ANALysts" ...being a "doer" since the age of 15 rather than "watcher" gives one more credible ammunition in life.

:nyanya: [/b][/quote]
Tom G. is experienced, experience trumps hearsay anyday, why i dont argue with Tom G.:)

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 04:34 PM

But serge.. Communism and Right wing propoganda are all there is;) anyone who reads or thinks outside of that box of thinking is... a communist, or at very least a socialist, and does not know anything about history, and is bad for our country, etc, etc, etc, etc ;) ;)
read Tom Michael's father, http://winetalk.com, in Watering Hole, he has finesse and doesn't have labels! I learn a lot from him....you should too, he lives much closer to you!

[Peaches]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 31 2005, 05:56 PM
I must ad that it is not actually the army fighting it is the reserves, in most cases, and they are refusing to let them out after their term is served as well.

also they are even calling up old reserves and making them go back. so the all volunteer part is a little misleading.
No, they are calling them back and keeping them in accordance with the contract the reserve members signed.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 11:40 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 02:04 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:
Me boring? Your have a lot to learn from Tom G from Winetalk.
He arguments his points better, more presize, executes better, has better oratorial skills, avoids using labels on his opponents. We learn somethinjg from each other and I am looking forward to the day I can learn something from you
:)

As for me changing my views of the world...sorry, I don't watch the same TV station, my mind is not influenced by "ANALysts" from neither left nor the right, neither in politics, nor the stock market and PERSONAL expereince is a good foundation for the views...beats FOX "ANALysts", CBC "ANALysts" ...being a "doer" since the age of 15 rather than "watcher" gives one more credible ammunition in life.

:nyanya:


Serge - I understand you are a doer.... I am but a mere lazy, ignorant, uneducated, barely successful cad, who cannot live up to his father's debating skills. Gosh I guess anytime my bubble will bust, and I will be forced to live on my parents porch again....



:lol:


One day Serge, I hope to be as big of a DOER as YOU think YOU are! Imagine what I could accomplish if I actually applied myself?? [/b][/quote]
the thought excites and scares me at the same time bro:)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 01:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 01:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all.
75% of your Army had the following career choices....

Unemployment
Crime
Forces.
and yours? [/b][/quote]
I'll have you know both of them are college educated!!!

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 07:23 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 31 2005, 10:18 AM
I Love it when Serge gets inspired....

This is making for a great day... :okthumb:
you betcha,
today is my
"go get 'em all" day
;)

http://www.winetalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1300

P.S. Michael and me have a pent up demand,
even before we have left for Spain, we signed the Boca Accord-
no political discussions on the trip!
;)
serge, between you two, i was worried how that flight would make it:) i sent michael a package lol:) [/b][/quote]
I'd travel with Michael and katie any time!
"Opposites attract"
;)

[Peaches]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 05:57 PM
I'll have you know both of them are college educated!!!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 04:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 11:04 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM

Serge, I remember when you used to actually be Conservative.... now you are becoming another boring, typical liberal. It is ok, I know you will come back to right thinking. You change posistions every few years.... that is the one thing you are consistent on!

:okthumb:
Me boring? Your have a lot to learn from Tom G from Winetalk.
He arguments his points better, more presize, executes better, has better oratorial skills, avoids using labels on his opponents. We learn somethinjg from each other and I am looking forward to the day I can learn something from you
:)

As for me changing my views of the world...sorry, I don't watch the same TV station, my mind is not influenced by "ANALysts" from neither left nor the right, neither in politics, nor the stock market and PERSONAL expereince is a good foundation for the views...beats FOX "ANALysts", CBC "ANALysts" ...being a "doer" since the age of 15 rather than "watcher" gives one more credible ammunition in life.

:nyanya:
Tom G. is experienced, experience trumps hearsay anyday, why i dont argue with Tom G.:) [/b][/quote]
I do...and learn thru EXCHANGE of opinions.

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 01:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 01:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all.
75% of your Army had the following career choices....

Unemployment
Crime
Forces.
and yours?
I'll have you know both of them are college educated!!! [/b][/quote]
so they can tell a moose from a deer, right?:)

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all.
75% of your Army had the following career choices....

Unemployment
Crime
Forces.
and yours?
I'll have you know both of them are college educated!!!
so they can tell a moose from a deer, right?:) [/b][/quote]
It means they can tell how many beers are in a 2-4.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 02:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 01:45 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 07:22 AM
Sorry , allow me to return to topic.

Some facts.... (I know how MikeAI hates them )

UK Attorney General , Lord Goldsmith ,Advises Blair of the possible illegality of invading Iraq.

"""36. Finally, I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality. Any force used pursuant to the authorisation in resolution 678 (whether or not there is a second resolution):


must have as its objective the enforcement the terms of the cease-fire contained in resolution 687 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions;
be limited to what is necessary to achieve that objective; and
must be a proportionate response to that objective, ie securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations.
That is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign.

(signed) ATTORNEY GENERAL 7 March 2003 """"


In hindsight the US/UK conducted the invasion in a manner in which in the opinion of the British Attorney General was illegal.
again, nick, the point being? its not as if Americans don't know these things. But that is no reason to pull out of what has become a successful endeavor, no matter how it started. making arguments against the current campaign based on its original merits is the same thing as arguing that we should stop in the intersection because we ran a stop light.
No it fucking isn't.

Unless you arte on a loop running the stop signs!!!!

More soldiers will be killed today.

And what for?


Dear Mrs ___ ,

Your son died today for no fucking reason whatsoever
hate to break it to you nick, but we have an all volunteer army. every soldier knows the risk and still signs up, even today. it is bad losing soldiers in war, but that is what happens in war. It happens all the time in peace as well. in fact, more soldiers die of late in peace than in war.

stopping a working endeavor because knowing and responsible lives my be lost is not a good argument. sure it tugs your heartstrings, but it makes no sense at all.
75% of your Army had the following career choices....

Unemployment
Crime
Forces.
and yours?
I'll have you know both of them are college educated!!!
so they can tell a moose from a deer, right?:) [/b][/quote]


Good question , so

I phoned them..

one was a Philosopy major and said "the important thing is that both the moose and the deer are self-aware"

The other was an Engineer and couldn't talk because he was busy cleaning the Jeep.

:)

[Nickatilynx]

Now can we get back on topic , which I believe , dementia taking a back seat , was

"MikeAI is a nazi bastard , who masterbates to pictures of George Bush"

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 02:20 PM
Now can we get back on topic , which I believe , dementia taking a back seat , was

"MikeAI is a nazi bastard , who masterbates to pictures of George Bush"
Technically Mike is hardly a Nazi, Nazis are socialists and anti-religion. Mike is Anti-Nazi:)

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 02:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 02:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 02:20 PM
Now can we get back on topic , which I believe , dementia taking a back seat , was

"MikeAI is a nazi bastard , who masterbates to pictures of George Bush"
Technically Mike is hardly a Nazi, Nazis are socialists and anti-religion. Mike is Anti-Nazi:) [/b][/quote]
Valid point.

But we are agreed , that he is a bastard and masterbates to pictures of George Bush?

[Winetalk.com]

but is it JUSTYFIABLE????
;0))))

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by JoesHO1@May 31 2005, 04:56 PM
I must ad that it is not actually the army fighting it is the reserves, in most cases, and they are refusing to let them out after their term is served as well.

also they are even calling up old reserves and making them go back. so the all volunteer part is a little misleading.
Uhhh ... no. Not only no, but hell, no.

The reserves are members of the Armed Forces. Like any other member of the Armed Forces, they are subject to having their enlistments (contractual obligation, in the case of khaki-clad cocksuckers, er, officers) extended in times of emergency.

Reserve obligations don't always involve drills. If you enlist or accept a commission in any of the services for a four-year hitch, the contract you sign is for six years. If you retire from the military, you are automatically in the reserves until 55 (I think).

They are as much volunteers as anyone else. The Reserves of George W. Bush, where you could count on not being sent to war and not bother to show up if it inconvenienced you, have been gone since the mid-70s.

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by Winetalk.com@May 31 2005, 02:25 PM
but is it JUSTYFIABLE????
;0))))
To masterbate to pictures of George Bush???

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy+May 31 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PornoDoggy @ May 31 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JoesHO1@May 31 2005, 04:56 PM
I must ad that it is not actually the army fighting it is the reserves, in most cases, and they are refusing to let them out after their term is served as well.

also they are even calling up old reserves and making them go back. so the all volunteer part is a little misleading.
Uhhh ... no. Not only no, but hell, no.

The reserves are members of the Armed Forces. Like any other member of the Armed Forces, they are subject to having their enlistments (contractual obligation, in the case of khaki-clad cocksuckers, er, officers) extended in times of emergency.

Reserve obligations don't always involve drills. If you enlist or accept a commission in any of the services for a four-year hitch, the contract you sign is for six years. If you retire from the military, you are automatically in the reserves until 55 (I think).

They are as much volunteers as anyone else. The Reserves of George W. Bush, where you could count on not being sent to war and not bother to show up if it inconvenienced you, have been gone since the mid-70s. [/b][/quote]
So have you been called up?

Or are you excused on the grounds of being "really annoying"?

;-)))

[PornoDoggy]

Uh ... the "Socialists" in the Natinal Socialst Party all got killed off in 1933.

Nazi is to socialist as Fox News is to truth.

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 05:27 PM
So have you been called up?

Or are you excused on the grounds of being "really annoying"?

;-)))
I did ten years, and my discharge date was 10JUN83.

Could be "really annoying", could be "older'n dirt."

[grimm]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx+May 31 2005, 02:25 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Nickatilynx @ May 31 2005, 02:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 02:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 02:20 PM
Now can we get back on topic , which I believe , dementia taking a back seat , was

"MikeAI is a nazi bastard , who masterbates to pictures of George Bush"
Technically Mike is hardly a Nazi, Nazis are socialists and anti-religion. Mike is Anti-Nazi:)
Valid point.

But we are agreed , that he is a bastard and masterbates to pictures of George Bush? [/b][/quote]
being his partner and good friend, i exclude myself from arguing his masturbatory preferences:)

[Trev]

Originally posted by grimm+May 31 2005, 11:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (grimm @ May 31 2005, 11:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by grimm@May 31 2005, 02:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Nickatilynx@May 31 2005, 02:20 PM
Now can we get back on topic , which I believe , dementia taking a back seat , was

"MikeAI is a nazi bastard , who masterbates to pictures of George Bush"
Technically Mike is hardly a Nazi, Nazis are socialists and anti-religion. Mike is Anti-Nazi:)
Valid point.

But we are agreed , that he is a bastard and masterbates to pictures of George Bush?
being his partner and good friend, i exclude myself from arguing his masturbatory preferences:) [/b][/quote]
So you do know them :blink:

[leedsfan]

Originally posted by Mike AI+May 31 2005, 12:59 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mike AI @ May 31 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by leedsfan@May 31 2005, 03:56 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mike AI@May 31 2005, 06:19 AM
El Pres - the point that no major war has been fought on US soil in 20th Century certainly has a bearing on our use of military overseas. However, without the attacks in 9-11 we would not have had such a juicy excuse to go into Iraq.


Leeds you make some interesting points, however I think you do not understand the media in the US. The overwhelming mainstream media is very liberal, anti-war, and VERY anti-Bush. This included their corporate masters as well.

Only Murdoch was pro-war.
i lived the in the US for a few years. I have a good understanding of it. If you think the media is liberal bised, that means you start your political spectrum somewhere to the right of reagan.

why has there been no truth on 9-11 yet, with the air force stand down....what the fuck is that about? 9-11 widows trying to find the truth about why their husband are dead...being shut down by congress. Don't you wonder why, or is it easy to be blinkered.....if you prefer blinkers I have a saddle and can run you in the 2.20 at newmarket.


Oh I am sorry, you are one of the tin foil 9-11 conspiracy guys.

So who did it? Was it Bush family with Halliburton and tripartite council?

Was it Israel/Jewish plot?

Please tell us....

I am sure Serge Knows as well. Heck he might even be part of the plot!

:yowsa:

I will refrain from political discussions on Oprano, now that I know it has turned into GFY. [/b][/quote]
you mean like the tin foil conspiracy to go to war on no evidence of any weapons of mass distraction?, err destruction.

that kind of tin foil conspiracy?


and if you tell me its because saddam was a dictator, then why did reagan and rumsfeld give him all those weapons in the first place?????

[Trev]

"Super Gun" keeps rolling through my mind for some reason.

[Vick]

WARNING - Reality Check


Say what you'd like about Bush

He must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch in the world

He's the leader of the most powerful nation in the known history of the world

and here we are pissing in the wind on an adult webhamster chatboard
We must be smarter than Bush


Yeah I know his Daddy bought it for him. Since we are all smarter than that dumb son-of-a-bitch it must be because we didn't want to work that hard or have that job that we didn't put effort into having our Daddy buy that position for us

Yeah he was the selected President - see above


ah ha ha ha ha

[Inabon]

:blink: this fucking thread is still alive???

what the fuck :yowsa:

[ThrobX]

Originally posted by Inabon@May 31 2005, 05:29 PM
:blink: this fucking thread is still alive???

what the fuck :yowsa:
More alive than... wait, how many dead in Iraq? Be sure to include Iraqis in that. And Brits. And others from the "coalition of the willing."

Ever wonder why you don't hear injury stats? Because they're bad. Real bad.

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Vick@May 31 2005, 07:52 PM
WARNING - Reality Check


Say what you'd like about Bush

He must be the dumbest son-of-a-bitch in the world

He's the leader of the most powerful nation in the known history of the world

and here we are pissing in the wind on an adult webhamster chatboard
We must be smarter than Bush


Yeah I know his Daddy bought it for him. Since we are all smarter than that dumb son-of-a-bitch it must be because we didn't want to work that hard or have that job that we didn't put effort into having our Daddy buy that position for us

Yeah he was the selected President - see above


ah ha ha ha ha
yes, he was just mislead by bad-bad CIA.....

[Winetalk.com]

Originally posted by Inabon@May 31 2005, 08:29 PM
:blink: this fucking thread is still alive???

what the fuck :yowsa:
I won't let it die, I like it way too much
;)

[grimm]

yeah this is way too much fun

[Trev]

Is it over... is it safe to come out yet?

[Nickatilynx]

Is this the thread you were referring to Trev?

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=18918

[Trev]

Originally posted by Nickatilynx@Jun 10 2005, 12:29 AM
Is this the thread you were referring to Trev?

http://www.oprano.com/msgboard/index.php?showtopic=18918
Yes, this would be it.