Re: OK, people, still like Bush now?

[Vern93]

In article
<cGhhdHBoaWw=.3bfa8a3aea0404b6901c4070f3c89870@1059 092705.cotse.net>,
"CurtisLemay" > wrote:

> It's going to take a helluva lot more than some stupid
> foreign liberal paper printed on orange paper

I hate to be disageeable but according to their web site, it's actually
"pink." I wouldn't necessarily read *too much* in that though.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/SpecialW
ideFullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1035873263789&p=1035873177895

Yeah yeah... my word wrap stinks....

[The Real Bev]

Vern93 wrote:
>
> In article
> <cGhhdHBoaWw=.3bfa8a3aea0404b6901c4070f3c89870@1059 092705.cotse.net>,
> "CurtisLemay" > wrote:
>
> > It's going to take a helluva lot more than some stupid
> > foreign liberal paper printed on orange paper
>
> I hate to be disageeable but according to their web site, it's actually
> "pink." I wouldn't necessarily read *too much* in that though.

It really is pink. We got it free for a few weeks and is actually a good
paper. Too many letters, though, same as the WSJ.

<http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/SpecialWideFullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1035873263789&p=1035873177895>
>
> Yeah yeah... my word wrap stinks....

Auntie Bev's handy URL hint: enclose it in pointy brackets, which will
generally allow it to NOT wrap, at least the first time.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== ===
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.

[The Real Bev]

Jay Pique wrote:
>
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 18:52:25 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
> >Vern93 wrote:
> >>
> >> In article
> >> <cGhhdHBoaWw=.3bfa8a3aea0404b6901c4070f3c89870@1059 092705.cotse.net>,
> >> "CurtisLemay" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > It's going to take a helluva lot more than some stupid
> >> > foreign liberal paper printed on orange paper
> >>
> >> I hate to be disageeable but according to their web site, it's actually
> >> "pink." I wouldn't necessarily read *too much* in that though.
> >
> >It really is pink. We got it free for a few weeks and is actually a good
> >paper. Too many letters, though, same as the WSJ.
> >
> ><http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/SpecialWideFullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1035873263789&p=1035873177895>
> >>
> >> Yeah yeah... my word wrap stinks....
> >
> >Auntie Bev's handy URL hint: enclose it in pointy brackets, which will
> >generally allow it to NOT wrap, at least the first time.
>
> Muchas gracias senorita - I just took makeashorterlink off of my
> "favorites".
>
> I've actually got case files on a bunch of you longer time RSAers,
> just in case you **** me off. But not YOU of course - just on the
> other guy.

Damn right, I wasn't even there!

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't
deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde

[pigo]

"CurtisLemay" > wrote in message
news:cGhhdHBoaWw=.e427c88c35fcbaf1de87ddbf727b7cbe @1059141361.cotse.net.
...
> Dave Stallard wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Ya know, I wuz thinking about this and your analysis ought to
> mention that:
>
> a.) the terrorist plot took place 8 months after Bush took office -
that
> means that the planning and infrastructure construction occurred
> under Wee Willie's watch. How do you explain that?

Exactly. And the lapses in intellegence can be tied to the gutting of
the services during the previous 8 years.
It's alot like the dems blaming the economy on GWB when it was obviously
headed down when he took office.

> b.) Bob Graham? Now there's an independent and objective
> observer. An honest man that tells the truth? Horse****, he's a
> greasy politician that lies throught his teeth who just so happens
> to be running for what office.
>
> c.) Every American administration has tried to placate the Saudis.
> Weren't there some bombings that occurred against Americans in
> Saudi Arabia under Clinton. It just so happens that the current
> Admin has been FAR more aggressive with them from pulling US
> troops out, getting kidnapped women and children home to
> publically pressuring them to expose their hypocrisy.

Notice that they're arresting terrorists now. We're on their doorstep
and they know that we have another source for the oil we need about to
come online.
Much of the responsibility for our dependence on Saudi oil lies with
those that keep us from exploiting our own reserves. I've heard that
there are more Caribou on the N. Slope than there were before the oil
production began.

> d.) You neglected to mention that the report failed in any way to link
> the Saudi Gov't to 9-11. The actions involved members of the
> Royal Family. Royal family members can be kooks - look at King
> Edward that abdicated - he liked and supported the Nazis.
>
> e.) You ARE guilty of the very thing you accuse the Administration
> of. Selectively hiding and presenting things out of context.
>
> With all of this, I have come to one conclusion, You suck!

There is more than one terrorist group in the world. Personally I
believe that Saddam and Al Queda kept there links secret in order to
protect Saddam from the fate that eventually befell him anyway.

[Dave Stallard]

bdubya wrote:

> Y'know, I don't like Bush and I don't have a lot of trust for him
> either, but this kind of hysteria isn't any better than what the far
> right dishes out. The fog of war is mighty thick all around, and this
> story, damning as it sounds, could wind up looking about as solid as
> the African uranium story was. If we're lucky, hindsight might be
> 20/20, but the current view most definitely is not. IMHO.

It's not just Democrats and "liberals" who say the report should be
declassified - it's Republicans as well. From the LA Times today:

"Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), the former ranking minority member of
the Senate intelligence committee, said in an interview that he has read
the entire report and feels the classified parts should be made public.

"This might be embarrassing information" to the Saudi government, Shelby
said on NBC's "Today" show, "but I don't believe it meets the test of
real classification.""

How do you feel about your government misusing the classification
process to protect Saudi Arabia politically? Doesn't the fact that 15
of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, tht their leader Bin Laden was Saudi,
and that the entire enterprise was funded by Saudi money, including it
would now appear, money from the Saudi government and royal family, make
you want to know more?

I'm not saying that the Saudi government knew about the attacks in
advance, but I am saying that they give money to extremists, knowing
that that it will likely be used to attack America and other foreign
targets, in exchange for not being targeted themselves. And I'm saying
that our government, which is supposed to protect us, is covering this
up and not investigating it, in order to protect the "special
relationship" we have with Saudi Arabia and its oil. This goes for
Democrats and Republicans both. That's the crux of the matter.

Dave

[Vern93]

In article
<cGhhdHBoaWw=.becd927f501018be351debce8c305c62@1059 153809.cotse.net>,
"CurtisLemay" > wrote:

> Would salmon colored be more acceptable?

Actually, I was going to go with "salmon" as well, until I went to their
own web site and it described itself as "pink." Interestingly, the paper
itself is naturally white; it gets it's pink colour from a steady diet
of shrimp.

> All I know is that I got
> crossed-eyed and headaches from reading the paper.

I like it because it makes me look all smart and worldly when I read it
in public with a sorta concerned/ sorta constipated look on my face.

> How's things in Music City USA?

I'm working this weekend so it could be better. But now I've got some
Costo "Jamacian Blue Mountain Coffee Blend" brewing. (Now with over 1%
real Jamacian Blue Mountain Coffee beans!) We're having a cool snap
which is a nice break from the 95F temp w/ 100% humidity.

> I got a decent Dwight Yoakam record
> the other day.

A local radiostation had a contest a couple of years ago called "guess
what Dwight is saying" I still think he's saying "I've got pickles in
my pocket" in that one song.

>I know he's commercial but I like his stuff. I
> developed a taste as well for Allison Krauss.

There's a girl out of Knoxville named "Robinella" (and CC Strings) who
just put a CD out early this summer. She's sort of a cross between
Allison and Norah Jones but fun. Check her out. She's on Kazaa, but if
you really like her and what you hear, buying her CD would be very good
karma indeed. Look for the tracks "Dress Me Up and Dress Me Down" and
"Man Over"

Dave

[Sue]

In message >, BrritSki >
writes
>
>> Do you work for the BBC now too ? This is typical of them, none of the
>> facts are wrong, but it doesn't tell the whole story does it ?
>
>Correction, one fact is wrong: the family did say he was hounded, but
>they didn't blame just the MoD - they said everyone involved should
>reflect on their contribution.

Which is a weasel.
How much detail d'you want in an eight-line summary?
--
Sue ]|(:)

[BrritSki]

Sue wrote:
>
> In message >, BrritSki >
> writes
> >
> >> Do you work for the BBC now too ? This is typical of them, none of the
> >> facts are wrong, but it doesn't tell the whole story does it ?
> >
> >Correction, one fact is wrong: the family did say he was hounded, but
> >they didn't blame just the MoD - they said everyone involved should
> >reflect on their contribution.
>
> Which is a weasel.

No idea what this means - please translate...

> How much detail d'you want in an eight-line summary?
>
Will since you're moaning about being misled, surely it behoves you to
not mislead ?

Who set you am 8 line limit ? Not me, and to add the little bit extra
to make it accurate would have taken it to what - 9 lines ?

Dr. Kelly spoke to 3 BBC journalists. Only 1 was attacked by Alisatair
Campbell because he was personally accused of adding things to the
war-justifying report and "sexing it up". While I have no doubt that the
Gov't and Campbell did mislead us and emphasise things to their
advantage, I doubt if the specific charge that Gilligan made on air and
in his Daily Mail article will stand up when the Inquiry reports -
certainly not on the basis of what Kelly told him. The BBC have long
since rowed back from the "inserted" claim to "undue emphasis" and from
specific claims against Campbell. The other 2 reporters didn't include
these claims, only Gilligan - he did exactly what he was accusing
Campbell of and he let Kelly get cricified by the Select Committee when
if he'd have admitted he was the source, we would all have known that
the sexing up was done by Gilligan, not by Kelly saying things that he
could have no knowledge of and not because the MoD wanted to hound him.

The really sad thing about this, as pointed out by Matthew Parrish in
today's Times, is that like the cheap shyster he is, Campbell can go
into battle with all guns blazing on 1 small inaccuracy and ignore the
much bigger picture. Pity a guy felt the need to kill himself over it
too.

The other really sad thing is this: The BBC have been biased for years.
Every Tory knows it - part of the reason that the BBC can claim to be
the only opposition is that they have been doing down the Tories for
decades. The BBC sucked up to Blair and his Gov't for years until they
decided they weren't left-wing enough. Some of the reporting before the
war and during the early phases about how everything was going wrong
were simply disgraceful. Most of the time they don't even realise they
are doing it, but it's inevitable when the great majority of the
journalists, news staff and management are left-wing Guardianistas, just
as it would be in the opposite direction if everyone was of my political
leaning. They are entitled to their opinions and to broadcast them, but
they should have alternative opinions too - a balanced political staff
and management will lead to balanced reporting. As it is, they will get
their come-uppance and will be severely punished by this, probably to
the extent IMHO of losing their public funding and I for one will be
glad as I'm fed-up funding propaganda for the anti-war movement, but
it's sad that we'll lose some of the excellent programs that the BBC has
made over the years.

And finally, all these people quibbling about whether WMDs are found or
not and who said what are doing exactly what Alistair Campbell is doing
- they're attacking the detail and missing the bigger picture. I have no
doubt at all that it was right to go to war to depose an evil tyrant and
mass murderer who was a threat to us all in the future. Despite my
dislike of Blair and everything else he has done, I think he was right
not to take a gamble on this one and risk deployment of biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons by terrorists very close to home.

[Richard Henry]

"Jay Pique" > wrote in message
...

> I've actually got case files on a bunch of you longer time RSAers,
> just in case you **** me off. But not YOU of course - just on the
> other guy.

Then you must know who was the first person to use the word "mayonnaise"
in RSA.

Hint: the second was me.

[pigo]

"Sue" > wrote in message
...

<nothing again so I snipped it>

What's going on with that guy in the parliament that was against the war
and it turns out he had received millions from Saddam?

[BrritSki]

pigo wrote:
>
> "Sue" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> <nothing again so I snipped it>
>
> What's going on with that guy in the parliament that was against the war
> and it turns out he had received millions from Saddam?

Still suspended from the Labour Party afaik. His "charity" is being
investigated by the Charities Commision and he STILL hasn't sued anyone
as he was adamant he was going to do. Wonder why ? :)

[pigo]

"BrritSki" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> pigo wrote:
> >
> > "Sue" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > <nothing again so I snipped it>
> >
> > What's going on with that guy in the parliament that was against the
war
> > and it turns out he had received millions from Saddam?
>
> Still suspended from the Labour Party afaik. His "charity" is being
> investigated by the Charities Commision and he STILL hasn't sued
anyone
> as he was adamant he was going to do. Wonder why ? :)

Hmmmmmm don't know :-)

His and scott ritter are the biggest ethical questions of this conflict
IMO.

Was there, really, anyone out there that didn't expect the "war" to be
the easy part and last about a month (turned out to be even shorter) and
the "peace" to take about 5 years and cost the majority of the
casualties? To me that seems to be such a matter of common sense that
it's not worth mentioning until someone disputes the obvious.

[pigo]

"AstroPax" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 12:03:13 -0600, "pigo"
> > wrote:
>
> >His and scott ritter are the biggest ethical questions of this
conflict
> >IMO.
>
> Peter Arnett also.
>
> I'm glad they fired his ass.

Me too. But he was really a nobody from the start.

These other two have weaseled their way into a position of influence and
used it inappropriately. Criminally IMO.

[InMyTree]

The far right? I don't think you can get much further right than Bush..

> Y'know, I don't like Bush and I don't have a lot of trust for him
> either, but this kind of hysteria isn't any better than what the far
> right dishes out. The fog of war is mighty thick all around, and this
> story, damning as it sounds, could wind up looking about as solid as
> the African uranium story was. If we're lucky, hindsight might be
> 20/20, but the current view most definitely is not. IMHO.
>
> bw

[pigo]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> The far right? I don't think you can get much further right than
Bush..

CUT IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!! You're killin' me here!!!!! rotflmao

[Sven Golly]

"InMyTree" > wrote in news:bg3ef3
:

> The far right? I don't think you can get much further right than Bush..

Still have that Che poster on your wall do you?

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply

[Sven Golly]

"InMyTree" > wrote in
:

> I know from what I've said on here I seem really left wing, but I'm
> not... I just really really don't like Bush and the way he medels with
> with world..

Damn him. Getting rid of the Talaban. Cleaning out Al Qaeda. Spanking
Hussein. Trying to solve the Palestinian problem. Trying to help Liberia.
Damn meddler. Maybe he can meddle a litle in Canada.

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply

[MoonMan]

In , Sven Golly typed:
> "InMyTree" > wrote in
> :
>
>> I know from what I've said on here I seem really left wing, but I'm
>> not... I just really really don't like Bush and the way he medels
>> with with world..
>
> Damn him. Getting rid of the Talaban. Cleaning out Al Qaeda. Spanking
> Hussein. Trying to solve the Palestinian problem. Trying to help
> Liberia. Damn meddler. Maybe he can meddle a litle in Canada.

from a British news coverage perspective

Forcing the Taliban from power, with our help, but the Taliban is still
there and active

Cleaning out Al Qaeda, Are you joking? whereas before we "Knew" where they
where based, now we don't and I don't think we have made much impression
other than perhaps gaining them some new recruits.

Spanking Hussein, they havn't found him yet have they?

Trying to solve the Palestinian problem, eventually after a lot of pressure

Trying to help in Liberia, again under pressure, but up to yesterday when
naval ships where ordered in it was more like trying to ignore Liberia
hoping it will go away

BTW I'm not left wing either


--
Chris

[Sven Golly]

Dave Stallard > wrote in :

> Here's what Pat Buchanan says about that:

Why would anyone quote Pat Buchanan as an authority on anything other
irrelevancy?

--
Sven Golly
Trolling as usual
Remove the _ to reply

[Dave Stallard]

Sven Golly wrote:
>
> Dave Stallard > wrote in :
>
> > Here's what Pat Buchanan says about that:
>
> Why would anyone quote Pat Buchanan as an authority on anything other
> irrelevancy?

Authority or not, he's certainly someone that no one could call left
wing.

Dave

[InMyTree]

Well.. actually, I'm Australian, so if we want to talk about getting
attacked there was Bali..

I'm also British, so if we want to talk about getting attacked we can talk
IRA..

And they didn't start the war. They attacked you for a reason. Why do you
think they picked the US? Maybe it would be a good idea to find out that
reason and see if you can do something about it, rather than just infuriate
them even more by bombing the hell out of them.. I would say a good place to
start would be getting your nose completely out of the middle east.. a place
you certainly do not belong..

"CurtisLemay" > wrote in message
news:cGhhdHBoaWw=.6bbd6b232a5da5a2924cee913ff4278b @1059494886.cotse.net...
> OutofhisTree wrote:
>
> > I know from what I've said on here I seem really left wing, but I'm
> not... I
> > just really really don't like Bush and the way he medels with with
> world..
> >
>
> Look dumb****, the word is "Meddle" repeat after me. Actually you
> don't seem left wing, I think the word is moronic not to mention
> meddlesome (see I'm using a derivative), prejudiced,
> sanctimonius and a few others. Now see if you can follow me
> here, you didn't get attacked by the middle east terrorists, we did.
> They started the war. We're going to finish it. That's it. Whether you
> like it or not. Rather than working yourself into a lather about that,
> get a therapeutic hobby like beating off in front of a picture of
> Trotsky.
>

[pigo]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> Well.. actually, I'm Australian, so if we want to talk about getting
> attacked there was Bali..
>
> I'm also British, so if we want to talk about getting attacked we can
talk
> IRA..
>
> And they didn't start the war. They attacked you for a reason. Why
do you
> think they picked the US?

Would that reason be, liberating Kuwait?

[jvwalker51]

On 7/30/03 10:10 AM, in article , "pigo"
> wrote:

>
> "InMyTree" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well.. actually, I'm Australian, so if we want to talk about getting
>> attacked there was Bali..
>>
>> I'm also British, so if we want to talk about getting attacked we can
> talk
>> IRA..
>>
>> And they didn't start the war. They attacked you for a reason. Why
> do you
>> think they picked the US?
>
> Would that reason be, liberating Kuwait?
>
>
Inmytree, thanks for clearly demonstrating my point. I just wish the next
time they give you the privilege. The only thing that surprises me is that
you don't blame us for the IRA.

[Ted Waldron]

pigo wrote:
> "InMyTree" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Damn right. What right does your government have to go and invade
>
> other
>
>>countries, especially without the backing of the world!
>
>
> When you're the most powerful nation in the world, you don't need
> backing from the rest of the world. And when you're a strong supporter
> of that nation, you don't either. So UK (along with Spain, Australia,
> Poland, and others) is in pretty good shape if they need to protect
> *their* interests.
>
> Only pitiful, weak, little countries like France,
>

It is a matter of opinion about the good and bad about France's
Foreign Policy and role in the EU. However, any country that has Sea
launch ballistic solid fuel missles with nuclear warheads on submarines,
it is pretty much a ticket to destroy the world at a country's leisure
if the country and its leadership decides that it wants to do. The US,
Russia, UK, France have that capability. China have liquid fuel Sea
Launch missles, which is a little more difficult to destroy the world at
one's whim, but still possible. France may be called many names, and
their role in world and economic affairs will always be questioned, but
I can assure you they are not a weak little country. Sea launch nuclear
missles ballistic missles have one purpose, to destroy cities. If a
"rogue" nation would have the capacity as the Big 5 nations, it would
not be tolerated, because it such a deadly and difficult threat to take out.

However, in skiing terms, France is IMHO a superpower, From La Grave
to Mt.Blanc, Alpine Guides training are still set by French Standards,
the Creme de la Creme are not recognize unless they spend some time at
Chamonix. There are so many words use in skiing that are French, from
"piste" to "couloir" etc. etc. I suggest one should start using other
words to substitute the french version, such as "freedom chutes" instead
of couloirs, "freedom runs" instead of "piste" and "liberty skiing"
rather than "randonee".

I think there should be a debate about what North American Country is
the Skiing superpower, my vote at this moment is Canada has an edge over
the U.S, but then again, I haven't skied around Valdez yet, so i don't
have all the facts..

Ted

[MoonMan]

In , jvwalker51 typed:
> On 7/30/03 10:10 AM, in article ,
> "pigo" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "InMyTree" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> Well.. actually, I'm Australian, so if we want to talk about getting
>>> attacked there was Bali..
>>>
>>> I'm also British, so if we want to talk about getting attacked we
>>> can talk IRA..
>>>
>>> And they didn't start the war. They attacked you for a reason. Why
>> do you
>>> think they picked the US?
>>
>> Would that reason be, liberating Kuwait?
>>
>>
> Inmytree, thanks for clearly demonstrating my point. I just wish the
> next time they give you the privilege. The only thing that surprises
> me is that you don't blame us for the IRA.

Americans where their main source of funds.


--
Chris *<:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

[AstroPax]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:11:26 GMT, Ted Waldron >
wrote:

>Sea launch nuclear missles ballistic missles have one purpose, to destroy cities.

Not true.

Due to their relatively short flight time, and low trajectory from
launch to impact, SLBM's are exceptionally well suited for use during
the early stage of a nuclear attack.

For example, SLBM DGZ's within the US would surly include our early
warning systems such as Cobra Dane, BMEWS, Pave Paws, and, any of the
bomber force that wasn't able to "launch under attack".

That's why during the cold war most of the SAC <alert> bomber force
was stationed in the middle of the CONUS...as far away from coastal
waters (and Soviet boomers) as possible.

-Astro, SAC Trained Killer.

[pigo]

"Ted Waldron" > wrote in message
t...

> It is a matter of opinion about the good and bad about France's
> Foreign Policy and role in the EU. However, any country that has Sea
> launch ballistic solid fuel missles with nuclear warheads on
submarines,
> it is pretty much a ticket to destroy the world at a country's leisure
> if the country and its leadership decides that it wants to do. The US,
> Russia, UK, France have that capability. China have liquid fuel Sea
> Launch missles, which is a little more difficult to destroy the world
at
> one's whim, but still possible. France may be called many names, and
> their role in world and economic affairs will always be questioned,
but
> I can assure you they are not a weak little country. Sea launch
nuclear
> missles ballistic missles have one purpose, to destroy cities. If a
> "rogue" nation would have the capacity as the Big 5 nations, it would
> not be tolerated, because it such a deadly and difficult threat to
take out.

Well the ability to destroy the world is one thing. Enough powerful,
responsible nations have that ability and nuclear strikes are unlikely
from those powers, including France. That power is a deterant and not
likely to be used to settle a border skirmish. As far as the US, "we"
have overwhelming conventional power and don't need to use it.
The danger now is from a "non-nation" acting as a secret agent for an
impotent (on a world scale) rogue nation.

> However, in skiing terms, France is IMHO a superpower, From La
Grave
> to Mt.Blanc, Alpine Guides training are still set by French Standards,
> the Creme de la Creme are not recognize unless they spend some time at
> Chamonix. There are so many words use in skiing that are French, from
> "piste" to "couloir" etc. etc. I suggest one should start using other
> words to substitute the french version, such as "freedom chutes"
instead
> of couloirs, "freedom runs" instead of "piste" and "liberty skiing"
> rather than "randonee".
>
> I think there should be a debate about what North American Country
is
> the Skiing superpower, my vote at this moment is Canada has an edge
over
> the U.S, but then again, I haven't skied around Valdez yet, so i
don't
> have all the facts..
>
> Ted

And what N. American Country has kept Europe free so that when you want
to ski Mt. Blanc it's not part of Germany or , more recently the USSR
or, even more recently a fundamentalist Muslim nation?

[Eric Holeman]

In article >,
Terd Fartingmor > wrote:

>Tell that to the Romans, and the Soviets.

Funny you should mention...

--
---
Eric Holeman Chicago Illinois USA

[InMyTree]

And what country waited until it got bombed before it lifted a finger?

Credit where credit is due.. the europeans needed America to win the war..
no doubt about that.. but you didn't come until it suited you..

> And what N. American Country has kept Europe free so that when you want
> to ski Mt. Blanc it's not part of Germany or , more recently the USSR
> or, even more recently a fundamentalist Muslim nation?
>
>

[pigo]

"InMyTree" > wrote in message
...
> And what country waited until it got bombed before it lifted a finger?
>
> Credit where credit is due.. the europeans needed America to win the
war..
> no doubt about that.. but you didn't come until it suited you..
>
> > And what N. American Country has kept Europe free so that when you
want
> > to ski Mt. Blanc it's not part of Germany or , more recently the
USSR
> > or, even more recently a fundamentalist Muslim nation?

We've gotten used to being damned when we do and damned when we don't.
So I'll admit you have me there. Either scerio give you a chance to say
we were either too early or too late. Not much I can do about a
simpleton that takes that route. We were supplying UK long before Pearl
Harbor fyi.

[AstroPax]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:08:31 +0100, "InMyTree"
> wrote:

>but you didn't come until it suited you..

No ****, Sherlock !!!

Why the hell would we do something that is going to cost us thousands
upon thousands of american lives if it is not in our national
interest?

-Astro

[Ted W.]

pigo wrote:

<snip>
>
>> However, in skiing terms, France is IMHO a superpower, From La
>
> Grave
>
>>to Mt.Blanc, Alpine Guides training are still set by French Standards,
>>the Creme de la Creme are not recognize unless they spend some time at
>>Chamonix. There are so many words use in skiing that are French, from
>>"piste" to "couloir" etc. etc. I suggest one should start using other
>>words to substitute the french version, such as "freedom chutes"
>
> instead
>
>>of couloirs, "freedom runs" instead of "piste" and "liberty skiing"
>>rather than "randonee".
>>
>> I think there should be a debate about what North American Country
>
> is
>
>>the Skiing superpower, my vote at this moment is Canada has an edge
>
> over
>
>> the U.S, but then again, I haven't skied around Valdez yet, so i
>
> don't
>
>>have all the facts..
>>
>>Ted
>
>
> And what N. American Country has kept Europe free so that when you want
> to ski Mt. Blanc it's not part of Germany or , more recently the USSR
> or, even more recently a fundamentalist Muslim nation?

The U.S did not win the Second World War all on its own, it was an
Allied effort. The U.S played an incredible major part, but it took
Yanks, Brits, Free French, Canadians, Poles and countless other
nationalities to liberate France and defeat Germany. The victories,
like the Falaise Gap, were an Allied effort, some of the defeats like
Arnhem were an Allied effort. The U.S helped supply 70-75% of the
material to win the war in Europe, but it took a joint effort to produce
quality goods. For example, P-51 Mustang was powered by a Packard
Merlin Engine, which was a Rolls Royce design engine. "Liberty Ships"
were a British Design boat. There are countless other examples of joint
effort, like the Atomic bomb, 10cm Radar,Ultra intelligence that combine
the best of many countries to make feasible. It wasn't one nation that
won the war, much like how the Soviets poo-poo US and British Aid to
them after their "Great Patriotic War". They couldn't won without the
U.S and vice versa.

Ditto with the Cold War, it was NATO, not just the US that was a
deterent to Soviet Influence and Aggression in Europe. It is all not
black and white or that simplistic.

In the scheme of things, France defeated Fundamentalist Muslim nations
all on its own, when Charles Martel defeated the Muslim Hordes at Tours
in 792, They went back to Spain, and spread civilization and alegbra
while the Dark Ages were still in Europe. When you drink your coffee in
the morning, it was those Fundamental Muslim hordes that concocted the
magic elixir. They also brought gunpowder to the Europeans from China,
gave them the Latine Sail and most likely the compass as well.

Beside all the silly season arguing, France is still a skiing
superpower, with Switzerland,Austria and Italy not too far behind.

Ted
>
>

[pigo]

"Dave Stallard" > wrote in message
...
> Sven Golly wrote:
> >
> > Dave Stallard > wrote in
:
> >
> > > Here's what Pat Buchanan says about that:
> >
> > Why would anyone quote Pat Buchanan as an authority on anything
other
> > irrelevancy?
>
> Authority or not, he's certainly someone that no one could call left
> wing.

Nor right wing. He's some sort of mutant.

[Vern93]

In article >,
(Truestorys) wrote:

> ern93 > wrote in message
>
> >
> > There's a girl out of Knoxville named "Robinella" (and CC Strings) who
> > just put a CD out early this summer. She's sort of a cross between
> > Allison and Norah Jones but fun.
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> I just saw Robinella Wednesday Night here in Austin.
> Man does she have a voice!!
>
> Don

Hi Don,

I'm really glad to hear you saw her in Texas. She's got a voice and a
style and an incredible personality too. The first time I saw her
perform (at a friends wedding) she started taking requests. We
cheerfully requested "Baby got Back" by Sir Mix-a-Lot. She was a very
good sport about it and actually sang the intro before returning to her
blue grassy/jazz.

She's going be on PBS in September.

<http://www.robinella.com/> (thanks foir the >><<<><<'s Bev!"

"Colonel" Dave

[Richard Henry]

"marika" > wrote in message
om...
> "pigo" > wrote in message
>...
> >
> > Was there, really, anyone out there that didn't expect the "war" to be
> > the easy part and last about a month (turned out to be even shorter) and
> > the "peace" to take about 5 years and cost the majority of the
> > casualties? To me that seems to be such a matter of common sense that
> > it's not worth mentioning until someone disputes the obvious.
>
> my father basically said verbatim, on Saturday, what
> you said in this article.
>
> hilary said that she wants to be a Senator to be a Senator,
> that she is not interested in the White House. She is lying
> and will make something up to explain the lie in 4 years.
>
>
> Kennedy? A GORE? A Nixon? A
> Mondale? A Ford? Eisenhower? Bush? Reagan? Carter? ....
>
> They had much political experience behind them qualifying them
> for the job. She has NONE. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA. Four yrs. in the
> Seante hardly qualifies you. And whhen Bush got in, his
> laughably lame 5 yrs as a governor were more than what
> she'll have in 4.

My Republican friends were telling me a few years ago that Hillary was
really running the White House.

[Java Man (Espressopithecus)]

In article >, marika5000
@my-deja.com says...
> "pigo" > wrote in message >...
> >
> > Was there, really, anyone out there that didn't expect the "war" to be
> > the easy part and last about a month (turned out to be even shorter) and
> > the "peace" to take about 5 years and cost the majority of the
> > casualties? To me that seems to be such a matter of common sense that
> > it's not worth mentioning until someone disputes the obvious.
>
> my father basically said verbatim, on Saturday, what
> you said in this article.
>
> hilary said that she wants to be a Senator to be a Senator,
> that she is not interested in the White House. She is lying
> and will make something up to explain the lie in 4 years.

I hope this isn't a "Democrats tell lies but Republicans don't" comment.
They're all liars, and no party has a monopoly on lying. It's just that
Dems notice Republican lies, and vice-versa.

They lie to us because that's what we want. When it comes to politics,
few voters like to be told the truth.

Rick

[Sue]

In message et>, Java
Man > writes
>
>They lie to us because that's what we want. When it comes to politics,
>few voters like to be told the truth.
>
Not just in politics. People all over the place WANT to believe that
the men who have the power are using it honestly and intelligently for
the good of us all.
Pick up some of those books people read on commuter trains and work out
why people find them so comforting - is Harry Potter's head teacher a
useless figurehead? Is the Patrician of Ankh-Morpork living it up at
the public expense while ignoring the state of the city? Is Inspector
Morse an apathetic incompetent lager-swilling oaf?
Some of the posters here have a death grip on the belief that they're
ruled by Galahads, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
--
Sue ]:(:)

[marika]

"Richard Henry" > wrote in message news:<1xv%a.2083$QT5.1612@fed1read02>...

> My Republican friends were telling me a few years ago that Hillary was
> really running the White House.

She did do a great job with the gardens
I get a kick out of seing what has been done so far.
We should have done a "before and after", but didn't think of it.

she hit it with
roundup and you can see it is beginning to droop - not dead yet
though.

she made a rustic arbor to attach the roses to so they wouldn't attack
the bushes when they got there!
Did you know about the birdbath?
it was behind the lilac. A regular secret garden.

she also bought about 30000 dollars worth of flowers that would come
up every
year and put them in place of the empty spots where the weeds were
pulled
out, bright yellow brown eyed susans, tall holly hocks, and some
purple
asters, and blue boneset and some little pink soapwort. They should
blossom
after the day lillys are gone. They are more expensive than
annual flowers, but what good would annuals be next year if the bushes
werecoming? she wanted them to be
able to enjoy them. Even if you they let them go wild it should be
pretty.

the seeds have sprouted.

mk5000

"so, are we getting a DVD, or what?"--leeno