If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
Recently heard a CNN talking head saying that the french and any other non committal (I am a canadian by the way) country will be on board when it matters.
The question was "why drag their feet"
the answer was "because they have to live much closer to iraq and do other business dealings/tradings then just oil" they do not want to be seen as part of the big bad pack of wolves.
Now there is something to this. Example. If Canada pissed off some country would the USA just automatically line up their weapons without being fully convinced? (go ahead and make canada jokes if you need to get that out of your system LMFO) No they would stand back and hope that Canada and whomever could work it out... at the last minute they would try to help protect land that is so close to them... not cause they love us... but because they have too.
Maybe some of what the french are thinking has to do with the usa taking over europe? just a thought.
On a separate note... I loved the USA's offer of a "safe haven" for Saddam and the promise to escort him there LOL "Come here little saddie... we can show you the way....."
The French make very good wine and food, I specially the fries. Maybe they should stick to what they know and stay the F*UCK out of world politics since they really don't matter. France is a world power like Kenny G makes music or OJ was framed.
Going down on a woman is unmasculine. So is the hesitation to plunge headlong into a war where people will get killed.
So, if a Gulf War veteran suffering amputation or gulf war syndrome doesn't believe the US should invade Iraq, does that make him a pussy? What if he has no feeling below his waist and can only have sex orally??
And France has somehow forgotten World war 2. Even though they can't plough up a field without worrying about disturbing graves. And their hesitation to see it happen again makes them wimps.
But the US government has a better memory than France and remembers Vietnam and has learned its lessons.
Guys, would you care to discuss your REAL reasons for supporting a war against Iraq?
Or is it just a "mine is bigger than yours" thing?
Damn, imagine how much money could be saved if George W. just went and visited a penis enlargement site?
I'm from Australia. Our PM has committed our troops to fight whether the UN agrees or not. Australia is supposed to be insignificant like you think France is. I wish we would "stay the fuck out of world politics".
Actually, I want us to get back to Asian politics especially since Al Queda is rampant in Indonesia and Malaysia, and JI wants to invade the top half of our country.
Now before you say it, let me rattle off the standard responses:
1. No, this doesn't mean I support Saddam Hussein.
2. I want a stronger UN that can better deal with human rights abuses and dictators in ALL nations.
3. No, I don't hate America, although stuff like this makes it kinda hard to keep feeling the love.
By the way I run a site called Pure Cunnilingus. A man's tongue on a woman's clit is a beautiful thing
Originally posted by grandmascrotum@Feb 4 2003, 10:08 PM By the way I run a site called Pure Cunnilingus. A man's tongue on a woman's clit is a beautiful thing
grandmascrotum,
"Going down on a woman is unmasculine."
How did that relate?
"So, if a Gulf War veteran suffering amputation or gulf war syndrome doesn't believe the US should invade Iraq, does that make him a pussy? What if he has no feeling below his waist and can only have sex orally??"
He should be thinking in terms of 'getting even'...
I don't consider Australia irrelavant; but the UN has shown that it is by not enforcing its' own resolutions or the treaty that Hussein signed to save his ass after the last war.
I was in the Navy as part of the Intelligence community (not a bigwig, just a gopher) for 8 years (could tell you what I did, but then I would have to shoot you) from 1974 through 1982...
During that time, our threat assessment of the most dangerous countries out there was the Soviet Union as Number 1 and France as Number 2...
The Soviet Union is gone, so I assume that France is now the number 1 country that we keep tabs on...
Back then, the reasoning given to me was France was number 2 because; They had Nukes and you never knew who's side they were going to align with....
Later, after I got out of the Nav and was working in the civilian world, an accountant friend told me that France's hatred for the U.S. was because at the end of WWII in Europe, Eisenhower was supposed to wait and allow DeGaulle to enter Paris first, therefore being the hero... Eisenhower did not wait and entered Paris first, therefore becoming the liberator of Paris and leaving DeGaulle looking like a pissant... And it has been held against the U.S. since....
Personally, I don't know if that was true or not... I myself take France's "on again off again" relationship with us back to the revolutionary war... We probably would not have won the war without the help from Lafayette and the French, and they fully expected to be cut in on the goodies at the end of the war.. But, the U.S. effectively cut them out of the negotiations with the British and they ended up with Squat........
France urged the UN Security Council
yesterday to move slowly in going
to war with Iraq. When pressed for
reasons, the French U.N. representative
admitted that their army had misplaced
its collection of white flags and
were hesitant to go to war if their
soldiers were not properly equipped!
__________________
Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!
The cunnilingus comment was due to this thread being called:
"Are the French pussies - (well, you are what you eat)."
So, whose dick is smallest - Saddam's or George's? They're both keen on big weapons... big pointy, explosive, long, weapons. Perhaps Saddam's dick is smaller because he doesn't want his to be inspected
I think that Jacques Chirac actually has a big dick... but not as big as NELSON MANDELA'S!!!!!!
Anyway.. even though this thread is more along the lines of "kick the Frenchies" rather than a serious political debate, I want to ask the most important question of all:
I do not think the impending war will hurt out business much.... we face many more problems, most that are caused by US as an industry.
Of course this is assuming that the war will end quickly, and would be very similiar to the past war with Iraq. Which of course I personally feel it will be.
Of course there could be some attacks on the net which would slow things down, or some terrorist attacks here on US soil. ( there were some attempts the last time we fought Iraq, we were fortunate to catch the sleeper agents).
Many things can go wrong, and I think the President and his staff are working on all contingencies.... but worse things would happen long term if we back down, and appease Iraq.
__________________
Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!
Look, I have to say I think making war on Iraq will only make things worse on the terrorism front.
It will simply piss off more Arabs, and fundamentalist Islam and Al Queda will welcome them with open arms. It will create an awful lot of refugees who may think they have no option left but to become suicide bombers.
It doesn't address the issue of Saudi Arabia, and these are the guys giving all the money and weapons to the terrorists. Osama is Saudi, as were most of the Sept 11 hijackers.
It means not enough time is being spent persuading Asian nations like Indonesia and Malaysia to crack down on terrorists in those countries.
It doesn't help to solve the Israel Palestine issue, which seems to be at the heart of a lot of terrorism.
So at this point, I don't see a very bright future for the world.
In terms of the adult industry... will it mean that people are more frightened to go out and spend more time in front of the PC? Maybe. Will tension result in a loss of consumer confidence... i.e. will they start to hoard their money? I don't know.
you are bang on and it makes me sick that there is a double standard
when it comes to the Saudis, Bush should be talking as tough on them as he is on Hussein. This is where it all gets too political for me and why so many people are cynical about what American politicians are up to.
Other than Fance, no one would really give a fuck if we Nuke N Koreans.
I dont think anyone in the world would even give a fuck if N Koreans are whiped out.
Other than Fance, no one would really give a fuck if we Nuke N Koreans.
I dont think anyone in the world would even give a fuck if N Koreans are whiped out.
Grandma, going into is part of the long term solution to reduce terrorism. The only true way this is going to happen, is if the muslim countries have their standard of living raised, and are no longer wallowing in poverty, holding onto a fundementalist view of Islam to make them feel better about their shitty situation.
US goes into Iraq, clear out the country of dangerous weapons, then stabilizes the gov't, rebuild the country, sets up some sort of democracy, and FREE market economy. Over time, like in Japan and Germany after WWII Iraq starts coming out of its backward ways and the standard of living rises considerably, people are free, and happy - and this will put pressue on the AUTHORTARIAN countries that surround it. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc....
The bottom line is NO country that has a McDonalds has ever attacked the United States in a war.
THe war on terror is going to last a lifetime, maybe even more.... its going to be fought on many fronts, and we will have some setbacks. But worrying about some of the setbacks, and letting it paralysis us from STRONG action to protect ourselves is a policy for appeasers, will fail.
History has shown those who appease these types of people always suffer more.
On the N. Korea issue, they really do want attention bad. I think Bush is trying not to give it. There propaganda minsitry is definately working overtime.
I wish Bush would have gone into Iraq last year. Waiting around even with tons of evidence will not convince our enemies, and those who hate us. So why waste the time. I promise if we would have went into Iraw last year, and have already won the war, depose Saddam, and be rebuilding Iraw - N. Korea would be keeping their mouth shut. ( One of the problem with appeasing enemies it encourages more to pop up)
N. Korea will definately have to be dealt with, hopefully China understands the mess that is about to begin. N. Korea goes nuclear on a large scale, this will force S. Koreas to do it, as well as Japan, and then we have an asian arms race.
The Japs subjugated almost the entire mainland of China and Korea with an army of less them 1 million....
__________________
Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!
Slavdogg, please tell me you joking about the idea of using nukes. Wouldn't that be making use of a weapon of mass destruction? Isn't that what we're trying to avoid?
The North Koreans didn't give a damn about Australia until recently. Now we're a target, because our PM has brownnosed us into it. And I'm pretty bloody frightened about the whole thing.
Mike AI, Saudi Arabia has a McDonalds. I saw it in the Frontline doco about Al Queda this week. Actually, I think Chicken McNuggets could well be the source of a lot of hostility!! Damn, I hate those things.
And I don't see things going as smoothly as you envision. Even if the US wins in Iraq, I think the resentment will remain in the region. A war against terrorism is essentially a war for people's minds, and I don't think the US govt. had done a good job so far. There's been a lot of hypocrisy in the way they have approached this - the talk of using nukes on Iraq is an example.
If the US govt wins, it will need to act absolutely scrupulously in how it deals with the oil, elections etc. I fervently hope they do; the cynic in me isn't so sure.
It's all too bloody depressing. Must go away and make more porn sites.
Originally posted by Mike AI@Feb 6 2003, 11:00 AM ...The only true way this is going to happen, is if the muslim countries have their standard of living raised, and are no longer wallowing in poverty, holding onto a fundementalist view of Islam to make them feel better about their shitty situation.
US goes into Iraq, clear out the country of dangerous weapons, then stabilizes the gov't, rebuild the country, sets up some sort of democracy, and FREE market economy. Over time, like in Japan and Germany after WWII Iraq starts coming out of its backward ways and the standard of living rises considerably, people are free, and happy - and this will put pressue on the AUTHORTARIAN countries that surround it. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc....
I was watching Oprah today (yes, oprah) and there was a woman on her panel that addressed this....she said that even IF the US went in to Iraq, removed Saddam, and implemented a DEMOCRATIC government, 'the people' would possibly go out and 'elect' an ever WORSE leader, possibly one that embraces Fundamental Islam. (it is well known that Saddam does not)
You HAVE to remember that these people don't live as we do, they don't think as we do, they don't believe as we do. Their religious beliefs play a MUCH larger roll in their society and government than they do here. (thank gawd)
Just because we give them the ability to CHOOSE a leader, doesn't mean they will chose the one we think is best.
The difference with Japan and Germany, is that neither of these countries and their people had roots in Fundamental religion....therefore it was an easier to 'transform' them into free market democracies.
I tend to relate to what this woman said. I think to believe the US going in, removing Saddam, and creating a free market democracy is a utopia....not a possible reality.
As for the french:
Quote:
We probably would not have won the war without the help from Lafayette and the French
You're right. They certainly weren't pussies then were they.... h34r:
[edited because my words were a bit harsher than I intended...lol]
Last edited by gigi at Feb 7 2003, 09:15 PM
__________________
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives the rose mail me
I think it would be a little hard to justify the use of nuclear weapons to prevent nuclear proliferation even for the Bush Administration. A first-strike nuclear attack on North Korea might maybe sorta have some implications for the South Koreans - remember the South Koreans? They're the allies we are there to defend. I repeat what I've said before - the whole scenario over there is a tactical nightmare. The war against Iraq could be far more complicated, costly, and ugly than many who favor it seem to want to believe.
Oh, I know that there will be some bobble-headed individuals that can't quite see how it's not logical at all - the sort of people who have to assume that the word of the President of the United States isn't always a good enough reason to go to war for some Americans, let alone foreign countries, for example; the sort that can't understand that a nation can disagree with our foreign policy without "hating" the U.S. as mindlessly as some in the U.S. hate everything foreign might also have trouble understanding the complete insanity of the idea.
As far as the French being "pussies" because they aren't willing to follow every beck and call of anything the current President of the U.S. wants them to do ... to the French war is not some heroic thing that people go away to do - they've done it far too often on their own soil. In the 140 +/- years since the United States had a real war within its borders, France has had three. There are still farmers plowing up munitions from the First World War, when France lost 10 times the numbers of military personnel alone than the U.S - and doesn't begin to take into account civilian casualties. That would tend to play a much greater factor in their attitude toward war, IMHO, and anyone who doesn't factor that in is using some pretty simple-minded logic. Additionally, the French have been defeated in a couple of wars since the end of WWII (one of them we paid for, and proved a decade later we couldn't do any better) in support of the kind of colonialism some folks seem to think we can impose on the little brown people of Iraq. They also ended up with egg on their face during an excursion into the Middle East that the U.S. failed to support them on.
The disgusting thing is, I support the idea of disarming Saddam. I do so even though some of the people who also support the idea don't have a clue what we could be getting into. I do so with a whole lot of outright hostility, if not outright contempt, for those so delusional as to think some form of "benign" American imperialism will bode well for the world, or my country.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
02-04-2003
h34r: 
Linear Mode
