1 Finish Profile

North Korea, Nukes and You.

Locked

I read all too often the same dull diatribe about how the US government is the real enemy and everything would be better off if we could get rid of Bush. What utter nonsense. Kim Jong Il is a thug much in the same way Saddam Hussein was and like his egomaniacal counterpart feels as though he can do anything he wants to and the rest of the world can go get stuffed. What the liberal sheep in this country don?t understand is that this administration is tasked with protecting the American people and looking out after this nation?s best interest. The reason they are incapable of this is they are incapable of seeing beyond their own lives or personal agendas. Why do liberals think North Korea wants a nuclear weapon? Do liberals honestly believe that North Korea is concerned or worried about an American invasion? No. They are not. If they were they wouldn?t be posturing as they are now. North Korea and more specifically Kim Jong Il wants a nuclear weapon to use as blackmail to get American foreign aid. Why do you think it is so important for him that we talk unilaterally? What could he possibly have to say to the US other than ?Give me money and I will stop setting off nukes??

Topic

Agree and Disagree

In reply to North Korea, Nukes and You.

I agree that the dicator in NK is a threat to the US and to the world.

I would argue that in many ways he is more dangerous than Saddam ever was. He has demonstrated that he doesn’t mind starving millions, and is paranoid to boot.

I agree that his aim is not to nuke his neighbour, but to blackmail the world into paying him to stop testing. And there is an ego component. A win for him would be to have everyone take NK more seriously. He enjoys the drama and the theatre of the flurry of action at UN.

I’m sure he also enjoys making China squirm.

James

How can paying him off be an option?

In reply to North Korea, Nukes and You.

He’ll take the money, give you a toothy smile build another, and hold his hand out for the next installment!

Paying him off is a ‘liberal’ policy, if ever I heard one, this guy is not going to stay bought, I mean he’s a politician.

Whether liberals were worried about an american invasion I can’t say. Given american posturing, history and current on going actions, he’d have to be an outright imbecile not to consider the possibility.

He knows he had no credible defense against an awe and dstruction style manouvre. Doesn’t matter whether you intended to do it, he sure as horse apples knows you have the capability.

I’m not saying the iraq war tipped him over, but if your demonstrated ability and willingness to take out regimes you disapprove of didn’t cause him a sleepless night or two his IQ must be negative.

I can only see two options now, ignore him and put the entire burden on the chinese, who are definitely not going to be happy.
Or assassinate him and enough others and let the place disintegrate into civil war.

The idea that we could ever stop nuclear proliferation to other nations was a comforting pipe dream that had no basis in reality. Any sensible country want’s it’s own nuclear deterrent, and while we float about with ours we are in intelligence terms a threat.

No I’m not a unilateralist, that’s an even worse pie in the sky proposition. Giving up the weapons, even if that could be proven doesn’t mean we can’t put togther another one before the weapons inspectors got back in their van.

It would be nice if were were all responsible enough to sort out our differences with a game of conkers or perhaps pistols at dawn, isn’t happening any time soon though.

Even if that happened, David set the precedent when he took Goliath out from a safe distance because he knew he couldn’t go toe to toe and win.

You must be from someplace strange

In reply to How can paying him off be an option?

What the hell is “a game of conkers”, Tony? That ain’t no American metaphor.

ROFL. From the UK. Here you go

In reply to You must be from someplace strange

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/conkers.html

Kids in the UK still play this, one of the few things that gives me hope in this technological age.

Yes and No, right and wrong, whatever …

In reply to North Korea, Nukes and You.

I assume by calling out the “Liberal Sheep” you are either blaming the Libs. for questioning an incompetent Administration or you’re just looking to pick a fight. Okay, I’ll bite.

Of course they are not worried about a US invasion, they (N.K.) ACTUALLY have WMD’s!

“The reason they are incapable of this is they are incapable of seeing beyond their own lives or personal agendas.”

You are correct sir, give that man a cigar! This Administration IS “incapable of seeing beyond their own lives or personal agendas” to do what is best for our country!

“Liberal Sheep”, funny, that’s how I see the right wing religious zealots. Y’all were all so ready to follow Cowboy Bush into an (oil field/filled) country with no evidence of Nucalor weapons (WMD’s). Now that there is a Megalomaniac with Nuclear capabilities, it’s time to let the “Inspectors do their jobs”, “put sanctions in place”, “wait and see”!?!? Which is exactly the course that should have been taken with Iraq! Did GWB learn a lesson or is there just less at stake for him and his cronies? No money in it for Halliburton, No money in it for the Carlyle Group, No money in it for the Corporate PTB … “eh, let’s tauwlk bubala” says Bush and Company.

“What the liberal sheep in this country don?t understand is that this administration is tasked with protecting the American people and looking out after this nation?s best interest”

EVERY Administration’s job is to “protect the American people and look out after this nation?s best interest”. Do you really believe that is why “they” invaded Iraq? To protect American People and the Nation’s best interest? No, it was to protect “His” people and “Their” best interest! If you disagree just, Bahhhh … Bahhhh … Bahhhh away!

Not for nothing, but I agree with your “ideas” about N.K. and Kim Jung. Also, not for nothing but we “America” WILL be rid of the Bush Administration … just not soon enough I fear.

Interesting argument

In reply to Yes and No, right and wrong, whatever …

I find it interesting that you dribble on and on all over your keyboard about how utterly evil Bush and the US is and then come to your grand repost “If you disagree just, Bahhhh … Bahhhh … Bahhhh away!”

You have no idea why we invaded Iraq and I for one am not going to attempt to explain it to you. It would be a worthless endeavor at any rate.

Oh and misquoting me won’t work either. If ever you wish to pose an adequate and well crafted argument I would love to read it. I miss Neal. We disagreed on a lot of things but he was very well written and made me do my homework as it were.

Why did we?

In reply to Interesting argument

I’ve been trying to figure it out for over four years with all the evidence available, and I still don’t understand. After carefully eliminating all the partisan rhetoric, these are the only reasons for invading Iraq that make sense to me:

a. GWB [u]believed[/u] that Saddam had WMD, therefore it was so; or
b. it’s about oil; or
c. it’s about the current President showing his father how it’s done.

Your Naive

In reply to Why did we?

I don?t know why I am compelled to bite onto these ridiculous arguments. It wasn?t just George W Bush that believed the intelligence reports that stated that Saddam was attempted to acquire nuclear material. Virtually, every Democrat congressman and representative believed it as well. People like the John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer and Joe Kennedy believed the same intelligence reports that were presented to the President. In fact, even the Iraqi generals believed that they had chemical weapons up to within three weeks of the invasion. Saddam trusted no one. The fact that he had them is irrefutable and is testified to by the thousands of dead Kurds who were murdered by nerve gas.

I know I have said this before as well but it is worth restating: A lie is when one knows that what one is saying is an untruth and speaks the lie in an effort to deceive. A classic example is our impeached former president William Jefferson Clinton when he said ?I did not have sex with that woman?. He knew he did in fact have sex with that woman and deliberately lied in order to cover for his misdeeds.
Unlike his predecessor who was only interested in his own interests, our current president was acting in the best interests of our country at the time when he truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

A Couple of Things to Add…

In reply to Your Naive

First, some seem to forget that we had about 12 years of inspectors in Iraq. They were repeatedly refused access to sites while Sadham cleaned up the site, then let them in. We played this cat and mouse game of inspectors, inspectors pulled or thrown out, sanctions, inspectors back in, yadda, yadda, from 1991 to 2003. It seems that post 9/11 it was time to quit playing that game.

Furthermore, I am not saying invading Iraq was the right thing to do, but I understand the logic and now that we have done it, we must stick to it. Successfully, establishing a democracy in the middle of the radical-Muslim world will have long-term positive effects on our national security. But you must connect all of the dots. It seems that most of our population, the detractors to the war, cannot connect more than two dots, which is why it is always about just one thing, like oil. It is more complicated than that and the stakes are very high.

I hear so many comparisons between Iraq and Viet Nam. Unfortunately, the comparisons are true, but not for the right reasons. The fact is that the American people were supportive in committing our troops to war. But, then they don’t have the perserverence to continue to support the war. So we get protests and those who detract from the war, just like John Kerry (both Viet Nam and Iraq). Unfortunately, it is this lack of fortitude that will probably cost us the war and we will never see the benefits that a true democratic Iraq would have afforded the entire world. Very sad.

It’s because you are so much fun to bait ]:)

In reply to Your Naive

The problem was that at the time, even constrained by the cease-fire terms, Iraq was still a stabilizing influence in the region, separating the terrorist axis of Iran and Syria. I was not in favor of invading Iraq, primarily for this reason. Additionally, we had not yet (nor have we yet) completed the mission in Afghanistan.

Although I do not agree with all of his arguments and have yet to find references to support all of them, this article (http://tinyurl.com/yf7od4) is probably the best discussion of the actual reason for invading Iraq that I have found. I particularly like this sentence:

[i]There are a huge percentage of Americans that could not tell you the logic of any argument that opposes their na?ve view. [/i]

It explains a lot.

Edit: Now that we are there, we need to finish the job and establish a stable, democratically elected government. Unfortunately, planning failures on the part of the Bush Administration, the removal of Saddam, and (very probably) terrorist [i]agents provocateurs[/i] allowed the top to blow off the sectarian pot. It will be a very long and very, very difficult process to replace it.

What do the hypocrites say?

In reply to North Korea, Nukes and You.

The usual suspects who “claim” the USA should MYOB when it comes to other nation’s business are screaming the loudest about the Bush administration “causing” the current North Korea situation because we MYOB. Their hypocrisy is as obvious as the sky is blue. (Not to mention the Clinton Administration actually helped and facilitated the current state of affairs — they GAVE the North Koreans the nuclear technology!)

My personal thoughts: North Korea is an insignificant little piss-ant who’s trying to become significant. If they do anything aggressive, the Chinese will not support them, and they could be obliterated. And no “outsider” has any reason to act aggressively against them. They’re saber rattling, no more, no less.

The only threat from North Korea is if they continue their nuclear program to the point where they could provide a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization, which I could see as a viable possibility. Is that alone sufficient reason to be the aggressor against them? That question is a moot point because it won’t happen.

Everyone’s big mistake

In reply to What do the hypocrites say?

North Korea doesn’t have real political objectives like other nations. Think of Kim as Al Capone, who has figured out how to run a whole country for profit, while keeping all his people quiet by stuffing them with communist ideology. He doesn’t do anything for the sake of Korea. He does everything for himself, and for the small group of big supporters who are in on the game and help keep him on top.

He’s completely amoral and unpatriotic. He does it all for himself, like his father did. I read that defense analysts call his government the KFR, for “Kim family regime”. It’s more of a criminal gang than a government or an ideology. Their real business in international affairs is self protection, extortion, and providing cover for their money making, which is done through criminal deals like massive currency counterfeiting, heroin, and sale of arms and weapons technology.

That’s why this guy seems to act so weird. Everybody thinks he’s the voice of a country and a political philosophy. He’s really just running a scam, and pretending to be a country. Look at him the right way; see his real purpose. Then he makes sense.

Blinded by your ideology again, Max

In reply to What do the hypocrites say?

Clinton cut a deal to provide North Korea with a couple of light water reactors for power generation, if they would give up their research reactor program (“research” means plutonium generating.) Kim agreed, but never shut down his program; Congress never authorized money for the reactors, and he never got them.

All of North Korea’s nuke technology was given to him by the Russians and Chinese in the 60’s thru 80’s, when Clinton was still just an oversexed boy in Prince Valiant hair.

Are you blinded by yours?

In reply to Blinded by your ideology again, Max

.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/10/9/132140.shtml?s=al&promo_code=26C8-1

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/19/180910.shtml

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15210254/

http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/nailing.pdf#search=’korea%20rods%20clinton’

But you’re right. It did appear that I placed all the blame on Bill Clinton. How remiss of me. I failed to give Jimmy Carter his due credit in the debacle.

However, you, too, should consider a class in reading comprehension, since you didn’t even address the intent of my comments.

Not sure what your argument was; let me guess

In reply to Are you blinded by yours?

Is it that the entire Kim nuclear situation is the fault of Democrat presidents?

Or is it that masculine straight talking Republican leaders with guns drawn and ready to march would have taken the Kim regime down, because that’s all that would work, because all these people understand is force?

The problem with these approaches is that every President from Eisenhower to Bush 43 has appeased the Kim dictators, not just the Democrats; and they have done so because war was not a viable option. The Chinese (and the Soviets, during their day) will not tolerate us overthrowing their old ally and marching armies up to the China border. And the South Koreans didn’t want it, either. They would have gotten their capital (home to 20% of their population) destroyed, and would have been stuck with the burden of feeding and stabilizing the north. War wasn’t worth it to them. With enemies we didn’t want and without our most important ally, we would have had an unwinnable war.

You’re right about one thing: the Kim crew does understand force. That’s why they were building a bomb. Having a few nukes at their disposal makes it even harder to consider attacking them, even if we got cooperation out of China and South Korea. And if you are as repulsive as the Kims are, you probably would want to arm up against that possibility. Especially after watching Bush 43 take down two Asian countries, and call you part of the axis of evil.

You’re right also, that once he has those bombs, he’s likely to want to sell any that he doesn’t need for his deterrence strategy.

Let me help you

In reply to Not sure what your argument was; let me guess

I was making three points, or arguments, or comments, whatever you’d like to call them.

One: The “usual suspects” are those perennial Bush bashers who, on one hand, continually take jabs at him for poking his nose into the business of other nations, and now, on the other hand, are taking jabs at him for not poking his nose into North Korea’s business. (That one sentence was the real point of my message.) And anyone who can think for himself should realize that any administration inherits what is left over from previous administrations, especially in regards to foreign policy. The North Korea situation didn’t happen overnight; it’s been building for over 50 years. To “blame” any one administration is stupid. And no, I was not “blaming” the Clinton administration, per se, only pointing out that what he left, Bush had to deal with. (And as a side-note, what Bush leaves, Rudy will have to deal with!) But it’s the hypocrisy of those “usual suspects” that was my real point; the Clinton comment was really an after-thought. (As was the Carter comment. Jimmy Carter, as another side-note, was really the first American president to deal with middle-eastern terrorists, or extremists, or whatever you want to call them, and his policies set the stage that played-out for decades to come — including the Russian-Afghanistan situation in 1979-1980 that emboldened Osama bin Laden.)

Two: I think Kim Jung is Ill is only saber rattling. He could, I suppose, lob a missile into Japan, but he’d be stupid for doing it. And there’s no way he could launch a direct attack on the USA, reaching California, for example. Sure, he could invade South Korea with his million-man army, but I doubt if he would, and I don’t believe the Chinese would support such a move; therefore the Chinese might actually (diplomatically) keep him from doing it. In regards to mounting any type of aggressive action against anyone, on a scale of 1-10, I’d give it about a 3. Even if he did launch an invasion of the south, it would be met with overwhelming opposition from the rest of the world and the United Nations, and it would be met with overwhelming resistance from the United States. Those people who actually believe the USA is “stretched too thin” militarily, are being fooled. In such a case, the North Koreans might have the numbers, but better technology and weaponry could take-on an opposing force that outmatches us 100 to 1. And if they happened to use nuclear weapons, their country could be obliterated in a matter of hours by one submarine that is now, without question, parked just outside their coastal waters.

Three: The only threat the little piss-ant really poses is delivering nuclear technology to a terrorist organization who could use it for materials for a dirty bomb or some other such attack. That alone, however, is reason enough to take him very seriously.

But what do the “usual suspects” really want? For us to poke our noses into other nation’s business or not? They want it and take it both ways for political expediency.

I will say this, however, as yet another side-note. If you want to “blame Bush” for anything, it could be said the his administration is the one that shifted gears in regards to middle-east terrorist extremists. For the previous thirty years, it’s been primarily dealt with by advancing a policy of appeasement. For the first time since the Iranian extremists took over the American embassy in 1979, and held American hostages for 444 days, the policy of appeasement was not followed. It shifted from appeasement to taking the offensive against them. It was an absolute bold move that has, in itself, again, set the stage for some time to come, and will be the one thing will judge President Bush. History will either judge him as great for the bold shift in policy, or dismal for the stupid shift in policy. Which one it is, however, cannot possibly be determined until we have the benefit of at least thirty years of hindsight, to not only see the outcome of the bold move, but to clear our partisan visions.

Dear Max

In reply to What do the hypocrites say?

“The usual suspects who “claim” the USA should MYOB when it comes to other nation’s business are screaming the loudest about the Bush administration “causing” the current North Korea situation because we MYOB.”

Let me get this straight Max, you actually BELIEVE the US/Bush Administration has a MYOB policy concerning “other Nation’s business”?!?!? Really? Cause the way I see it, we (the US) have had our fingers in every pie we could for quite some time. To “Police” these other Nation’s for “our” own agenda. Bush and comp. did NOT “cause” the current N.K. situation because of his MYOB attitude. However, by spreading our Nation’s resources where they ought not have been spread, he did allow this wacko KJI enough elbow room to create a saber to rattle. A wiser man would have used diplomacy and sanctions in and around all of these “piss ant” nations ruled by Crazy A$$ Dictators, ALL of them, including Iraq just to name one other. Together w/China and the U.N. Inspectors, N.K. could have been held in check a little better had this bumbling administration been more concerned with OUR Nation’s best interest rather than pursuing their own agenda. Which should not have included invading a Sovereign Nation unprovoked!

As far as the Clinton Administration “Giving N.K. the nuclear technology” you can read below and of course draw your own conclusions. Then read about “Ronald Raygun’s” escapades concerning the Iran-Contra affair and how HE lied to the Nation. Again, drawing your own conclusions, I would expect nothing less. Also, in some way or another the US has to take at least some responsibility for any and all nuclear technology good and bad, right or wrong … we started the fire.

Despite our different views about the how’s and why’s, the blame game and partisan crap. I DO agree with “Your thoughts” concerning the specific’s of N.K.’s position or lack there of.

One last comment from this Liberal mind, I’ve gotta give you what you want! Reagan lied, Bush lied, but nobody died … when Clinton Lied, thankuverymuch!
“North Korea’s feared aim to create nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles was a serious problem for the Clinton Administration. In 1994, North Korea, a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, refused to allow international inspectors to review two nuclear waste sites. The inspectors wanted to see if North Korea was in violation of the treaty since they were suspected of reprocessing spent fuel into plutonium, which could be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. Despite diplomatic pressure and repeated warnings by Clinton, North Korea refused to allow the inspections and even raised the prospect of war with South Korea, an ally of the United States.
After private diplomacy by former president Jimmy Carter, the Clinton administration reached a breakthrough with North Korea in October 1994 when North Korea agreed to shut down the nuclear plants that could produce materials for weapons if the United States would help North Korea build plants that generated electricity with light-water nuclear reactors. These reactors would be more efficient and their waste could not easily be used for nuclear weaponry. The United States also agreed to supply fuel oil for electricity until the new plants were built, and North Korea agreed to allow inspection of the old waste sites when construction began on the new plants. This 1994 Agreed Framework, as it was known, kept the Yongbyon plutonium enrichment plant closed and under international inspection until 2002. After which North Korea broke off the treaty and restarted plutonium production. In October of 2006, North Korea tested their first nuclear weapon.”

“The Iran-Contra Affair was one of the largest political scandals in the United States during the 1980s. It involved several members of the Reagan Administration who in 1986 helped sell arms to Iran , an avowed enemy, and used the proceeds to fund the Contras, an anti-communist guerrilla organization in Nicaragua.
After the arms sales were revealed in November 1986, President Ronald Reagan appeared on national television and denied that they had occurred. But a week later, on November 13, he returned to the airwaves to affirm that weapons were indeed transferred to Iran. He denied that they were part of an exchange for hostages.”

Have a nice day!

Try taking a reading comprehension class

In reply to Dear Max

It might help.

Nope, too late

In reply to What do the hypocrites say?

This guy would nuke your awe and destruction part deux landing zone.
Iran next, then Syria….
This genie climbed out of his bottle decades ago

A misunderstanding

In reply to North Korea, Nukes and You.

“What the liberal sheep in this country don?t understand is that this administration is tasked with protecting the American people and looking out after this nation?s best interest.”

And teh Republicans are just as clueless as they actually believe that “this administration is tasked with protecting the American people and looking out after this nation?s best interest.”

When will you lot wake up and realize that no matter what your political view or support is, the other political position is not your enemy. It’s the political idiots that con one group into believing them over the other group of idiots that are the problem.

Politicians, no matter who you support, ALL conjur up little stories, and elaborate on the truth in order to substantiate their choices, whether in your best interests or theirs. This is common knowledge to anyone alive, no matter what country or political view they have.

The scary part is that many Americans actually BELIEVE what the politicians tell them, I simply cannot fathom such blind faith when all else for decades/centuries proves otherwise. Many of these people can also be seen drumming through the National Enquirer at newsstands looking for the truth.

Many politicians are lawyers, many lawyers were politicians, can’t you see the relationships?

The people of America seem to all want the same thing, peace, freedom and security. Meanhwhile, these idiots that run your country make ridiculously absurd moves for THEIR OWN benefit, not yours, not the people of America (as they’d like you to believe) and not for the sake of America, it is simply to get some notoriety during their term as ‘the ones who made a difference.’

Once you get over yourselveas and realize that your opinion is just as warped as the other party’s opinion, then perhaps you will work together as a nation to once again be the super power you once were, before your politicians divided you.

In YOUR best interests, that’s good!

Whatever will they have you believe next?

This discussion is just like all those people who blamed Clinton for not getting anything done during his term. Yet those exact same people were the ones chastizing him for taking preemptive action when he was sending in air raids to take out Taliban training camps.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t it seems, unfortunately, while your politiciansd play these head games with you, your brothers and sisters die.

Wake up already, there’s a lot more for you to figure out, other than what was or wasn’t done when the opposing party had a seat in the white house.

Quit proving yourselves to be such an ignorant and clueless nation of political fanatics.

Your focus on your political views are blinding Americans to what is really going on or what really needs to be done.

Remember your enemy is the one who is killing your people…no matter what side he is on.

I may have agreed at one time…

In reply to A misunderstanding

The difficulty now is that the leftists in this country wish nothing more than to be “in power” and once there will run from Iraq and Afghanistan and leave them to wolves that would devour them. What will our allies say of us then? They will say we are cowards whose word means nothing. From there our true enemies will come to our country in droves and attack us here. What will do when that happens? I’ll tell you; we will process the ones we catch and who don’t blow themselves up through our civil court system where we will waste millions of dollars providing an adequate defense for these terrorists and when it is all said and done we may put them on death row for a few decades before we get around to reducing their sentences to life.
So, to be succinct, we are a nation at war whether we like it or not. No matter how much the leftists want to “talk” to our enemies the only thing our enemies want is to bring the US to her knees. Given what I have just written I must disagree with you and state that the results of our collective decisions over the next two elections will have enormous consequences to our country and the world around us.

The wolves will have their way

In reply to I may have agreed at one time…

I think that as far as leaving Iraq and Afghanistan “to wolves that would devour them”, the wolves are already in charge in Iraq. Afghanistan’s no sure thing, either; we may be able to pull success from that situation. But we cannot get the kind of victory we wanted in Iraq, which is spinning down into a civil war that will kill a million or more people. The longer we’re there, the more we make it worse, and become targets in a situation we can’t help. Face it: we screwed it up, big time, and we’re not going to win. At least, not the way we expected at the start.

The best use for American power is to stand off and keep the Iranians out of Iraq, and secure Kurdistan, and maybe the port of Basra, until the murder is done and some kind of future Iraqi government is ready for our help.

Put it in terms of a business situation: if you sell televisions and you lose money on every one, what should you do? Sell more televisions? Or quit the business?

Misinformed

In reply to The wolves will have their way

All people here about from the main stream media is how many American soldiers have been killed, how we are not going to win and that we should leave now and somehow that would make it all better.
Has America not learned from the debacle that was Vietnam? Vietnam taught the world that the US was weak willed, fickle and unable to honor her agreements with her allies. Strike us and when we bleed we will run home crying. The North Vietnamese government has stated in interviews that during the early years of the war they were demolished, demoralized and ready to sue for peace when they began listening to American media reports that taught them that the American people are weak willed narcissistic children who when struck would cower and flee their nation. They struck and with the help of their American allies (the traitorous communist Jane Fonda) were able to force the US to flee their country.
We are attempted a noble thing in Iraq and if anything we should increase our presence there and hit harder than we have in the past.

We are attempted a noble thing in Iraq

In reply to Misinformed

Yes you ATTENPTED a nobel thing, that’s a more accurate realisation now.

Funny but if that was teh focus played out by Bush in order to gain support for teh war, Americans would have lynched him at The White House.

“People of America, we are going to send yuor sons and daughters to die in increasing numbers BUT….it is a nobel thing to do!

Not at ALL what was said.

“People of America, if we don’t invade Iraq, Saddam Hussein will kill our people and attack us with his WMD” was a more accurate message.

When people aregued teh reaons, Republicans here there and everywhere were stating how they KNEW he had WMD, how the WOULD find them, how they were Out to ATTACK America and some dummies even said Houw would you like it if YOUR country was attacked!?”

But now, it is “attemtping a nobel thing”.

LOL, funny how the defense xchanges over time, from an antagonistic offense before defense mentality to a partiotic “Save the poor folk of the world” mentality. Leave it fo rthe left to say, you all wantyed to go and blow up ALL the camel jockeys, because you no lonmger knew who to trust anymore….remember? If you aren’t with us, you are against us? How woul dyou like it if YOUR country was attacked? We KNOW he has WMD and will use them against us, why not fight them on their own soil instead of letting them come to us?

now it’s not ‘the fight’ or ‘defense’, it’s being NOBEL! LOL, this really has been an entertaining few years reading your guys ever changing opinions, ‘integrity’ would not be a word used to describe America these days, not that it ever has though.

Ever Changing issue?

In reply to We are attempted a noble thing in Iraq

I beg to differ. I have always stated that I didn’t care what reason this administration used to depose Saddam Hussein. I was just glad that we had done so.
I seem to recall a few Canadian soldiers working with me when I was in Iraq so your country is not too distant from the cause.
I grant you that the US has done some dishonorable things in the past but does that mean that for all of time we can never do anything noble or selfless? What about WWII or WWI or Korea? Was the decision to engage in these wars dishonorable? We are capable of great things. It is up to our elected leadership to determine whether these great things will be noble or not.

Not to be misunderstood

In reply to Ever Changing issue?

First of all, I will never discount ANY country fo rits efforts in WWI, INCLUDING GERMANY. Germans were mainly normal working guys like you and I that were fighting for a cause they were taught to believe in. Not much different than western civilization. It was Hilter and his henchmen that were the problem, not the Germans that fought as they should have for their country’s cause.

WWI and WWII were amazing examples of alie force and unity among common minds. Absolutely a flagship for all alliances to come.

But thats nothing even remotely close to what we are discussing here, is it? No, we are talking about a force who went against allied wishes, who purposely denounced allies for not joinging his side, this helped keep Americans from admiring outside views. If they arent’ with us, they are against us. And now HOW does an American support allies without appearing to be a traitor?

Yes Canadians are in Iraq, they have been for tears now. Canadians are also holding the line and fighting the newly grown Tliban and other sects in Afghanistan and the surrounding areas.

YOU, sir are one who I can actually agree did have a different focus than the mainstream when it came to Iraqi. I appreciate your honest views but really you are the exception to teh norm.

I think you were here when I was being flamed and Americans were calling me a traitor that wouldnt defend my country and woul dlet my children be burned. THEY were not going to let this happen, they KNEW Saddam was an imminent threat with his stockpiles of WMD. Regardless of the inspection plans, regardless of the motive, the invasion had to be done. Many even kept confusing matters and saying they were retaliating for 9/11.

So no, I don’t think what yiou have done in Iraq is nobel in any way shape or form. I don’t think the way you spat on yoru allies as nobel in any way, shape or form.
No I don’t think Iraq was correctly justified to teh US people, it wouldnt have been supported if it was.

I DO think the world is better off without Saddam, I DO think Iraqi’s MAY choose democracy in many years after a few generations have learned the ways of the new world, but not now, by force.

No I don’t think Iraq is teh right war and it’s not being fought for the right reasons. This also has NOTHING to do with WWI WWI or any otehr allied efforts that really showed what allied effort can be, it’s a US effort with others grudgingly at your sice out of sheer obligation, despite being ignored and then chasized for not running to your side when Bush cried war.

People don’t forget the crap others say to them when they don’t agree, esecially when those same others look for help.

The value of picking your wars carefully

In reply to Misinformed

When you get into minor wars, you expect a minor effort for modest returns. This is why major powers should avoid little wars when they can. If you have to give everything in terms of money and manpower, sacrifice your foreign policy in other venues, ignore threats on other fronts, and harness your people’s and your allies’ will for decades in order to secure a petty victory, then you’ve wasted a lot for very little.

If you see a good side to Iraq’s recent trends, then you are hoping harder than you’re looking. The place is deteriorating into a religious and tribal civil war, with more fighters springing up every month, and getting more bloodthirsty and ruthless. I don’t know how these people will ever get along, but let’s not forget they did, for hundreds of years, before U.S. troops showed up. I don’t see how a Christian nation is going to settle an Islamic people’s civil war. They’ve got to, on their own.

The Brits held Iraq for 20 years between the world wars, and they had to send their army in five times. They didn’t have this kind of civil war to deal with, either. If we stick it out, we’ll be there for at least ten years, and it will take more soldiers than we currently keep there, which will mean we will have to double the size of our standing army. The complications just go on and on. Just like Viet Nam, getting in was dumb, and sticking with a losing strategy is dumb. What will our allies think if we cut and run? Well, they’re probably hoping we’ll come to our senses, and will breath a sigh of relief when we do. What will our enemies think? They’re really hoping we stay bogged down as long as possible. And the real Islamic terrorists? They hope the recruiting and training exercise in Iraq goes on forever. It’s doing them good; not us. Just like Viet Nam.

When you’re playing a losing game, what do you do? Raise the stakes, and hope you do better; or change to a game you can win? Even for a superpower, it’s important to pick your fights right.

Third Option…

In reply to The wolves will have their way

…make a better television, that more people want, that costs less to produce. In other words, change your game plan and expectations.

My point is that you are only allowing 2 options in Iraq: win the way we thought we were going to or leave. If the first option is impossible, then the second option is equally unacceptable. The MUST be a third option and we had best be looking for it quickly. One I have heard spoken of is to allow Iraq to be broken into three sovereign countries to avoid a civil war. I don’t know the pros and cons of this, but it is an option. We cannot just leave Iraq. That might be “cutting our losses” as in the television analogy, but first it is very short sighted–our losses will grow over time–and it is morally responsible. We have an obligation to the Iraqi people now.

That’s been force fed though

In reply to Third Option…

that is the two options of Americvan life.
Like that old cartoon with Elephants vs Donkeys. “We Accept it!”vs”We reject it”

There are two people in American, teh Republican and teh Democrat, nothing and nobody else matters.

The republicans MUST be the absolute opposite of democrats, there’s no logic or middle ground allowed, which purposely further distances the two and makes it easy for Americans to pic a side.

If the Republicans want to stay, the Democrats MUST want to leave. This isn’t brain surgery and is something I would hope ALL Americans, no matter how tightly in step with their party, would accept or at least know.

If you can’t see how one side plots, schemes and lies about the other in order to build their own distanced position, then you are surely completely blind deaf and dumb.

So given the truth, that neither party is forthright when it is in their own best interests NOT to be, how can one American not see that these two are both full of it and need to find middle ground?
Answer: By CONSTANTLY being told over and over again that what THEY want is the OPPOSITE of what the other/bad guy wants.

Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

In reply to That’s been force fed though

Yes people (not just Americans) seem to have a “team” mentality and support the “team” even when they don’t really agree with it or even understand it. I, myself, fail to fully understand the team mentality in the many ways it plays out, but I do know it can cloud your vision.

Nonetheless, you paint a picture of people being incapable of being informed about the issues and having real disagreements. To you, everyone is just led around by the nose. I can’t argue that far too many people are being led by the nose when it comes to politics (Canada is a good example), but not everyone is. Being Canadian, you really don’t and can’t know as much about American politics as you think you do and the self-righteous attitude is getting somewhat tiresome.

But, you have made your point. We need to think about issues for what they really are and not just be committed to “the team.” Got it.

No, that wasn’t the point at all

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

But you will always see what you want to see and will simply dismiss what you don’t. That is the problem I see in politics.

Now you raised an interesting point, Canada and Canadians knowledge of Canadian politics. First of all, this discussion goes way back on TR so it’s mroe review than anything else now. It also has to do with the varied levels of news censorship within our countries.

ALL and I mean ALL news is censored in some way before we see it, The White House and Canadian Parliment both control what we see of teh war.

It has been proven time and time again though, that the rest of teh world seesm ot get a FAR more in depth story than US networks show. How do I know? the majority of my TV stations are US new and US networks, we only have a half dozen English stations thet are actually Canadian here, the rest is all US or other world news, including Middle Eastern and Arabic.

What happens almost all the time is I see a story or video footage of an event in Iraq, or elsewhere, on one channel (say, 3 minutes long). That same news clip on US networks will be 1 minute long, will be stufed with Pro-American patriotism and often interviews with the ‘other side’ are eliminated entirely from the US versions.

It’s not once or twice, it’s not one country’s veiw. These are stories shown on many stations from around the globe that all have a very similar report (if not the exact same shared footage) on the story or video footage but the US version shows nothing that doesn’t make America look like a hero. No bad news in other words, what you see that you feel IS bad news, really isn’t.

So we have a FAr beter understanding than you may wish to believe, I probably get a broader perspective of US media than you do even, having networks pumped in from all over, including local US TV from all over teh Us too.

One thing I will NOT contest is Canadians DISinterest in Canadian poloitics. Here’s the difference; Canadians KNOW our politicians are a bunch of liars and thieves who simply are not worth our attention. They don’t go starting wars based on lies and leave us the heII alone. Americans actually believe their politicians will lead them to better places and help them live more fruitful lives in a safer, happier world. Give your heads a shake and move on.

Canadian politics, nobody cares about it here, nobody cares what party you support, it doesn’t mater they are all a bunch of liars with an alternate agenda no mater hwo you vote for. Most canadians couldn’t even tell you what side/views their family members support, mention politics and you will clear the room here. Mention politics in teh US and you will fill a room and start a brawl.

It just doesn’t mater, living our lives is far more important to us than politics.

Canada also has a two party system, which allows one party to watchdopg teh other keeping Parliment a little more reasonable with the parties in closer alignment, there is less effort on separation of opinion and more effort on similarities in their opinions between parties and more of a middle ground focus, something America could use for sure.

You guys could all take a page from that nbook and start to realize, there are three sides in America not two. The left, the right and the PEOPLE.

NO the three arent the same and no the politicians do not represent YOUR best interests.

I think the sooner you all realize that and get on with your lives, the better off the rest of the world will be.

OZ_Media– Keep Your Anti-American Ignorance To Yourself- updated

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

OZ:
First of all, I’ve had enough of your terrible grammar, defunct spelling, and judgmental attitude when you lack the personal experience of being an American. Therefore, when you can write with proper spelling and syntax, your logic (or lack thereof) will be easier to tolerate. Also, when you live in the United States from the moment of your birth, attend universities that explain how the government works, not what you should believe; then you may be qualified to tell Americans what is wrong with their corrupt government and its decision making when going to W.A.R (the acronym for “We Are Right” whether it is or is not). Furthermore, if you had learned anything about the U.S. Federal Government, you would know there is a “checks and balances” system with the House of Representatives and the Senate. And to assume that the entire populous of our 50 states is so stupid with having a “mob mentality” is an over-generalization.

We, the People, even the most naive people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting, know our politicians of every party, gender, office, and agenda are already corrupt with self-serving interests. We just vote for the lesser of the evils at the polls so we can pretend that our ballot matters in the democratic election of our country’s leaders. We know our system is flawed is because all of the honest, decent people who would be of great service in the higher levels of government actually have moral objections to failing to live up to the promises they made to their constituents.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Explanation for darinhamer: I apologize for the scattered statement. I was trying to explain how few ethical people run for office because there is the very real possibility that campaign promises will not get past the veteran politicians. The choice then would be either play the political B.S. bootlicking game (which violates a person’s integrity) or be shamed that your constituents didn’t reap the benefits of your promised representation. For someone with deep integrity, running for public office is a lose-lose situation. Some find it hard to sleep at night when they have failed to serve their loyal supporters.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< So OZ, like it or not, you are not informed enough to make credible, educated, criticisms about the United States Government, "teh" problems with "Americans", and their debacled foreign policy. So, in the vernacular of our culture-- Shut up! However, I, as a highly educated and well-respected intellectual citizen of the United States, can personally opine that the U.S. had no just cause for deposing a despot who was neither directly threatening, nor capable of directly attacking America. The entire plan was a house of cards that is now tumbling down; as a result, exponentially more Muslims view America as an evil aggressor. We will surely suffer more attacks, more fatalities, less world favor all because of Bonehead Bush's Department of Idiots. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Edit for OZ: In your impotent diatribe of name calling and attempts to render my views illogical, you failed to recognize that I did not claim I disagreed with your position. You made yourself the laughable twit by ASSUMING I was refuting your position. My argument was that you’re not American so that you cannot know what it is like to BE ONE. Duh. You must have taken stupid pills this morning. So you want to be a bloody wanker and make more INCORRECT ASSUMPTIONS about me? I’m not delusional in the intelligence department. I’ll fax you a copy of my IQ scores, right up there with Marilyn Vos Savant, I am. Pompous? Why sure! I can be. In fact, there’s no point in having a battle of wits with you because you are an unarmed man. It just wouldn’t be fair. Republican? Nope. That’s the ultimate insult to those that live in my area, but of course, your attempts to annoy me are feeble at best.

In fact, your defense mechanism of slanderous name calling could use a little help because you are an obvious commoner with limited reading and writing capacity. Oh, wait, you write IPOs? You don’t seem capable of writing an intelligible grocery list. And it’s not that I cannot understand what you mean because of your pitiful spelling and grammar, because I know exactly what your Freudian little Id is communicating: HELP! I’m an egomaniacal puny pene! But yet you whine about the incorrect expressions that you have encountered on the forum as you ramble on in your response. “That’s the pot calling the kettle black!” So sorry your psyche is scarred.

Now back to the adjectives you used to describe me. Dick? Fortunately, I do not have that anatomy and, therefore, do not have to worry about if mine is big enough or skilled enough at using it properly. Bloated? Yep, every 28 days– except I seem to be missing the uterus and one ovary, so my only maintenance is taking a water pill once in a while. If I find either of my missing internal organs, I’ll use them as my avatar in effigy to you. A knob? You should probably edit your comment to say t-w-a-t. It’s a little more accurate.

And even better, you need to refer to me as “crazy” before every other derogatory noun of which you can conceive.
Here’s why: A con artist attempting to sell forged pizza coupons and case my house and neighborhood recently found himself in a very precarious situation with a locked and cocked and ready to rock .40 caliber Glock in his face. (Yes, I know there is no safety switch on this weapon, and yes, I racked a round in the chamber.) Having the right to carry really does level the playing field of personal safety for short, well-built blondies.

Now this is the last bit of fodder I’ll give to you before you disappear from the one neuron I wasted on pointing out how YOU ARE THE TOOL OF ALL TOOLS! Confelicidades! Eres estupido! Entonces: Yes, I’m well educated and very physically attractive, beautiful just shy of gorgeous (my husband and his envious friends will sign an affidavit confirming this)– by the way, “smart and sexy” is a wicked combination when the girl is man-hunting whilst she is in the woods pheasant hunting. Yes, I am an arrogant, conceited, pompous, and a PMS-ing pistol-packing vigilante. If I had to change careers, I’d probably be a hitman because I do so enjoy the thought of my dog eating little brain pieces of the solicitors that need to be exterminated from my front entrance 😉 (just kidding) But since I’m not a male, I couldn’t possibly be a hitman, lest you try to argue that point. That I have such a vivid imagination might qualify me as psycho. That I have hormonal moodswings since I still have one gonad left, would most certainly constitute btchy. I know who I am, and I fully accept responsibility and even delight in your superficial assassination of my character. Your ire over a few insights I provided to you about yourself and your blatant lack of metacognition only serves to further prove the theory: There’s No Fix For Stupid Even Though There’s Tools Everywhere!

Thanks for the temporal fun =:-) I have a couple of little anarchists to raise, so I’ll not have time for another pissing match with you. Actually, I think the youngest is actually leaning more toward a dictatorship, so I’ll have to rock the cradle a little harder.

Chinese proverb: “The man that raises his voice first is the one that admits defeat.”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< And just a thought for you, Mr. North of the United States border: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Apologies to JamesRL for his thinking that I would make a sweeping assumption that all Canadians are the same. I don’t stereotype people. I base my opinion on their own merits. And for the record, I truly appreciate America’s Good Neighbor to the North. I know Canada has always come to America’s aid when needed. I pray for Canadian soldiers as they fight along with my family members in Iraq.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If the U.S.A. is ever under attack on our home soil again, you'd better be looking for a place to hide because YOUR COUNTRY IS NEXT. So proceed to self-flagellate for not having thought of this prospect before... And something further to consider is the fact that the current radical Muslims we are fighting believe ALL Non-Muslims are Infidels and subject to being the target of Jihad. Do you think that invisible border line to our north is going to protect you once the dirty bombs start popping off in our major cities? >>>>>>>>>>>>>

We’ll all be glowing green. The End.

AngyeGyrl . . . . .

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

….. I like you!

Angyegyrl, pretty good grammar, but…

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

…the following sentence from your note is messed up a bit:

“We know our system is flawed is because all of the honest, decent people who would be of great service in the higher levels of government actually have moral objections to failing to live up to the promises they made to their constituents.”

I’m not sure I agree or disagree with you on this. What are you saying?

AngyeGyrl

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Wow! I’m with Max. You rock. I like the way you write. I must admit a fondness for Oz as we have bantered back and forth for a few years now and unlike others he is generally well intentioned, not rude, and will actually read what others write. Some have accused him of being two faced, but as I read his writings, I see someone who is actively participating in the debate and is not afraid to change his mind.
As to his syntax and spelling ? I?ve come to see this as his ?style?. He explained some time ago that he doesn?t always have time to spell check his writing or look for grammatical errors. He?s either at a clients or traveling somewhere and logs on to deliver his two cents.

AngyeGirl, Re Canadians

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

You seem to lump us all with an attitude you don’t like.

You may not be aware, but since 1940 (yes before Pearl Harbour) an attack on Amercian soil constitutes an attack on Canada and vice versa. There is no need to consult. On 9/11, Canadian fighters scrambled and some patrolled the US east coast, all without any bureacracy or paperwork, because the NORAD agreement says it can be done.

Canada has been working directly with Homeland security on a number of fronts. There is an incredible amount of information sharing. The FBI has offices in Toronto and other cities (and no, not in the embassy).

Canada even increased its force in Afghanistan to free up US troops for deployment in Iraq.

Being Canadian is no barrier to knowing politics in the US. Certainly many Canadians are better informed than “average” Americans. We have access to all of your media. Would you say there are no Americans who know Canadian politics better than the average Canadian? That would be silly. I’d name the profs in Canadian studies at Georgetown, the US journalists covering Ottawa, and many others.

James

AG

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

What a tool! Wow you’re a ripe one, make sure you stick around for a while, I see some entertaining threads in you, some good laughs for sure. You’ll like your new friend, Max, he has been one of the funniest people around lately as he works harder and harder to find sources to suport his bizarre foresight, which is proven wrong on an almost daily basis now. You will be a new member of his club, which was once strong when Republicans looked correct in American minds…uh oh, you think your country’s screwed though, Max won’t like that part he thinks you are golden. Just like all the other, so called educated and pompus, prats that come and go here over time.

You just flamed me and agreed with me in the same post! At the same time, your bloated ego showed just how high on yourself you are. Wow, what content, what an opening act!!! You did it all, flames, hypocrisy, BS, humour, delusion, well done!

You also ‘assume’ to know my history and involvement with the US, I love it when stuck up Yankees think that. Hey, just because you knew the alphabet without watching Sesame Street, it doesn’t make you clever.
You are amongst Americans, anyone who understands the diference between THAN and THEN is a clever Dick in America. I have a far better understanding of America and Americans than many Americans do that’s for sure. I have operated two businesses in the US as well as still conducting a great majority of my day to day business with in US. I shave studied US demographics for over a decade now, I know my markets well and understand the main train of thought in American public, not just those of you who stand out because you went to school (which has become alarmingly passive over the last year).

Now I know you made Max all wet, but he’s just an old fart that has found his many Republican minions have started to thin, any new face for his cool aid drinking commune is welcome.

As for US universities, I have a good friend who was a prof in LA that actually left after 15 years due to teh inadequate American history he was pushed to teach, even though he was supposed to have control of his curriculum.

Lastly, if you’re so clever that you feel you are the voice of all reason (must be eating clowns for lunch because THAT’S funny stuff) why do you find it so difficult to read through typos? Spelling and grammar is not my issue, I write copy fopr IPO’s.

As for grammar and spelling, this is not an ESl form, there is no professor or marks for accuracy. Give you head a shake and realize that this forum is filled with people from all walks of life and languages. In my case, I find Americaqn spelling and incorrect use of phrases to be just so irritating. That’s an issue I must live with here, this is not a British forum either.

Get over yourself already, you really aren’t that ‘cool’ you just come off like a pompus, knob, notice how Max just sucked it up?

Taking time to waste keystrokes on the likes of you is not my priority, if you have issues reading reversed letters or deciphering orphaned words etc., then I suggest you simply avoid taking the time to read through my posts, it’s pretty simple and you can be in total control (you should like that).

As for Max, well that’s just Max, he’s like an old dog that you just keep patting on the head and smiling while he barks at every noise he hears.

Oz (and other Canadians)

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

I know someone who has studied ducks for many years. He knows everything about ducks. And when he goes hunting, he can quack just like a duck. Ducks will come and land right in front of him because they think he is another duck. He owns some pet ducks. He eats ducks. He is absolutely the most knowledgeable person about ducks I have ever met. Still, he is not a duck.

With all due respect to our Canadian friends, I think that your opinion about US politics is important, but studying us, visiting us, doing busines here, and living next door to us, doesn’t make you one of us.

Having said that, is it possible that you understand US politics better than many average Americans? Absolutely! In fact, because of your different perspective, you likely have meaningful insights that the vast majority of Americans have NEVER thought of. But you still see it from your perspective. Oz has made statements that makes it sound like he thinks he is the only one who can see the whole picture clearly. Maybe he doesn’t really think that, but certainly sounds like he thinks that. However, he still has his own biases and he still sees things from a Canadian vantage point. That doesn’t make his opinion worthless by any means. It is simply one of many, and perhaps he should consider this.

Thank you darin

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

I am already relieved to not be an American, you don’t need to remind me.

As you said, I actually DON’t think I have better resources than many Amwericans do, BUT, I know as afact that I actually weigh and balance the resources provided and treat them with equal consideration. This is completely unAmerica, you, as an American, must also see this more often than not.

People don’t CARE what Canad’s news says, people don’t CARE what the left wing says, poeple don’t CARE what teh middle East says. They are tuned into their elected party’s comments and will buy into all the BS that party uses to dicsount the other news.

So do I get an advantage by seeing more world news? yes.
Do Americans have access to this news? Yes.
Do Americans (in general) truly consider and weigh into all news? No.

it has been proven time and time again, even here on TR, peopl ewill believe what they WISH to believ, what they are TOLD to believe and that’s about it. Most people do not give any consideration to what Canadian news says, or UK or Middle Eastern. they are too quick to dismiss it and thus just continue drinking the cool aid fed to them by one side, without further consideration.

I have seen the most ABSURD lie used to discount ‘what the other guys said’. Absolutely ridiculous claims, even your election campaigns are the same. They conjured up stuff about Kerry that was CLEARLY ntrue if investigated, and Kerry did teh same with Bush. It’s the nmature of the USA, one vs the other, two teams divided etc. It’s always a race to see who will win, be more successful, prove the other was wrong. It never seems to be reflective at all though.

Yeah OZ

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Yeah OZ, you should consider this VERY carefully before you make a post on the WWW! How dare you give your opinions concerning America while having the misfortune of being born in North America … cough … cough … I mean Canada! You just put your tuke on and go back to drinking your beer and eating your back bacon while watching a Hockey game, eh, you hoser! Let us REAL Americans talk about all of this Real America stuff. You know, like apple pie, baseball, and politics. Because as we all know, America’s politics have NOTHING to do with the rest of the world! Now apologize to all of us REAL Americans! 😛

You know, it’s this kind of elitist attitude that, justifiably so, paints such an ugly picture of Americans around the world.

I would remind you sir (as well as Max and Company), that we are ALL one Race … Human. I would also remind you that you and yours have no problem spouting off about other countries and their politics/regiegms/etc. So, WTF dude?!?!? Americans are the only ones enlightened enough to be able to have “educated opinions” concerning American politics AND the rest of the worlds as well???

Your funny …

PSer

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Nice sarcasm, I had my fingerstwitch as the flames were burning deep inside tro unleash the wrath of the north opon you, until I started laughing that is.

Actually, dude, I am not North American. I am a British Citizen. I haven’t worn a touque since I lived in Nova Scotia, brrrrr. yes I love a good batch of greasy fried bacon, all Brits do though. 🙂

Ahhm th edays of Bob and Doug MacKenzie, “take off, eh?” .

You know what’s really amusing though, I see just as many Americans and brits saying, “eh?” to confirm a comment as I do Canadians. Americans use “HUH?” more often or “know what um sayin’?”

Ahhh sterotypes, I seem to fit so many i get tagged iwth them all but don’t really fit one, I like to play on several fields at once and not limit myself to one circle of friends or beliefs.

But ‘chall gots one thing fer sher!

Teams and team mentality, the fear of being different or standing alone. I, on the other hand love it, I hate the mainstream.

Team loyalty, noo doot aboot it, eh? 🙂

Don’t be throwing stones, Angyegyrl

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Although Oz and I rarely agree, I feel a need to stand up next to him this time. Allow me to pick some nits…

—–

[i]And to assume that the entire populous of our 50 states is so stupid with having a “mob mentality” is an over-generalization.[/i]

Populous –
1. full of residents or inhabitants, as a region; heavily populated.
2. jammed or crowded with people: There’s no more populous place than Times Square on New Year’s Eve.
3. forming or comprising a large number or quantity: Because of epidemics the tribes are not nearly so populous as they once were.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/populous

Populace –
1. the common people of a community, nation, etc., as distinguished from the higher classes.
2. all the inhabitants of a place; population.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/populace

The sentence should have read [i]And to assume that the entire [b]populace[/b] of our 50 states is so stupid with having a “mob mentality” is an over-generalization.[/i]

—–

[i]I’ll fax you a copy of my IQ scores, right up there with Marilyn Vos Savant, I am.[/i]

Congratulations. I’m 52 and can still touch my toes.

—–

[i]…their debacled foreign policy…[/i]

debacle –
1. a general breakup or dispersion; sudden downfall or rout: The revolution ended in a debacle.
2. a complete collapse or failure.
3. a breaking up of ice in a river. Compare embacle.
4. a violent rush of waters or ice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/debacle

Debacle is a noun; it cannot be made into a verb unless you are Caspar Weinberger. The phrase would have been correct had it read “the debacle of their foreign policy…”

—–

[i]Your ire over a few insights I provided to you about yourself…[/i]

You know him so well, do you? How stereotypical. Speaking of over-generalizations…

—–

[i]…I’m well educated and very physically attractive, beautiful just shy of gorgeous (my husband and his envious friends will sign an affidavit confirming this)– by the way, “smart and sexy” is a wicked combination when the girl is man-hunting whilst she is in the woods pheasant hunting. Yes, I am an arrogant, conceited, pompous, and a PMS-ing pistol-packing vigilante. If I had to change careers, I’d probably be a hitman [/i]

You might could do the hitman thing. After all, nobody would even notice a beautiful arrogant vigilante packing a Glock.

Hubris –
excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hubris

—–

[i]Chinese proverb: “The man that raises his voice first is the one that admits defeat.”[/i]

Awful lot of shouting going on here…

—–

And finally:

[i]Now back to the adjectives you used to describe me. Dick?[/i]

The actual phrase used was “Clever Dick,” a British & Australian idiom applied to someone who tries too hard to show that they are clever, in a way which annoys other people. A sensible person would have looked it up.

Edit: add gratuitous comments

OMG

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Sitting in corner holding ribs.

Confelicidades! Eres estupido! Entonces?

What’s that ‘pig-Spanish’? An internet translation gone bad? LOL.

IQ score of a bag of hammers.

She says she’s gorgeous and ger husband will agree? Duh? Homer Simpson married Marge, but the frog-toned, stick insect is not exactly a looker. I know many ugly guys that marrie dugly women and think they are the bomb, so what?

Some bag with a big mouth is not attractive at all, looks are only skin deep.

Had to say it OZ

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Evil Grin … glad you enjoyed that.

As for myself and “stereotypes”, some here have already “placed me”. However, they could NOT be further from the truth. Yes, I have taken aim against the “right” but that’s mainly because they are just sooooo wrong and these days theirs very little in the middle of the road except yellow lines and dead armadillos. Plus, I am a bit of a trouble maker. However, I personally think that American Politics (both sides) has polarized the “cool aide” drinking masses so much so that it’s going to take nothing short of a revolution to right the keel of this nation. It sickens me, the politicians, the preachers, the sheep going around thinking their better than me and you … until they get caught in a motel room doing what they said not to do. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

Anyway, glad I could raise your blood pressure and take it back down again. You keep on keepin’ on, Max may have his “cool aide drinkers” but I’ve yet to read anything from you that did not impress me.

Love ol’ Bob and Doug, as well as the whole SCTV crew, I grew up on that stuff …

BTW: “team player”, I am not. I was born with a congenital birth defect (Polands Syndrome) which affects my left arm/hand/chest. I was told I would never play sports, Pitched in baseball for 7 years. told I could never ride a motorcycle, I built my own custom Harley Davidson w/a foot clutch and jockey shift. I have many circles of friends, the “Bikers” I ride with, the “Rednecks” that frequent the only bar in a small Texas town outside of Austin that I live in, The “Blue Collar” crowd I worked with for years, The “White Collar” people I now work with, most of my “Austin HH friends” are gay and we frequently hit the gay bars while “cruising the streets of Austin with my wife, my brother is a preacher … and I ain’t no saint. I could go on and on, but no need. My point, I run with and am related to people as far from each “side”, if you will, as you could imagine. Religion and politics … discuss ’em almost every day with those from all sides. No blinders on this American. Now, if I could only get another couple hundred million Americans to take off theirs … what a wonderful world that would be, HUH!

PS: Sorry for not knowing how to spell “touque”, don’t ever see those thing’s in Texas!

edit: BTW

Oz, Really… (edited)

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Oz,
You easily sucuumb to that need to continue on about me when you hinted that you were finished within the first few posts. What happened? You were not going to waste any more time on me. All the useless finger movement on an ugly bag? And beauty only being skin deep anyway? Hmm.

I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt that it was meant to be a conditional statement: Such that there is NO WAY AngyeGyrl can be as beautiful as everyone she has met has told her “wow, you’re beautiful” and have photos/coworkers/strangers to support this claim; BUT in the event that it is TRUE that AngyeGyrl is BEAUTIFUL by the evaluating group’s standards of phyical attractiveness, THEN the physical beauty is only skin deep; And THEN once that skin is gone, ALL that will be left EQUALS AngyeGyrl’s (soon to be the avatar) rotted internal organs and positive (or pompous, if you prefer) attitude about being smart, pretty, and dangerous. Please correct me if I did not interpret your statements properly. Actually, don’t bother. This topic has gotton so far removed from the problem of North Korea having weapons-grade nuclear components (and its ramifications for OUR CIVILIZATION’S great-great grandchildren!) that your disdain for me is a moot point.

The intent was to advise that you may have the complete flowchart of reasoning in your head, but it needs to be put to task for others to scrutinize.

I’ve only a few more minutes for rebuttal to your incorrect (again) assumptions and accusations. Then I will shake my head, as you have so often advised, and change my identity so you can have fun trying to intimidate further newbies from your torch. JUST KIDDING! I wouldn’t give you the pleasure of the opportunity to declare that I “pussed-out” because I only start a fire when I intend to stand in the flames! Furthermore, I DO MEAN “torch” as the object Brits use– got some great British friends with whom I love to visit– to see when it is dark. In America, we call it a “flashlight”. You try to flame dissidents not with burning fire, Oz, but with a little bulb and weak batteries.

The Final Go:

I knew exactly how you were trying to insult me with Dick, and yes, you bloody wanker, I take NO offense at thee, because you are a common peasant, from a society where “royalty” still exists. How sad. Back home, I imagine (lest I be accused of being wrong again- oh the horror) you’d probably be just another flop at the pub because you’d be busy buggering your buddies in the WC. No better than a fanny packer, you are. How disappointing it’s come to bantering unsubstantiated “slightly offensive” expletives.

Yeah, mate, I didn’t have to look up those mild insults either. I worked with one of your fellow citizens installing VSAT, frame relay, and dial-up satellite offices in England, Ireland, Scotland, and Germany every business day for over three years. (I worked with the other state-side contrators or company employees when opening/moving/upgrading offices in the United States and Canada.) Furthermore, if you really did do your demographics on America as claimed earlier in the post, you’ll know what company for which I worked.

And again, your statements dismissing other people’s perspectives lack support so you resort to derogatory comments. (sigh) How many times do you have to be told before you comprehend? Get the facts before you flap. In fact, I glanced over a post by a pedant who may have actually read the full text and he/she may be spot on with his/her definitions. I will graciously accept correction when properly presented with opposing information. I like to know “the truth” and reconstruct my paradigm if there truly is an error. However, I have yet to read the “investigative report” in its entirety but so far disagree with some (suggested errors). I will look into that matter as soon as I have time. But again, until you point out the errors of my logic with quotes or facts to refute my premise, you’re still just a Mad Hatter.

My heartiest laugh: You erroneously tried to claim I used a translator for writing a language I fluently speak, read, and write on a daily basis. My supporting evidence follows: My transcripts show I received the highest marks possible for the six hours of college credit for Spanish I & II in addition to the six consecutive semesters of Spanish Grammar for my college preperatory degree. The voicemail on my phone is bilingual, utilizing the business formal subject/verb tenses. My particular conversational dialect and expressions, however, are mostly from Ecuador because it’s my best friend’s native country. Her son, my youngest daughter, and even my dog understand Spanish. My little dictator in training will even tell you to “Chupate” which is probably not in a translator. (British meaning: Polish your own knob.)

And further understanding as to the true intent: Each Spanish-speaking/Latin-American country utilizes various phrases that are understood to express something completely different in meaning and level of intensity, contingent upon the location, although the language is the same. The same premise is true of the Queen’s English and American English. If I tell my nearest neighbor, “I’m getting a torch ready for your house,” he would most likely call the police and report that I threatened to burn down his house. If I said the exact same words to my former flatmates in London, they would say, “Where are we off to?” and be ready for a night’s adventure by foot. The Spanish expression you mocked as a web translation is, in Ecuador, the worst degree of insult to dispense– it means to label someone inherently stupid in a very wicked and menacing manner. “Eres estupido.” Yes, it is a very simple sentence. It means you are always lacking intelligence, not like a transient moment of stupidity because that would be “Que bobo.” If you had suffered mild but recoverable brain damage, the verb in the declaration would change: “Estas estupido.” Additionally, my sister in law is Mexican but has lived in America her entire life. If I ask for her evaluation, whether “Eres estupido” maintains similar intensity for Mexicans, I could not extrapolate that to Latinos living in Mexico. Since she is the second generation from her legally-immigrated family in the U.S., I’d have to ask her parents. My sister in law and her parents, however, are of such character that they would forbid me to use the word to describe anyone! But I do love them dearly! 🙂 ) Ergo, my simple word choices were also such that non-speakers would be able to translate it, regardless of what intensity it conveyed to you.

The last bit: I do hope you have a “good time” with me on the forum. You’ve provided some momentary diversion and sometimes poignant comments with which I agree. (gasp!) My husband is an IT professional that worked at a national intelligence imaging agency, but he never watches the news! He now runs his own company and neither knew nor cared that NK had completed a nuclear weapons test– until I had to explain why I was on the forum (AGAIN?!?!) and that he should care about NK when it’s time for us to buy a new refrigerator. Husband 2.0 was then displeased that I, a “beautiful-feminist-nazi pro-choice but personally anti-abortion activist although on ideological issues, a moderately conservative liberal” [his words], was “wasting time” lambasting morons when I could utilize my time better by cooking him dinner. (We have a great marriage!) 😉

Oz_media: I’m finished having a go with you and flaming your online character. When you tell me to shake my head, please explain to me WHY and HOW because I’m not a mind reader. I am not fixated on any school of thought other than needing concrete support or a plausible argument to reconsider.

Uh-oh! I have exactly seven minutes to get dinner finished and I haven’t even started 😛

Edits: Multiple interruptions to thought process by hairlees chimps jumping on the couch and formatting.

Edit: Added (edited) to title to advise coherence had been restored.

Angyegyrl, Please edit your last post.

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

I don’t know what went wrong, but there seem to be some missing sentences or something. I can’t understand what you are trying to say.

And BTW, just a word to the wise. If you are going to complain about other people’s grammar and spelling, you are going to be judged accordingly. You might want to take a second and third look before hitting the submit button. Just a suggestion. 🙂

Thank You, Nick… However

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Thank you for correcting the noun vs. adjective issue with debacle. The word “debacled” is so commonly used in local papers that I will have to point that out to the editor.

Also, that was an excellent catch on populous. I knew it didn’t look right, but I couldn’t quite identify the reason. That’s what I get for pulling 36 hours without sleep. (I can’t sleep when I’m “on a mission” and catching up on current events was the goal of those couple days.)

With regard to the sneer at intelligence, etc, it is merely habit because I am in a male dominated profession and when the guys at work saw a pretty, petite, size 2, blonde with boobs, they automatically started the dumb blonde jokes. I immediately challenged them to a “battle” at a website that provides an unofficial IQ based upon a timed set of problem solving questions, etc. I beat every one of them by at least 30 points and the questions change each time a person visits, so it wasn’t like I could have known the answers in advance. (My official score was derived when I was 8 years old.)

Like I said, I do admit to being pompous about it, but I have “Short Blonde Beauty So Go Away Because I Have To Perform Exceptionally Better Than The Average Man In This Male Dominated Profession And I Can’t Do That If You Are Flirting With Me” attitude. I was the only woman in the entire department, so when there really was a “new guy” hired, I had the joy of training him. Within two hours, he had to get up for a “break” and from that moment on, his nickname was “pointy” and it wasn’t because of his hair being spiked. To make matters worse, for several years he sat across the aisle from me, and every time I had to turn around and answer a question, pointy’s dial was fully indicating high noon. I’m sure if I had called his fiancee, she would have bought the Lorenna Bobbit Special Edition Severing Instrument.

With regard to the “personal insights I provided”, my first irritation was that it is not that difficult to spell the word “the” properly. Even if it’s messed up, the backspace key works on most keyboards. But Oz was correct that this forum is not monitored by professors giving a grade so I’ll take that lashing. The second point I made was that he was not an American, did not grow up here, so he cannot understand what it is like to BE ONE. So there were no over-generalizations there.

By the way, the word “hubris” is fantastic! (Seriously!) I’ll have to add it to my knowledge, skills, and abilities on my resume. Oh wait, I don’t need a resume because I own the company. 😉 I’ll work it onto my business card, although my brother (a doctor) is much worse than me.

The Chinese proverb: Refers specifically to a man, so therefore, I don’t qualify. I know it’s a technicality, and I gave him the bashing first, but it was inserted as food for thought.

And the Clever Dick comment? I worked with a Brit installing remote office networks on every U.K. business day for three years. I knew exactly what Oz meant since I’m very familiar with all degrees of slanderous and offensive phrases. There really is nothing one can call me in any language that affects me in any way. If my husband screams “You lazy f*ng bch”, I just look up with a smile: “Well, since I am lazy, you can pay the housekeeper more to wash your clothes or do it yourself. With regard to the f*ng part, well, you can also do that yourself or pay someone else for it as well. The btch part, dear, is a badge of honor I wear from having been married to you for so long. Anything else you need to say before I get back to my endeavors?”

I do thank you, though, for pointing out the errors. I have no problem accepting correction and actually prefer it since I’m not challenged by anyone within the vicinity.

Darin- The Post Has Been Edited

In reply to Yes, you’ve made your (not very good) point.

Thanks for letting me know. I’m sure it must have looked like I was typing during a self-performed frontal lobotomy. (hehe)

What happened was that my growing tyrants had the day off school and decided to jump on my lap while I was typing. After they had caused numerous interruptions, an unknown (at the time) accidental tap on the ‘enter’ key, and several losses of massive blocks of work, I finally had to show them how Her Royal Highness of My House punishes her lowly subjects for civil disobedience. 😉

Thanks again!

Afghanistan worse now

In reply to The wolves will have their way

Afghanistan is becoming increasingly worse and worse every day. They say the resistance is worse now that it EVER was when the coalition troops first invaded on the hunt fo Osama.

Remember all the civilised women and how they were no longer repressed? (Good bragging rights when explaining the turn to Iraq)
Nowadays, if they don’t wear a bourqa they are stoned and spat on again.

Remember how women now had a place in government? The one remqaining woman was tossd within a week of the bulk of troops leaving, she had to seek exile with the UN.

Remember how women were once again attending schools and training for medical careers?
When troops left, they turne dover sucurity control to the exact sqame peopl ewho they wre protecting the women from in the first place. Now women no longer attand medical schools or grade schools because it’s too dangerous.

Remember that big well fo fresh drinking water that was front page headlines for a few days, just to provce success?
That well was destryed within days of the bulk of troops leaving.

Remembner how teh funding was providing new medicines and technological advances for hospitals and to help the downtrodden build a life again?

As soon as the bulk of troops left, it was gone.

So how, with ANY remote stretch of the word can Afghanistan be considered a success in ANY way?

Afghanistan was a failure, Osama Bin Laden was not captured, women were not relieved of repression, and the fight is killing more troops today than it did in the beginning.

OKAY now disclaimer time: the core of Afghanistan is not so bad as troops still occupy much of teh area, they are still seeing women being repressed and are considered the infidels as government has not really become much more than it was.

The fighting is now more focused on Khandahar aqnd the surounding towns where Taliban have grown in extree numbers.

But it’s still the same old same old, and Canadian troops are looking for other nations to now come to the party and join teh fight, instead of being held in the back lines by their leaders.

What will our allies say of us then?

In reply to I may have agreed at one time…

Nothing new that’s for sure.

Vietnam, Afhanistan, Iraq, it’s all the same really. Senseless war without proper planning and/or direction (‘motive’ is not planning or direction).

As for doing ANYTHING to be in power, we see that every four years, no matter who is teh one longing for power. Then they say one thing and do another once in power, you’ve been playing this game long enough to know that.

Yes, the Dems state they will reduce troops, the reality is they know you ned to INCREASE troops. No matter what they say to get into office, once there I would VERY highly doubt they would quickly remove troops, that’s just what the right WANTS you to believe.

Funnyt enough though, your main concern you offered was what your allies thought of you? That’s a first. Not that you are too proud to turn tail but that your allies thoughts or wishes woul dbe concidered. Too bad that wasnt’ the frame of mind commonly shown here when your allies were against you goin to war in teh first place. They just didn’t matter then, did they?

Hypocrisy…..just OOOOZING out of that comment.

YOu have unreasonable and conjured dreams of what the left wants to do, I have yet to hear them actually state that they shoul dremove all troops as some sort of campaign promise. I think the focus toward an alternative/allied solution is actually the main focus, LESS US TROOPS IN IRAQ but only due to MORE support from allied nations. As they are starting to realize they need now but hey….nobody is interested in what Bush wants it seems.

A presidential change would make the greatest difference, even if it was still a republican administartion. People don’t like nor trust the leader of your country, far moreso than the party itself.

You showed some hypocrisy, some planted thought, some radical speculation and even some thought, but really no facts or evidence that you or your government are currently on the right path.

Why is it that teh Republican party can always say what the other HASN’T done, but comes up dry with what they HAVE done themselves?

Oz, it is you who has been spoon fed!

In reply to What will our allies say of us then?

And you apparently eat the liberal drivel right up. But you’re just spouting the rhetoric of your “team” and not really thinking for yourself at all. That’s too bad. I thought you had something to contribute, but apparently not.

Thanks, that was proof your are completely wrong in your conclusion

In reply to Oz, it is you who has been spoon fed!

First of all you state something about Liberal drivel?

Does that mean I am a Liberal then? Am I a Democrat, a lefty tree hugger? My TEAM? Which TEAM is MY team and how did they become MY team?

Those who know me actually say I am very Right Wing leaning, even Americans that know me here see me as rather right wing focused.
Fact is, I disagree with MOST Democratic and Liberal perspectives when it comes to Canada.
So you are just blatantly forming an opinion without ANY prior knoweldge except that I don’t agree with the Republicans and Bush, therefore I must be Liberal? Where did you get that crap from?

But am I? Who did I vote for? Did I vote? CAN I vote? If I CAN vote, what country do I vote in? Canada? USA? UK? Australia?

If you could answer these questions, you’d then see your last comment was purely unqualified speculation on our part.

But thanks for playing anyway, at least you dont’ resort to idle flames with nothing to support your claims.

It’s easy, Oz

In reply to Thanks, that was proof your are completely wrong in your conclusion

[i]So you are just blatantly forming an opinion without ANY prior knoweldge except that I don’t agree with the Republicans and Bush, therefore I must be Liberal? Where did you get that crap from?[/i]

If you’re not one of us, you’re one of them. I get the biggest kick out of being called a liberal stooge by the right and a right-wing wacko by the left because I agree with neither.

Welcome to the uniquely bilateral American world.

Edit: formatting

Hey Nick!

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

I get a kick out of being hated by both “sides” also. It’s very liberating to simply make up my own mind.

🙂

Never was fond of being a drone

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

“Go Your Own Way” is not just a song.

And “they” have made up their minds, too…they just don’t wish to be confused by facts.

What I don’t understand is why darinhamer keeps putting “team” in quotes instead of just using mob, which appears to be his intended meaning.

Edit: spelling

Two Sides To Every Issue- In Between Lies AndThe Truth

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

Nick and TechExec2 have spoken the truth:

Just as there is a bell curve for the Intelligence Quotient (where some of the TR bloggers appear to be on the negative side), people are rarely a pure right-wing radical or a literal left-wing liberal extremeist.

Life, ideology, politics, etc. exist on a continuum. Individuals who form their own reality based on their life experiences will lean to either side. Some lean farther toward the left or the right than others. And out of some intrinsic necessity for people to convince others that their ideology is “correct”, those that “pick sides” will engage in the porcine behavior of mud slinging and resort to fanatical propaganda to get others to lean a little more in their direction.

I would neither associate myself with any political group nor hint that I may so much as twitch on a certain side. Each issue is to be evaluated on its own conditions and merits as most educated and informed people tend to do.

So what’s up with all this nasty name calling and adjective slandering between people with different thought processes? Didn’t your mothers ever teach you that sticks and stones break bones but the twaddle of twits is to be ignored?!? Of course not, else there would be no reason for all this verbal debauchery between techincal testosterone-driven titans.

So, seriously, if you want to change the political scene, get off your IT asses and be proactive in making a difference. Talk is cheap, but actions speak louder than words.

That’s why I am so dedicated to educating people on issues, directing attention to blatant stupidity, and starting grass root campaigns… because you know what “they” say…

The hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.

AngyeGyrl . . . . . . .

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

….I really do like you!

Nick, on MOBS

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

That was such a bang on comment. I will keep that one for later.

Angye Girl

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

That post is so hyprcrotical of your posts here so far, that it isn’t funny.

The only thinkg you are consistent with is your constant referral to yourself as educated and knowledgable. that’s why YOU like to educate people? No wonder there’s so many dumb buggers running around with visions of sugar plumbs in their heads while their brothers and sisters die for a war built on deceit!

My god, give your damn head a shake!

Nick…”Team”

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

I am referring to your comment in this thread about why I have used “team” instead of just mob mentality. In the end, they are probably the same thing, but what I was referring to was the way people support sports teams.

Where I live, people go wild over K-State this time of year (and KU during basketball season). People have flags and signs on their cars, houses, offices, etc. Some people paint their houses purple (K-State’s color). They talk bout their team with every breath they can. It seems more important to them than anything. They criticize their coaches (because they could do better, I’m sure), but don’t let anyone else criticize their coach or their team. Them’s fight’n words!

People seem to be built this way–to pledge their allegiance to a team of one sort or another. A political party is a team, and as Oz has pointed out, people will support their party to the death, even when they don’t really agree with what the party is doing. They can complain internally about their party, but don’t let anyone else complain about the party. Them’s fight’n words!

I try not to be this way, but the fact is, darn near every one of us is built this way.

For the record on the war in Iraq. I do not believe that our going over there was built on deceit. It was built–in part–on some wrong information. I do think what we are trying to do there is honorable and the potential benefit for the entire world is incalculable. The world has a tremendous interest in our success, but too many people don’t see that and can only think about getting out of it. I want it to end too, but it must end the right way or the damage will be tremendous–to us and to our allies. I don’t know that we should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, but I understand (I think better than Oz does) why we did it, and whether I agree or not, we are there, we must support our troops, and we must find first, a definition of “success” and second, a way to get there.

Success

In reply to It’s easy, Oz

The prograssive realization of a worthwhile dream.

Well they have continually SAID it is successful but reality is proving otherwise.

Every tim eyour president says, ‘we are winning’ he is just full of crap. You are nto winnign, nobody is at this point, I sippose in teh eye of terrorists this can be considered success as they simply want war with casualties from the Western world.

But it certainly isn’t a progressive realization of a worthwhile dream. So how long do you wait to see success? I know, until the job is done, of course. You can’t leave now, it’s too late for that.

Just don’t go on about seeing success, maybe 10, 20 years on from now, if ever?

Sometimes the fight lingers for years in these civil/religious wars (Northern Ireland?).

This isn’t a war of simple attrition where you fight for your land and give up, settling for what ground you claimed when you run out of drive and resources.

It doesn’t matter who you vote for.

In reply to Thanks, that was proof your are completely wrong in your conclusion

I am basing my opinion on all of your posts on this site. I don’t care who you vote for or where you vote. I don’t even care whether you are a liberal, conservative, or something else. But you are spouting liberal drivel nonetheless. That’s not to say that there aren’t other types of drivel, such as conservative drivel. And perhaps I am guilty of spouting that, except that I don’t mindlessly think that we definitely should have started a war with Iraq. But, now that we are there, I think we do have to be successful in some way.

What I am suggesting to you is that you cannot possibly be as knowledgeable about American politics as you think you are. Your opinion is valuable as someone from another country and how American politics might affect you. But it is not an opinion based on the full picture (in fact none of ours is). You speak rather matter-of-factly about Americans and politics, yet you are biased as well. In fact, based on an earlier post, it now appears that you think we should just ignore what our government does and “get on with our lives.” But to me, if we don’t pay proper attention to what our government does, we potentially won’t have much of a life to get on with.

As for news on US channels that always shows US in a positive light, I must not get those channels where I live. I think our news media always focuses on the negative and always paints America as in the wrong. Makes it harder to tell when we really are in the wrong.

Finally, I didn’t mean for this discussion to turn nasty, so I apologize for that. I respect your opinion, but just disagree with it.

wrong thread!

In reply to Thanks, that was proof your are completely wrong in your conclusion

edit: to move to the right thread

Fair enough

In reply to Thanks, that was proof your are completely wrong in your conclusion

No, you didn’t turn nasty, you were actually well spoken and eloquent. Your comments were chosen with thought and consideration and I welcome such comments, whether in agreement with mine or not.

I dn’t think I see a bigger picture than you, I know our news is more in depth than yours but all world news censors some stuff.

As for what the media reports, you are right, many US channels are quite lefrt wing focused. Most of these are divisions of SBG that is a right wing owned broadcaster in the US. Many seemingly left wing channels are actually owned by the right and funded by coporations that fund the Republican campaign, they alo see the contracts and tax breaks for it too. They push these left wing zealots to spin BS in order to make it seem even more unbelievable, thus enforcing belief in the right wing when they in turn denounce the stories. It’s so black and white, so easily researched and has been proven here countless times, though Max still doesn’ buy it no matter how many names and ownerships stats are thrown at him (cool aid will do that to you). Ids thi sthe explanation for all such news? Of course nto, but it does happen and it happens frequesntly.

When the rest of the world and half of America sees one story, then the Republicans spin another, how can one possibly buy into one small segment of the population that hasn’t even shown the whole story the others did?

I am far mroe conservative than Liberal, I have been tagged with being lefty, liberal etc for years, but I haven’t voted so. In fact I don’t vote in Canada at all, I am not Canadian citizen. I vote in the UK when I choose to but not for most, I let them run their country as I am not there much these days.

As far as my understanding of US politics, just as most other Americans, and I mean the vast majority, I rely on world, news, local news etc. If i was American would i get the inside scoop? Would one of your mamy networks and local news channels that I pay for offer me the truth that only Americans get? Nope.

Just like everyone else, I am left to use my resources to reach my own conclusion.

The problem I see?

Too many peopl elimit these rousources with clear bias, many people also dont reach their own conclusion, it’s easier to just buy into what friends and family say (and mroe peaceful) than it is to try and wadfe through the heaps of BS from both sides whilst looking for some common ground or truth in all of it.

One more small comment, with respect to deceit or justification. Yes they were acting on misinformation. The problem was, that informant, long KNOWN to them as ‘curveball’ was KNOWN to provide false information for his own gain. thi swas teh first concern raised about the information and the concern that had allies say they wanted more evidence before comitting to an invasion of Iraq.

With this GWb thumbed his nose, and said you are either with us or against us, then went to war. (which incidentally was NOT what the allies had orginally planned, force was only to be used to complete inspections IF neccessary, but inspections wer on schedul and turnign up nothing.)

I personally feel that when the Republicans saw that the UN was coming up empty and a justified invasion was looking more and more unjustifiable, they removed inspectors and invaded against their own word.

Hey, no offense taken, I actually really enjoy your approach and even though we disagree it’s ncie to see an American who can do so without reducing himself to spewing mere propaganda.

Thank you so much for your comments!

I’m beginning to prefer being naive.

In reply to Fair enough

😉 I have decided that I am naive and prefer to stay that way. Oz, you are clearly a very smart man (much smarter than AngyeGyrl and perhaps sexier too, I don’t know) but I just disagree with quite a bit of what you say.

First, watching the news is not the only thing that gives you perspective when it comes to being American. Being part of our culture has more to do with it than anything. Living and working here day in and day out gives you better insight than watching the boob tube. I truly believe that. I distrust the vast majority of everything I see on television.

Secondly, I think GWB gets way too much blame for the mess we’re in. I think Americans are our own problem. When we were under Clinton, we had the UN leading us around by the nose and leading us into “peace-keeping missions” (another term for war) and commanding our soldiers, many of whom were getting shot and killed. Americans grew a little tired of that.

So with Bush’s election, we cried that we would not be led around by the UN and when it came time to go to war, we didn’t care if nobody else wanted to go with us (which might be because a good deal of them were getting rich off of the oil for food program). We had to do what was right for us and forget everyone else. Now that things aren’t going well, we’re all trying to point the finger at GWB. But you know the saying…When you point one finger, there are three pointing back at you. There are some here who are self-righteous enough to claim that they never wanted to go to war, but by-and-large, they were against it because they wouldn’t fight for their country no matter what. They are the kind of people who are happy to see us doing poorly and now claim they knew all along there weren’t any WMDs. But they are worthless in my opinion.

So sorry if we thumbed our nose at the rest of the world, but from where I sit, it appears that the rest of the world loves us when they need something from us, but then they hate us as soon as they’ve got what they wanted. Afghanistan and Iraq are two good examples of that.

I suppose at the end of the day, Oz, most of what you say is true. It is a crooked world and we have to have a crooked way of looking at it if we want to see it accurately. But I guess, I just don’t want to live that way. If we have to go around not trusting anyone and assuming that EVERYONE has a personal agenda and they are just waiting for the right moment to screw you, then I would rather stick my head in the sand and wait for the nukes to take us off the map, because then what is our worth in the end. At least I’ll be content until that happens. Of course, with folks like you around who are always questioning people’s motives and see a destructive plot around each corner (and I mean that as a compliment), we’re probably safe. 😉

Thanks for the verbal sparring. I’ve enjoyed it.

That’s an honest outlook

In reply to Fair enough

Perhaps I am a bit unclear. no I am nto American, but I am (more over the last 10 years than today) heavily involved with US business and people. I operated two talent scouting offices on the west coast (CA and OR)for three years, in that time I hired and spent a great deal of time in the US, leaving only due to citizenship/temporary visa restrictions and returning as I could.

As a child and young adult I was involved heavily with scouting (as a youth and a leader)and spent many weeks over the years staying with US Scouts or leaders.

The US is 30 minutes tops from my house, I am there AL the time, like it or not. I am at Emerald Downs Seattle Seahawks football games, god knows HOW many concerts etc.

I used to manage/promote two very active touring bands and have spent countless weeks travelling all corners of teh world especially the USA. I have met SO many Americans, spent SO much time there that I really do understand and have a good feel for your culture. I don’t understand how it can be so different from teh rest of teh world, as you look pretty much the same as other people, but it really is.

No matter what country I am in, I always find similarities in culture and political beliefs of the people, but not the USA, you guys are on eand alone with your own ideals and thought process I cannot fathom most of the time.

you are right, ou are VERY unique, whether it’s good or bad, it is very different, nto just from Canada but from anyne else I’ve met.

Canada is VERY similar to England and Australia in mindset, even Germans are very close to the Canadian ‘mentality’, one thing we all agree on, nobody can believe how the US acts so unique and yet is really no different than anywhere else (in a barebones view), people in the USA just want to pretend/act like it is a new planet with great new ideas on how the world should be.

Truth is, under the Dog and Pony show, it’s just another f&^%#d up country that we all have to put up with. The USA is in the world’s face, whether they like it or not, that’s why everyone is so vocal about the USA, you guys INSIST on being noticed and heard.

Many say it’s nobody’s business but America’s, if that’s the case, which I welcome, please keep YOUR business out of my face. If you insist on tellng the world how wonderful your are each day, then be prepared to take the criticism too (not you personally but ‘you’ the USA and Americans).

You guys made it my business, not me.

One last thing:
“(which might be because a good deal of them were getting rich off of the oil for food program).”

I have read the US Embassy’s report to Congress on the O.F.F. program. It was posted in its entirety, and I posted the link on TR for others to read. A month or two later, the same 66+ page document was down to 22 pages with any ‘condemning’ or ‘unhealthy’ information about the USA removed or “ammended”, as the doc noted the revision.

It detailed clearly the hows and whys of the scandal. No the US was not the key problem, but they were the key reason other smaller countries were trading illegally for Iraqi oil, because they were in turn supplying US S&D. Iraq wouldn’t sell it direct to the US so little middlemen did it instead and the US ignored these issues while they were seeing the oil flow.

Without a market, the drug dealer wouldn’t be breaking the law either.

The US was also accused of NOT inspecting and releasing goods in a timely fashion, as they were in charge of all inbound goods inspections for Iraq. no matter WHO was runnign your country, would you all feel comfortable if Pakistan had laid down sanctions and then was inspecting YOUR imports? Deciding what you could and couldn’t have and taking their sweet time about it. American revolt woul dbe instantaneous.
Even nmost medical supplies often fell under the heavily restrictive dual purpose goods restrictions and many shipments were stored in warehouses for up to or over a year, with perishable goods not expiring.

So the US was not the real problem, but was a great deal of the reason Saddam was so hard to get cooperation from at that time, during initial inspections.

BUT….of course that’s never in US news so it simply didn’t occur. Other news reports and especially the US Embassy’s own report to Congress were just lefty BS. At least that’s what Republicans say/truly believe. 😉

Holding hand out to America? I believe America is still the world’s largest importer (not exporter/provider)and relies on th erest of the world to keep it strong than any other country on Earth. This is obvisoult helping other countries to prosper too, don’t get me wrong, it is a two way street. Too many Americans see it as all their giving with no taking, but that’s what the media force feeds you anyway, what else are you suposed to believe, right?

Thanks, sorry for length but you really are interestng to debate/discuss with.

All right, one more.

In reply to Fair enough

You have a different take than me, but that doesn’t make yours right and mine wrong. There is probably some truth in both of our opinions, and likewise probably some error.

Perhaps my view is completely twisted by the garbage that I get fed by the news media (I don’t think so) but I still believe the U.S. is the greatest country on Earth. I am glad we have a different way of looking at things than the rest of the world, especially GB and other European countries. The truth is, none of these worldviews is new. You can look at past civilizations and trace todays different ways of thinking to past civilizations. And the ways that today’s cultures, especially European thinking, generally preceed the decline and disappearance of the civilization. In short, I think it is possible that the liberal philosophies of western Europe could very well lead to its downfall.

I don’t discount the U.S. from this potential fate either, though. Hubris and arrogance tend to come before the fall and we have a good bit of that. While I think the U.S. is a great place, it is not perfect. But I don’t believe we are the bullies everyone makes us out to be (I’m sure that line will get a reply from you 😉 ).

Yes, I suppose that Iraq didn’t like us putting sanctions on them and then inspecting the goods coming in. Saddam could have put an end to that. His hubris and arrogance came before his fall, to be sure. He wasn’t concerned about his people and in the end, he found a way to increase his own wealth, retain his dictatorial power, and get extremely wealthy, while thumbing his nose at the rest of the world, and harming his own people. He was tremendously self-centered, at the expense of his people. But I guess you can choose to blame the U.S. for that if you want.

As far as “the rest of the world having their hand out.” Please, that is not what I said. But Americans are, by-and-large, good people and are quite often there to help when there is disaster and mis-fortune in the world. Other countries are grateful to get the help. But only while they are getting it. They will turn on us the instant the help stops coming. And, yes, we import a great deal, but that is largely because it is now more cost-effective to produce or purchase commodities in other countries rather than produce them ourselves. If we had to, we could be self-sufficient. But I suppose that sounds a little cocky. We purchase our imports, though. They are not the result of “hand-outs” as you put it. I am talking about the U.S. being willing to help our neighbors and allies. We have always been there for them, but quite frequently we are on our own when we need the help.

O.K. Your turn. Tell me how I am just being misled by the media and not seeing the “real” picture.

Why especially the GB?

In reply to Fair enough

Aside from the fact we’re arrogant stroppy c*nts that is?

America’s word as a nation?

In reply to I may have agreed at one time…

All nations break their word when it’s in their best interest to do so. This is why we end up with politicians in charge, normal people have more self respect than that.
As yet you haven’t developed the british reputation for turning on your allies when it becomes in your interest to do so, but you’ve made an excellent start.

In certain respects I’d trust you with much, I wouldn’t trust your nation with anything except acting in their own best interest though. I wouldn’t trust mine either.

What confuses us, is far as we can see, you don’t always act in your own best interest.

American’s Double Standard

In reply to North Korea, Nukes and You.

I’m totally disagree with this . Each and every country in this world has the right ot protect itself. To protect your country you need weapons and it can be of any kind. How can you justify American’s bombing on Heroshima(Japan)? Did America distroyed all their nuke weapons? NO.. So why it has problem with other countirs acquiring those for their protection.
If Japan had the Nuke weapons, it could have protected itself from American terrorist attack.
Be fare and be honest with everyone.

Somebody has to lead and protect (so double standards are ok with me)

In reply to American’s Double Standard

As the “sole remaining superpower”, we lead the west and the modern project, and to maintain the peace that lets most of the world thrive.

If we don’t boss little countries around on important matters like nuclear weapons, then we contribute to world suicide. If every country in the middle east from Yemen to Arabia to Iran to Lebanon has the bomb, how many months do you thing it will be between minor nuclear wars? How long before suicidal non-national terrorist groups get ahold of warheads?

In everybody’s interest, somebody has to swing the heavy hand and keep this under control, so long as it’s possible. Once a country gets the weapon, though, there’s just about nothing you can do about it.

The ultimate oxymoron

In reply to Somebody has to lead and protect (so double standards are ok with me)

“minor nuclear war”

Um

In reply to American’s Double Standard

[i]To protect your country you need weapons and it can be of any kind. How can you justify American’s bombing on Heroshima(Japan)?[/i]

Your statement in the first sentence answers the question you ask in the second. The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was part of a war inititated by the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor. I certainly hope your thought processes are not as disconnected as these two sentences indicate.

Yes, every country in the world has the right to protect itself. But nuclear weapons are strictly offensive weapons; how does North Korea intend to protect itself with them? By bombing itself? Or by bombing Seoul?

Nope

In reply to Um

If nuclear weapons were strictly offensive, there would have been full-fledged war 40 years ago, or earlier.

The main value of nuclear weapons is to deter others from hitting at the guy who possesses them. Deterrence. They deter not only nuclear attack, but other forms of attack (or counterattack) as well.

They’re too hard to use in a tactical situation to be true offensive weapons.

I stand by my statement

In reply to Nope

Nuclear weapons may have a defensive effect by making others think twice about attacking you with nuclear weapons, but they cannot be used against an enemy on your own soil; thus, they have no inherent defensive capablity.

The only logical use of nuclear weapons [u]today[/u] is as a weapon of last resort. Had Hitler had access to nukes in early April 1945, London, Paris, or New York would have supplanted Hiroshima as the first target of a nuclear weapon.

Edit: clarify, grammar

Of course, they can be used on your own soil

In reply to I stand by my statement

You simply need to be willing to accept the costs. During the ICBM years, for example, the only effective way to protect a field of Minuteman silos against Soviet warheads was to throw a cloud of debris high up in the air, to burn them and bounce them off target during re-entry. The way to do that is to plant hydrogen bomb mines in the North Dakota soil. They’re probably still there.

If you were, say, North Korea, and you wanted to blow up Americans during a ground war, but not provide a strong case for our nuclear retaliation, you could bomb the invaders your own homeland. Bombing across an international border would be universally recognized as atrocious, but bombing your own country would be not as bad.

Fallout from one bomb is not too rough if it does not have a U-238 shell and it is an airburst.

Never heard THAT one before!

In reply to Of course, they can be used on your own soil

[i]The way to do that is to plant hydrogen bomb mines in the North Dakota soil. They’re probably still there.[/i]

Reference?

This will take some time

In reply to Never heard THAT one before!

I read this (defensive nuclear land mines to provide a literal umbrealla above missile silos) in the 1980s. I’m not sure if I can find an authoritative citation. I’ll look, but it will take some time.

However, it strikes me as so obvious a solution, that it would be difficult to argue against deploying it. In a strike against a field of missile silos, you would be expecting to take dozens of ground bursts. Why not start with a couple of defensive ones? It won’t add much to the mess, and could greatly improve the strategic outcome.

To the extent you can preserve counterstrike capability, you deter the original strike. In nuclear war, uncertainty about effect is one of the keys to deterrence.

Can’t find reference

In reply to Never heard THAT one before!

Could have been wrong, and it was never deployed as a defensive mechanism. Read about it in one of Scientific American’s many features on strategic weapons technology. I did read that Minuteman III warheads were dust-hardened in the 1970s, which is the counter-defense against flying through a fallout cloud.

It strikes me that if this kind of anti-warhead measure was deployed in the U.S., there would be good reason for the government not to blab about it. However, I can find no firm evidence it was ever deployed. In fact, I can’t even find any mention of it in a couple hours of looking. Oops.

Of course,

In reply to Nope

he might have meant a different definition of ‘offensive’. 🙂

What planet are you posting from? Uranus?

In reply to American’s Double Standard

Where do I start with you?

—–

[i]”How can you justify American’s bombing on Heroshima(Japan)?”[/i]

Easy. Japan attacked America and declared war against her.

—–

[i]”If Japan had the Nuke weapons, it could have protected itself from American terrorist attack.”[/i]

America’s military action against Japan was in response to Japan’s unprovoked sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. It was not a “terrorist attack”.

As Nick pointed out, nukes are offensive weapons, not defensive. If Japan had nukes in WWII, it could have completely destroyed America in its attack, not just seriously damage the Pacific navy fleet as it did.

—–

[i]”So why it has problem with other countirs acquiring those for their protection.”[/i]

America is not threatening North Korea. North Korea does not need to “protect itself” from America. On the other hand, if North Korea develops nukes, it will surely sell them to others, including terrorists who will smuggle them into the United States and detonate them. This is a very serious threat to America. North Korea is a rogue nation that is not a good neighbor to any other nation. Just ask South Korea and Japan. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to condemn and punish North Korea for its nuke test. It’s not just America who has a problem with it.

Keeping nukes under control around the world is a good thing for everyone. America and Russia are even cooperating to reduce the size of their nuke arsenals.

—–

I really think you should reexamine your view of America. And, you should study history because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is some suggested reading for you:
http://tinyurl.com/6wbv

edit: suggested reading

The link ….. the link ….. the link ……

In reply to American’s Double Standard

…does this deserve THE LINK?

Absolutely!!!

In reply to The link ….. the link ….. the link ……

Added. Thanks for reminding!

Great Debate!

In reply to Absolutely!!!

TechExec2,

You slay me (ROFL) with The Link.

Perhaps you could rid society of many more historically/politically/logically-impaired individuals by widely distributing The Link in the same manner that PBS airs public service announcements.

I know there are many people in my contacts list who are going to anonymously receive the recommended educational site you provided herein.

Thanks for the fat/carbohydrate/fluoxetine-free boost of endorphins and affect-positive neurotransmitters on this Monday morning.

Great Debate!

It IS a fun link, isn’t it?

In reply to Great Debate!

It IS a fun link, isn’t it? Bookmark it. Then, when you’re having a rough day, you can use it on yourself. It cracks me up every time.

AngyeGyrl

In reply to Great Debate!

You would never get the link.

How could japan have protected it self.

In reply to American’s Double Standard

If they’d had an A bomb they only place they could have sensibly dropped it at that point is on their own territory !

There’s a big difference between a terror weapon and a terrorist.

Gedankenexperiment

In reply to How could japan have protected it self.

If Japan had a bomb, they could have exploded it on their own territory, and destroyed tens of thousands of American soldiers in a single blow.

If they exploded it within their own territorial waters over an invasion force, with its supporting ships, the military (and economic and human) impact would have been greater still.

In both of these cases, nuclear weapons would have exercised their most powerful military function, deterrence. However, if they had one weapon, and were confident we we had several, could they have been bold enough to use it, understanding that its use meant retaliation? Probably not.

This is Herman Kahn logic at work. This is how we had to think in the 1950s, before we had thousands of warheads and redundant delivery systems. This is how the emerging nuclear belligerents will have to reason.

As you say

In reply to Gedankenexperiment

They could have cracked it off on a concentration of american forces.
Three things though.

The US had air superiority before they dropped their bombs, so attacking a landing force out at sea would have been something of a challenge.

Certainly they could have pressed the button on land, just drive the thing up in a truck, however, there would have only been one reason for US troops to be concentrated, there were a lot of japanese ones in front of them.

I suppose the idiots who were running the show might of thought this was viable option. I mean, they started a war against the US they could never win.

A third and key point there was no such thing as the concept of nuclear deterrence until the US cracked a couple off. The difference in degree of destructive potential needed an unfortunate example.

Okay we disagree

In reply to American’s Double Standard

Firstly, let me say that life is not fair. It never has been and never will be. I would say that a nations ability to protect itself should be commensurate with it’s location, it’s relations with it’s neighbors, it’s relative power (both economic and political) with respect to it’s neighbors and it’s style of government. Let us look momentarily to nations such as Brazil, or Argentina or Finland, or any other of the hundreds of nations that do not have nuclear weapons and are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Just as a matter of course let me ask you – Do you remember who invaded whom on the Korean peninsula in 1950? Did South Korea (not pursuing a nuclear program) invade the North? No. Did China (who has a sizable nuclear stock pile) invade North Korea? No again. So, who are they afraid of and why? The North Koreans have been one of the top exporters of weapons in the world for over forty years. They sell weapons to anyone who will pay for them. I guess this is one reason why the rest of the world takes issue with North Korea.
Now, to address your question about the American nuclear assault on Japan during the Second World War; Japan had demonstrated that they would not stop waging war and was prepared to fight the last child if the allied forces invaded the main island of Japan in 1945. The estimated death toll to American soldiers was estimated at close to a half million soldiers dead with an equal number of wounded. This does not take into consideration the millions of Japanese who would have died during that battle. So, the decision was made to drop these bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to break the Japanese will to fight. The attack produced the intended result and thus millions of lives were actually saved by dropping those bombs. If Japan had nuclear bombs it still could not have protected itself as the end result would have been the same as they lacked the means to deliver the bombs to an effective target.

Quite rarely, I agreed with you

In reply to Okay we disagree

If you are saying our only credible and sensible response to the NK going nuclear is to ignore them I agree even more.

At least for Hiroshima. My 20-20 hindsight and their inability to forecast the future disqualify me from second guessing. Nagasaki certainly drove home the lesson, whether it was necessary is much more open to debate.

However you can’t ignore that fact that you are North Korea’s enemy, you can’t ignore the fact that as a nation you have demonstrated your willingness to invade your enemy’s and you can’t ignore the fact there are circumstances in which you’ll nuke them.

What response do you expect from anyone who chooses not to change into what you want in order to cease being an enemy?

Logic for a moment

In reply to Quite rarely, I agreed with you

To analogize North Korea’s attempt at creating a nuclear arsenal let us take you and I for and instant. Let us suppose you have a large hunting rifle and a great deal of ammunition and I have nothing. Let us also suppose that you and I don’t like each other very much. Let us then say that I acquire a hand gun which has less effective range than yours and I have less ammunition than you do but when I see you I pull out my hand gun and indicate to you that I will shoot you if you come close enough. What are your options? You can stay away of course and call me a nut bar. How ever now I get another hand gun and sell it to your unruly teenager and plot with him to shoot you from within your own home. See where I am going? I would agree that we should just ignore him if it weren’t for history telling us that he loves to sell weapons to whomever is will to pay for them. He wants to make nuclear weapons so he can sell them to whoever will pay for them and then watch the fur fly when some terrorist detonates a suit case nuke in the middle of Wall Street.

Yes and no

In reply to Logic for a moment

It’s not handgun vs rifle but one of us solving his disagreement with the other by taking out their opponent his family and all his neighbours.

At the point a weapon get’s destructive enough so that you can’t only kill your enemy with it, you have gone insane. You are danger to everyone around you.

If you don’t ignore him what can you do?
Sanctions, he won’t give a crap.
Attack him, he will nuke you. Make no mistake this fool will crack one off, as long as he;’s safe he won’t give a crap.

However that is not going to happen not because you would get nuked but because no democratically elected official would ever send their troops into get nuked. It would be political suicide.

If you get a courageous official who cares more about his country than his career and his sponsors, you might try having the guy knocked off. However being found out to have done that no matter how justified would have serious repercussions.

Wheel Ollie North out and have him take one for the team again, plausible deniability and all that.

It’s officially lose – lose.

It’ll be a while before they get that in a suitcase

In reply to Logic for a moment

Probably their bomb is as big as a refrigerator right now. It takes a pretty refined technology to get one miniaturized, even to the size that one of their missiles can carry, let alone a suitcase.

The Chinese seemed to have forced the Kim team to cancel their second nuke test. Looks like NK makes them nervous when they play with actual bombs.

On another note, how’d you like to be the NK project manager of that initial bomb design? “Sorry, Mr. Kim, yield was only 5% of target. I’ll do better next time.” Not likely.

Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

In reply to It’ll be a while before they get that in a suitcase

This entire situation of NK having nukes is now very, very precarious. The despot is just out of his mind thinking that the world is going to permit him to keep playing with atoms.

To make matters worse, with Kim’s Short Crazy Man Disease now compounded with China giving him the proverbial slap on the wrist, I predict Kim will try selling his BIG bomb or products to reproduce his BIG bomb to the first caller and even include free shipping and not one, but two sets of Ginsu knives in the event the fridge doesn’t pass customs.

Even if Kim engages in “diplomatic” talks with the rest of the world, the dictator cannot be trusted to keep his dirty little hands from taking some “humanitarian” aid money only to lose track of his enriched uranium (or plutonium or whatever highly radioactive element he procured.) I can hear Kim’s official press release now: “Oops! I forgot where I hid it and now it’s gone.”

And I’m not convinced his bomb was BIG as a fridge for lack of technology. (Just from my watching Discovery Channel, I could very likely make a small, but functional nuclear warhead if I had the proper materials on hand.) The BIG BOMB is just an entirely compensation design because poor Kim is living with a pinkie for a twinkie.

Or, perhaps Kim’s NK project manager still has a job because he could be an evil genius: An Atomic Refrigerator Bomb. Think of it: What could be a more clever disguise to get the nukes out of their country and to (intermediary player) and then to the U.S. without suspicion…? Because the last time I checked, no one had a Geiger counter when the delivery trucks were unloading large, imported kitchen appliances. And I’m pretty sure the contraband sniffing dogs at the dockyards are too busy trying to find their handler’s next few lines (or swirls, if you prefer) of Columbia’s finest….

Too bad Superman’s dead. The Texas Oilwell Bush Cowboys don’t know what the hell they are doing. And it’s going to be my children growing up in the middle of all this mess! Why? Because George W. wanted to prove his middle initial wasn’t “WeinieBoy” by starting a war on terror and ignoring a dangerous little NK man named after an American little girl with whom I played dolls.

NK nukes are very serious [i]right now[/i]

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

Yes.

NK nukes are very serious [b]right now[/b]. We don’t have to wait for them to be small enough to fit into a suitcase or atop a missile. A shipping container is sufficient.

The bomb doesn’t even have to be “nuclear”. Merely radiological is bad enough to cause a lot of problems. It’s not necessary to vaporize a big chunk of a city, just making it radioactive will be bad enough. Asymmetric warfare.

Let’s see… Which container in which ship has the bomb?
http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml

This is a very serious subject. I enjoyed your rhetorical humor.

Bush didn’t start the war on terror.

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

The dudes that flew commercial airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the field in Pennsylvania did.

With respect

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

The war on terror did not start on September 11, 2001. If you consider the cold war a war, then you must consider that there were many battles in the war against radical Islam decades before 9/11.

Hijaking of airplanes, Munich Massacre, kidnapping of diplomats in Iran, Achille Lauro, Libyan incidents, first world trade centre bombing, attack on the USS Cole, bombing of the US embassies, and on and on. These were all part of an ongoing struggle I would call a war.

James

With Condolences

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

that was simply the first attack on american soil. It certainly didn’t start the terror, there were one or two attacks prior to this, just in foreign parts.

In fact some of them were in fact legitimate freedom fighter operations by those nice irish people or against those horrible south american communists according to various american governments.

The american response to 9/11 was the war on terror. The war on terror is a political campaign and 9/11 was why it was launched.

I understand the why of it, your government had to be seen to do something, that’s the nature of a democracy.
I despair of the how though.

Bush started the war on terror, but terror started a war on us first

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

I’ve got kind of a fetish for precision. Mister Bush, clearly, does not. It’s handy to be able to keep the different parts of this situation separated. It keeps you from confusing one objective, or motive, for another. Like Iraq being a source of terrorist threat to us, for example.

RE: Dilbert and Precision

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

How ignorant can you be?! Did George Bush attack us on Sept 11th? He didn’t start the war on terror but given half a chance he may finish it. That’s unless the liberal defeatists force us to leave Iraq in which case there will be a civil war and every radical Mullah around the world will be calling for Jihad and sending their car bombs to your town.

Hey Pro,

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

How many brownie points do you get for your fear mongering?

“Did George Bush attack us on Sept 11th?” What a stupid question to pose!

“He didn’t start the war on terror but given half a chance he may finish it”. He may have had a chance, IF he had not chose the wrong country to invade. I may be wrong here, I did see him on a big ship all dressed up in a flight suit announcing “mission accomplished” … they had a sign made up and everything.

“That’s unless the liberal defeatists force us to leave Iraq in which case there will be a civil war”
Are you on the White House payroll or do you just watch to much FOX news? Oh, I know, I know … your an “alcoholic” right? That seems to be the excuse de jour. Anyway dumbass, the civil war in Iraq you speak of … never would have happened had we not destroyed their country/infrastructure. But it IS in full swing already whether we are there or not they are killing each other right now AND the American and allied troops. How many non-Iraqi lives are you willing to sacrifice for their civil war? October so far has been the deadliest month in years … how many more lives? Do you have any kids? Ready to send ’em over there? I’ll bet you are! How proud you’ll be that your children died for such a just cause!

Drunk off your ass or not, you make one outstanding right wing “sheep”! Come onnnnnnn, Bah for us some more ….

Let me explain, Pro, patiently

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

Parse that header out. Put the phrases in historical order:
1) terrorists attack U.S.
2) U.S. prez announces “war on terror”
I assume Mr. Bush called it a “war on terror” instead of a “war on Al-Qaeda” because he wanted to go after a lot of targets that had little to do with the people who actually attacked us.

He wanted to go after Saddam, probably, from the first day he got into office. Lots of people on his staff, particularly Wolfowitz and Feith, who had the holocaust in their family backgrounds, thought that Hitler-like dictators should be eliminated as a duty to the human race. Plus, they too, like Cheney and Rumsfeld, thought it would be good for the American place in the world, and relatively easy. That’s what I’m guessing. I think you could pretty fairly compare Saddam to Hitler or Stalin.

Well, they were able to fudge the borders on the idea of “terror”, and now we’ve got a state that is falling into dust, and the responsibility for it is on our hands.

So, boneheaded mixups like this, and the unthinking compliance of the American people and Congress in it, is why it’s good to remind folks now and then (hey, you!) that it’s important to get your ideas straight. Especially when you take a great nation to war.

Delbert, technically you are correct…

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

…but I believe I was the first one here to say that it was not GWB who started the war on terror and so I feel I should clarify what I meant. A group of terrorists committed an act of war against the U.S. first, so we really didn’t have much choice but to respond by declaring war back. That is what I meant when I said that GWB didn’t start the war on terror.

I agree with a lot of what you say, and the parts I don’t necessarily agree with, I think are well stated and logical. But consider the war on terror, then, all by itself without thinking about Iraq for a minute. It was not a country that attacked us on 9/11. It was a group of people, namely radical Muslims, who have been attacking us in different parts of the world for decades. The declaration of the war on terror was shortly after 9/11 and was several months before looking at Iraq (at least as far as we are concerned), so in that context, declaring a war on terror vs. a war on the people who committed this attack, made sense, because in the end, the two terms are synonymous. Not much had been done to try to control terror against the U.S. and her insterests for decades past, and it was finally time to respond by declaring war on terror and terrorists.

And furthermore, several people here in this thread have talked about the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” comment, but they are taking that comment out of its proper context. GWB did not say that in relation to Iraq. He said that in relation to the war on terror. What he meant was that for far too long countries such as Afghanistan had harbored the terrorists and out of deference to those countries’ sovereignty, we did not openly pursue the terrorists. But that was not going to happen any longer. If the countries did not cooperate with our war on terror, if they continued to harbor those who were responsible for the terrorist acts against the United States, then they could consider themselves our enemies as well. Because in the end, if they weren’t willing to help us catch the terrorists, then they were directly or indirectly supporting the terrorists, and it was time to take sides in this war. Hopefully that clarifies the “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” statement and puts it in its proper context.

Now, did Iraq fit into that picture? It did not fit into it directly, but it did arguably fit into the bigger terrorism picture. But you are correct that GWB wanted to unseat Saddam the day he took office. I remember a NewsWeek cover that talked about it and the problems we would face, and that issue probably came out when GWB was still president elect. There were a group of influencial conservatives who saw that as a strategic move in stabilizing the Middle East, and perhaps trying to help control terrorism. But the logic behind that move is not obvious. You have to look beneath the surface to see it. The average American doesn’t want to look beneath the surface. We want to be protected and that is it. We want affluence and personal peace. We don’t want to fight for longer term greater good.

Now, I am not arguing that invading Iraq was a smart thing to do or that I agree with the logic, but there was some logic. Perhaps it wasn’t as well thought out as it could have been, or perhaps no one could have done any better, in spite of their claims. Or maybe we should have stayed out altogether. But we didn’t. We’re there now, and we cannot just walk out.

RE: PSer

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

You know what is interesting is that I have never before been called a sheep by a sheep. What’s funny is that you accuse me of being a dupe for the Republican party when you yourself spew out DNC rhetoric as if you were a radio.
What is so bad about a president being in a class of second graders? I don’t understand the sarcasm. Are you suggesting that he should somehow intuitively knew that we were going to be attacked and been… Where? Done…What? What could he have done in those first minutes other than what he did do that would have changed anything? Could he have saved one life by jumping up immediately and doing anything?
What makes you think he “chose” anything? Are the stars and moon in such an alignment that you can channel some ancient moose spirit who told you that secretly GWB conspired to do this all along?
I don’t understand your ranting about the aircraft carrier landing? I suppose it would have been better if he would have engaged in “not” having sex in the oval office.
As to my thoughts on the Iraq conflict – I suggest you read as much as you can (not written by Nancy Pelosi, Babs, or Howard “the” Dean) and speak to as many intelligent people as you can and then you will still not understand what is going on over there. You listen to the crap that comes out the the leftist media and swear to it as if were gospel and all because their agenda is the same as your own.
I’ve been there. I’ve met with and worked with the Multi-National forces there. I have pictures to prove it. I am sure your a relatively smart person but I must assure you that I think I have a better sense of what is happening there than you do.
HAHAHAHA! Alcoholic. That was almost funny. Come on PSer, don’t get mad. If you have a point make it. One sign of a poorly constructed argument is that when you start to loose you attack those who you are debating against.

RE: Pro

In reply to Selling Fridge Sized Nukes

Not mad at all there Pro,

Let’s see … you did not understand the intent of my sarcasm, It was just SARCASM. There was NO implications in any way shape or form as to what dubbya woulda,shoulda, coulda. It was in response, as I stated, to the question YOU posed “Did George Bush attack us on Sept 11th?”. which I found to be quite inane. You trying to read more in to that flippant remark sounds a bit defensive, wonder why??? As well as your “Not understanding” my “rant” about GWB and his declaring “Mission Accomplished” on the carrier. You said “He didn’t start the war on terror but given half a chance he may finish it”. Once again, a bit of sarcasm on my part about YOUR statement. In May of ’03 … this “photo op” clearly showed how clueless he was/is as to the situation in Iraq. Your response, “I suppose it would have been better if he would have engaged in “not” having sex in the oval office.”. Does sound like one of the “Go To” responses by the “right-wing-sheep” when you’ve no better response, once again, a bit defensive. As well as, “I’ve been there. I’ve met with and worked with the Multi-National forces there. I have pictures to prove it.”. Riddle me this, IF you are “assuring” me that you “think” you have a better “sense of what is happening there than I do” why then don’t you spend as much effort on “informing” the likes of myself and others as supposed to just spouting off about how the “liberal defeatists” are at the root of ALL evil? You seem to have a unique perspective concerning the situation in Iraq. So, why just resort to the rhetoric of your party?

This has been my “major issue” since my first and all subsequent posts. This forum is obviously filled with highly intelligent and opinionated individuals each with their own unique perspectives from around the world. Why then I ask, is it that in most of these “off-topic discussions” that there is so much of the “blame game” (@Dems/Libs) as supposed to an actual sharing of ideas and beliefs? I for one love a good debate, even heated ones. However, the majority of these “discussions” are nothing more than Dem./Lib. bashing. Blaming any given group as a whole for ALL that is wrong … is just plain wrong. Geesh, you’d think some of you guys were actually running for office! IMHO, the whole system is screwed up and believe it or not I do NOT just blame the Republican Party for this. I blame most, if not all politicians, as well as the people themselves who fallow the lead of these elitist F*CKS. The mud slinging between the “parties” is bad enough but how they are able to convince “us” to sling the same mud in the same manner only goes to show how much we are all more “sheep like” than any of us would care to admit. The U stands for United but this could not be further from the truth. This is NOT the United States of America, it is the Divided States of America. And if you think the rest of the world does not see this weakness we all share, you sir, are sadly mistaken. Just ask any of “our TR friends” from around the globe what they really think, but of course, most of those playing this blame game do NOT give a crap what the rest of the world thinks of us! We are Americans, we are better than them, we know what’s best for them, and they had dare not tread on “our” politics! Just ask OZ.

Anyway, we can touch on this more later if you like. It’s getting about time for me to leave for the day. I will leave you with a couple more things though. Yes, I have been in the face, if you will, of some of the most audacious of these characters guilty of what I am speaking of. However, there was and is a point that has clearly been missed on almost every occasion. Maybe my fault, I admit, but it was to make the point I am speaking of. Lastly, you did not answer the questions I posed to you in my last post. Is it because you see them as unworthy or is it that you do not wish to think of your children dieing for such a “mistake” of a war. Even W has admitted mistake, so that is NOT a “shot” at the Prez.

Until next time … have a nice day

Edit: spacing

Nagasaki

In reply to Quite rarely, I agreed with you

was simply to prove we had more than one 🙂

And more

In reply to Nagasaki

Nagasaki, coming so quickly after Hiroshima, was meant to hint we had lots more than two. (We didn’t.)

We were getting down to a problem in our end-game strategy with the Japanese. How do you put on more pressure, to force an end to a war? We’d been destroying their cities for months. Tokyo actually experienced around 100,000 deaths in a single night, all done with hundreds of planes and convential bombs and incendiaries. That’s more than the initial deaths at Hiroshima. As ghastly as that was, the Japanese looked like they might take it indefinitely. We were actually running out of good targets.

What was it about one more city (lots less important than Tokyo) that made them give up? I think it was the idea that one plane, one bomb, could do the work of a whole air force. It made it seem so cheap and effortless. Like we could destroy Japanese cities as easily as we could put one more Ford off the assembly line.

Indeed your assembly line

In reply to And more

is what won you the war. Didn’t matter how good anyone else’s troops were they couldn’t guarantee to arm them.

I suspect it was less damaging to japanese national pride to sell voluntary surrender to the people, than you be forced into it.

There was a little more to it than that, you wanted to prove you’d got better at making a bomb. There was a substantial increase in yield in Nagasaki.

Efficiency, not yield

In reply to Indeed your assembly line

Nagasaki was about 20 kilotons. Hiroshima was about 15. The more important difference is the amount of expensive fissile material that each bomb design required: Hiroshima’s “Little Boy” required 65 kg of uranium, and Nagasaki’s “Fat Man” took only 6 kg of plutonium.

The Little Boy stuck two sub-critical masses together, the “gun” method. Fat Man worked by implosion, actually squeezing a ball of solid plutonium metal until it was more than double its original density. For the brief (millionth of a second) time that the atoms were so much closer together, they comprised a supercritical mass.

More bang for your buck

In reply to Indeed your assembly line

I always understood yield to be a measure of efficiency in this regard?

Bangs, bucks, yield

In reply to Indeed your assembly line

Yield is the energy output, expressed as tons of TNT equivalent. Has nothing to do with inputs.

In the Hiroshima bomb, about 0.7 kg of uranium was actually fissioned. About 1% efficiency. I guess the Nagasaki bomb was about 10%.

As ghastly as that was

In reply to And more

As ghastly as that was, the Japanese looked like they might take it indefinitely. We were actually running out of good targets.

It’s like a page from the Battle of Britain. Hitler was thinking the same thing, then proven right. He failed twice at taking Britain before 1941, there was the naval war (to gain control of the seas) he failed but came close. If U-Boats were invented earler, he may have won that one, but didn;t. He then tried to take over the skies. But his Luftwaffe sufered too many casualties as the British, Canadian and Polish fighters in teh RAF at that time had a better support network and tracking/dispatch system.

This is why I get so frustrated when Americans say Brits would be speakign German without them. I have syet to see one count of US pilots with the RAF during that battle.
ESPECIALY where they did most of teh work and saved England. People actually feel that if it wsan’t for D-Day he would have conquered England! He had lost that TWICE, and then was forced to start a battle of hardware and resources against Russian. He turned tail and fled!

After bombing raids on downtown London for over a month, three days straight without a rest at one point, and Brits just going to work, fighting on and living their lives with more determination than ever, the guy must have been thinking to himself, they might just take this indefinitey! Even though his force was thinned dramatically and forced to regroup and change focus of attack to Russia and Russion oil/resource acquisition.

But then again, that was Hitler not Bush, bush is doing the right thing, he’s a nice friendly down home American. Not some German guy from teh opther half of the world, not some sick delusional syphillis infected madman that made his way to the top of the German totempole.

Despite his turning mad in the early 40’s, despite his sicknesses and delusions, he was actually a very powerful and very clever leader, unfortunately not one we would wish to follow to see success, but follow to war maybe.

Well he was an expert orator and a brilliant demagogue

In reply to As ghastly as that was

You could follow him to political power given you had the morals of starving rat, as a military leader though you wouldn’t put him in charge of a paint ball game even if the opposition didn’t turn up.

I don’t think Hitler could have defeated us, he could have successfully invaded, if he’d have let his generals run the show, but he kept sticking his oar in. I think he started believing what Goebels was saying about him.

Personally I do credit America with winning the war, I don’t credit them with the UK not losing it though. Hitler himself was one of the biggest factors in our victory, when all is said and done he was a self-deluded idiot.

Come on, study your history!

In reply to Okay we disagree

The decision to nuke Hiroshima was purely a political decision aimed fairly and squarely at the only real threat to US world superiority – Russia – who were about to declare war on Japan. And, as TonyTheTiger said below, the Nagasaki bomb was to prove that you had more than one and, therefore, hint at “lots”.

Japan was already negotiating surrender terms weeks prior to the Hiroshima bomb as they were totally aware that US air superiority and the ending of the European theatre war meant that the resourses for the total destruction of their cities was available using conventional bombing. The Japanese were also totally aware of the imminent involvement of Russia and wished very much to avoid Russian involvement in any invasion and especially in any post-war settlement.

They may have been fanatically loyal to the Emperor but the Japanese government weren’t suicidally stupid. The Emperor was the one sticking point and the Japanese did not surrender until after that point had been conceded – despite both nuclear bombs being detonated. The primacy of the Emperor, to the Japanese, was totally non-negotiable and was something which your military and political leaders were aware and which your political leaders used to justify the bombs. Your military leaders – to a man – were either not asked or disagreed with the decision.

Oh dear, oh dear. Seems I’ve got back just in time to put you straight again.

As for North Korea, I’ll just cut and paste Tony Hopkinson’s excellent summation (without his permission) and attempt to pass it off as my own by correecting his spelling: 🙂

[i]However you can’t ignore that fact that you are North Korea’s enemy; you can’t ignore the fact that as a nation you have demonstrated your willingness to invade your enemies and you can’t ignore the fact there are circumstances in which you’ll nuke them.

What response do you expect from anyone who chooses not to change into what you want in order to cease being an enemy?[/i]

Leave it to China.

Neil 😀

Maybe I’ll go off and have a play with Oz’s new friend AngyeGyrl. Anyone who can call Oz a “fanny packer” has to be worth a shot at…

If only it was a British expression, it would have been spot on. :p

I’m surprised at the lack of response :0

In reply to Come on, study your history!

since I know the difference between British and American fannies… :^0

]:)

It’s a bit important, that difference! :D

In reply to I’m surprised at the lack of response :0

The English equivalent to the US “fanny packer” would be “fudge packer” and anyone who wants to know should be able to work it out for themselves!

:0 :^0 ]:) to agree with your emoticons…

That’s a bit of a twist, Niel… :)

In reply to It’s a bit important, that difference! :D

Because for the many decades I’ve lived in my Mid-American city, we’ve always called them “fudge packers”! 😀

I didn’t know that term was supposed to be exclusively England’s– but I will definitely give due credit to the UK the next time I hear “fudge packer” used in my presence. 😉

Since I had never heard “fanny packer” used by anyone but my British work mate, I wasn’t even aware it was American. He must have been infected with some Yankee slang from another part of the states. 🙁

Thanks, Niel, for the clarification and the link! 😀 I think I’ll send on the info to my replacement at my former employer. After all these years, I heard he’s still confused as to why the “first floor” in England is up one level– equivalent to the U.S. “second floor”.

Edit: Correcting emoticons… repeatedly.
Edit: Formatting

Or maybe

In reply to That’s a bit of a twist, Niel… :)

nobody in England likes fudge 🙂

[Author]

Replies