|
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On Feb 21, 7:35 pm, Moonlight Mile
wrote: X-No-Archive: In article , dxAce wrote: Moonlight Mile wrote: X-No-Archive: In article , wrote: September 11,2001 NavExpress. www.devilfinder.com blackday 911 The WAR on TERROR is Definetly LEGAL. cuhulin The, the "war" that "terrorists" fight _against_ the U.S. is also LEGAL. We are, after all, fighting them in their countries. The U.S. has not declared war since WWII, but we have invaded and/or bombed into oblivion many countries. Undeclared wars are illegal. U.S. foreign policy is why the terrorists fight against us. Oblivion? NON-EXISTENCE! Other than that, you have no quibbles or major criticisms regarding my post? Excellent. Google on "Daisy-cutter", "phosphorus bomb", "napalm", and "cluster bomb". It turns out that we can't build very good cars anymore, but we are very clever and adept at building hi-tech weapons which kill many people indiscriminately. And we no longer have to look them in the eye while we kill them in enormous numbers. For recreation, you can also read a book by William Blum called "Rogue State: A Guide To The World's Only Superpower". It's not very well organized IMO, but it gets the basic idea across. I couldn't believe much of what is in that book, but Blum documents U.S. misdeeds quite well. And I lived in the DC area for 20 years, had access to a very good newspaper and watched news and political talk shows as often as possible. Blum tells the truth. Sadly, U.S foreign policy is the problem, not terrorists. T.E. Lawrence responded, when asked why men go to war, with "because the women are watching". Insightful! DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any misspellings in any of my posts. MM Bush is an idiot and/or psychotic (delusional and out of touch with reality). No responsible person supported the recent and ongoing "surge", which is actually an escalation of hostilities by the U.S. And "NO"! We never intended to withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq. We've built permanent and very large miliatray bases in both countries and we are there to stay. MM "The first casuality of war is truth!"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hello, Moonlite Mile. I believe in critical thought. Every idea must me examined in minute detail, from every possible angle. Nothing is out of bounds, there are no sacred cows. You are attacking the US. Now tell us about America's greatness. Let us know what is good about the US. What are our strengths. What is our virtues. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
Churchill said, "The Americans can always be counted on to do the
right thing........after they have exhausted all the alternatives." |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote:
The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the troops. http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath when I was active duty. Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article). In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since. The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
www.devilfinder.com Mississippi and Canada
There are some nice people in Canada,lots of beautifull territory in Canada too.I have been to Cardston,Alberta,Canada before,in 1956.Canadians are good trading partners with America. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
www.devilfinder.com RAO Bulletin Agent Orange
I get James F. Tichacek's regular email newsletters at one of my other webtv user name thingys,I have been getting them for years,got my latest one a couple of days ago.Unca Sam saw fit to send me to Vietnam,I wonder if I ought to head on over to the G.V.''Sonny'' Montomery VA Center on Woodrow Wilson Blvd here in Jackson and see if they can see fit that I can get some bennies? cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On Feb 21, 10:48 pm, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 11:28:18 -0800, "tack" wrote: The war is illegal and it is the soldiers' sworn duty to refuse to fight for insane plots for world domination. I DO NOT support the troops. http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html-Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath when I was active duty. Military members who fail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors risk serious consequences. Article 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) makes it a crime for a military member to WILLFULLY disobey a superior commissioned officer. Article 91 makes it a crime to WILLFULLY disobey a superior Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer. Article 92 makes it a crime to disobey any lawful order (the disobedience does not have to be "willful" under this article). In fact, under Article 90, during times of war, a military member who willfully disobeys a superior commissioned officer can be sentenced to death. Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. "I was only following orders," has been unsuccessfully used as a legal defense in hundreds of cases (probably most notably by Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg tribunals following World War II). The defense didn't work for them, nor has it worked in hundreds of cases since. The first recorded case of a United States Military officer using the "I was only following orders" defense dates back to 1799. During the War with France, Congress passed a law making it permissible to seize ships bound to any French Port. However, when President John Adams wrote the order to authorize the U.S. Navy to do so, he wrote that Navy ships were authorized to seize any vessel bound for a French port, or traveling from a French port. Pursuant to the President's instructions, a U.S. Navy captain seized a Danish Ship (the Flying Fish), which was en route from a French Port. The owners of the ship sued the Navy captain in U.S. maritime court for trespass. They won, and the United States Supreme Court upheld the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Navy commanders "act at their own peril" when obeying presidential orders when such orders are illegal. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm You've done a bit of research on the UCMJ and a little history of lawful orders. You copied the above, verbatim, from this website: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/milit...yingorders.htm. But what about my question? Please elaborate on this "sworn duty". I do not recall such an oath when I was active duty, a sworn duty to refuse to fight for insane plots for world domination. Any sworn duty not to fight, regardless if the war . Did you get your information from a liberal website? I've seen these talking points before. Arguments that try to persuade military members and the general population that the GI's need to disobey the orders of their superiors because the oath taken at induction says (in part): ". . . I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. . . and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." The reasoning goes something like this: The UCMJ says that orders must be followed, and to follow them they must be legal. Since the war is "illegal" , then any orders pertaining to the war must be illegal. They also argue that the duty of the military member is to the Constitution first, all else is secondary. To try to prove that the war is illegal, liberals make a lot of talk about The Hague Convention, Nuremberg, Military Tribunals, Geneva Convention, all kinds of such things. You should've copied off more of that website; you would've come up with this information: The Court of Military Appeals held that "the justification for acts done pursuant to orders does not exist if the order was of such a nature that a man of ordinary sense and understanding would know it to be illegal." After part about mistreating prisoners, this: ". . . there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful." There is a lot of interesting information on page 2 of that website. There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress. The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same. |
(OT) : How To Tell -IF- Someone Is Suffering From Too Many "MMs"
Moon {Light} Mile
How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome" when they write things like : The, the "war" that "terrorists" fight against the U.S. is also LEGAL. We are, after all, fighting them in their countries. - - - Love Yourself More Than The Enemy. Comment - While every 'sane' American believes that it is better to Fight the Terrorist Over There -then- HERE ! How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Anti-American Syndrome" when they write things like : The U.S. has not declared war since WWII, but we have invaded and/or bombed into oblivion many countries. Undeclared wars are illegal. U.S. foreign policy is why the terrorists fight against us. - - - Love Your Fellow Americans First. How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Liberal Psychosis" they write things like : Bush is an idiot and/or psychotic (delusional and out of touch with reality)." - - - Love The Truth -More Than- Political Rhetoric. How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Anti-War Psychosis" they write things like : No responsible person supported the recent and ongoing "surge", which is actually an escalation of hostilities by the U.S. - - - Love Peace -More Than- You Hate War. How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Anti-USA Psychosis" they write things like : And "NO"! We never intended to withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq. We've built permanent and very large miliatray bases in both countries and we are there to stay. - - - Love Your Country {Homeland} First. Save America and Save The World -Heroes- How To Tell -IF- Someone is Suffering from "Chocolate Psychosis" they sign their messages : "MM" - - - Love Good Wholesome Natural Food -and- Eat Healthy. Corporate Motto of the Soylent Corp. Circa 2022 The First Casuality of Terrorism is Freedom and it is Replace by Fear. ~ RHF {ibid}. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
"ve3..." wrote: Churchill said, "The Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing........after they have exhausted all the alternatives." dxAce said, "The Canucks can never be counted on to do the right thing........they have been mis-wired since birth." |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On 21 Feb 2007 23:13:31 -0800, "tack" wrote:
There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress. The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same. That is so juvenile. Little Billy did it so it must be OK... I did not support Clinton's adventurisms and I do not support Mr. Bush's. Pre-emptive attacks on an mpotent sovereign nation constitutes war crime. We are a rogue nation. The military is not defending the country against the threat from within. Bush and Cheney are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever were. We are finished. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On Feb 22, 7:51 am, David wrote:
On 21 Feb 2007 23:13:31 -0800, "tack" wrote: There does not have to be a formal declaration of war from congress. The President can utilize the armed forces, of which he is chief, when he sees a requirement. Clinton did the same. That is so juvenile. Little Billy did it so it must be OK... I did not support Clinton's adventurisms and I do not support Mr. Bush's. Pre-emptive attacks on an mpotent sovereign nation constitutes war crime. We are a rogue nation. The military is not defending the country against the threat from within. Bush and Cheney are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever were. We are finished. Juvenile? What are you talking about? define your terms, please. You lack understanding. Where in my statement did I use Clinton's actions to justify the use of military power. Clinton did things during his presidency that Bush is criticized for; get the point? Did you not read everything else I said? Can you not understand? You do not understand. Latch onto my last sentence somehow get "Little Billy did it so it must be OK" out of it. Prove the claims you made. If "Bush and Cheney are a hundred times the threat that Saddam or Osama Bin Ladin ever were", back it up with clear, reasoned evidence, considering all facts, to include the fact that the United States maintains a defense force equal to the rest of the world combined, with only a tiny percentage of its GDP. Do you know what a "Rouge" United States can do? Why does Chavez, Kim Il, and Castro still live? Yes, You made it clear that you believe we are a rogue nation. You are not capable of critical thought. Give us the criteria for a rogue nation; Are there any other rogue nations about? And why? Do you not understand, that if we were truly a rogue nation, what the country is capable of? What would a really rouge United States look like? With our vast economic and military might? You cannot reason, can you. You are also a plagiarizer, copying a website as your own words. Do not bring a knife to a gun fight. If you want to have a discussion with people capable of thinking critically, come better armed than you currently are. You are a hater, you hate and despise the greatest nation, the GOODEST (I know that wasn't a real word) nation, to ever exist. Instead of marching across Asia at the end of WWII, we assisted in rebuilding our former enemies' infrastructure. Granted, the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation as in that one, (as evidenced by folks like yourself) there is still a significant patriotic core. I will no longer have anything to do with you. Having a reasoned discussion with your ilk is as pointless as arguing with one who's mentally ill. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
www.softwar.net (them klintoons)
I remember seeing Impeached nixon too,on tv,standing on that wall in China,opening up China to America. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
flash.net? A woman who retired from a Hospital in Arlington,Texas,I
think she used flash.net ISP.I can go check right quick,I still have some of her old emails to me.She passed away a few years ago at only fifty years young,cancer. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
Yep,flash.net Glenda Lynn Titus,Texas.You want I should email a photo of
her to you,tack? cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
X-No-Archive:
In article . com, "tack" wrote: On Feb 21, 7:35 pm, Moonlight Mile wrote: X-No-Archive: In article , dxAce wrote: Moonlight Mile wrote: X-No-Archive: In article , wrote: September 11,2001 NavExpress. www.devilfinder.com blackday 911 The WAR on TERROR is Definetly LEGAL. cuhulin The, the "war" that "terrorists" fight _against_ the U.S. is also LEGAL. We are, after all, fighting them in their countries. The U.S. has not declared war since WWII, but we have invaded and/or bombed into oblivion many countries. Undeclared wars are illegal. U.S. foreign policy is why the terrorists fight against us. Oblivion? NON-EXISTENCE! Other than that, you have no quibbles or major criticisms regarding my post? Excellent. Google on "Daisy-cutter", "phosphorus bomb", "napalm", and "cluster bomb". It turns out that we can't build very good cars anymore, but we are very clever and adept at building hi-tech weapons which kill many people indiscriminately. And we no longer have to look them in the eye while we kill them in enormous numbers. For recreation, you can also read a book by William Blum called "Rogue State: A Guide To The World's Only Superpower". It's not very well organized IMO, but it gets the basic idea across. I couldn't believe much of what is in that book, but Blum documents U.S. misdeeds quite well. And I lived in the DC area for 20 years, had access to a very good newspaper and watched news and political talk shows as often as possible. Blum tells the truth. Sadly, U.S foreign policy is the problem, not terrorists. T.E. Lawrence responded, when asked why men go to war, with "because the women are watching". Insightful! DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any misspellings in any of my posts. MM Bush is an idiot and/or psychotic (delusional and out of touch with reality). No responsible person supported the recent and ongoing "surge", which is actually an escalation of hostilities by the U.S. And "NO"! We never intended to withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq. We've built permanent and very large miliatray bases in both countries and we are there to stay. MM "The first casuality of war is truth!"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Hello, Moonlite Mile. I believe in critical thought. Every idea must me examined in minute detail, from every possible angle. Nothing is out of bounds, there are no sacred cows. You are attacking the US. Now tell us about America's greatness. Let us know what is good about the US. What are our strengths. What is our virtues. Well, you caught me. Our strengths, other than military and which is hardly virtuous, are very difficult to find. Virtues? I'm drawing a blank on this also. The American people are, as a group, selfish, self-absorbed, narcissistic, arrogant and ignorant. Most simply haven't a clue. Belief in God and strong religious beliefs are not the solution, they _are the problem_. The people who were the driving force behind the Revolutionary War ( you know, against the British ) were mostly wealthy white slave-owners who thought that all men, except black men and any other ethnic group they chose to exclude, were equal. These wealthy men simply did not want to pay taxes to Britain, though most of the cost of the French and Indian Wars as well as the protection from pirates, etc. of ships to/from the colonies was borne by Britain. Less than 1/3 of the population in the colonies favored war with Britain. After the revolutionary war, we had Shays' Rebellion after the debt from the Revolutionary War ultimately trickled down to individuals, in large part to small farmers. Failure to repay such debts often resulted in imprisonment in debtor's prisons. You may have seen the movie called "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson starring as...well, Mel Gibson. In that movie, blacks were offered freedom if they fought with the colonists for 6 months. The is NOT true. It was the British who made that offer, and they kept their word, maybe, kinda, a little, sometimes. Manifest Destiny was America's policy for justifying the taking land that did not belong to us. American Indians were slaughtered and every treaty we made with them was broken by white folk. Oh, as a pleasant aside, slavery continued. The Louisiana Purchase was a "make them an offer they can't refuse" kind of deal. Sell it to us at the price we will pay or we will take it. Then there was the was of 1812, a war that lasted two years. The United States declared War on Great Britain on June 12, 1812. The majority of Mexicans believe that the Southwest Territories still _belong_ to Mexico. They are correct. Don't even get the idea that Mexicans and people of South America love the U.S. They hate us for what we've done to them (esp. after 1950). They come here because we control the wealth. Various skirmishes throughout the 1800s with the badly outnumbered and ill-equipped American Indians--we we quite happy to attack villages and kill very man, woman and child in an Indian village. The American Civil War was fought over the cultural and economic differences between north and south. The purpose was not to end slavery, though it did have that effect. It did not give backs civil rights, but they were amongst the oppressed "free". Then there was The Spanish American War, starting in 1898. The U.S. was involved simply because we hoped to benefit from it. This was not an altruistic endeavor. I have no doubt that I've missed many mini-wars, battles, skirmishes, etc. up until this point. BUT THE PATTERN HAS ALREADY EMERGED..the U.S. goes to war simply to get what it wants. Diplomacy is not an option. WWI? I have no idea why we got involved but I have no doubt that it was reasons of self-aggrandizement. In 1918, the U.S. had between 10,000 and 15,000 soldiers in Russia, our ally in WWI. Russia was trying to put itself back together after crushing wars: WWI and a Civil War. We had allies and we kindly and gently slaughtered Red Soviets as best we could, but we still lost. In this endeavor, we were the terroists. What went on between WWI and WWII. Hell? I don't know. I suppose the depression was a great distraction, but I'd be very surprised if the U.S. was not busy battering and attempting to economically take over various South American countries. The U.S. and U.S. companies do not negoiate treaties or agreements with other countries that do not disproportionately benefit the U.S. Like I said the pattern had been established. The U.S. had become a terrorist nation. Well WWII. We and our "allies", excepting Russia, stood by while Russia fought Nazi Germany mostly on its own. Churchill said, more or less, less the Germans kill as many Russians as possible, let the Russians kill as many Germans as possible, but we can't let the Germans win. Eventually the western powers got dragged into WWII, but it took Pearl Harbor and the Japan/Germany alliance to get the interest of the U.S. Russia suffered as no other country. The best estimate for loss of lives in Russia stands at about 17 million people...they starved, froze, died in battle, were murdered. They nearly lost, but they kept fighting. By comparison, the western front was a picnic. Is it any wonder that the Soviet Union was created, that territories they captured were held by them. They suffered horrific losses in WWI and WWII, not just lives but lives that would have been and their infra-structure. At the end of WWII, the U.S. started fighting with _Japanese_ soldiers as allies [weren't we fighting against the Japanese in WWII] in China against Chinese Communists, our allies in WWII who did a lot to support us including the rescue of American pilots downed in China during WWII...their wounds were treated and they were returned to us and The Communists would accept no reward. After WWII, we supported the Chinese Nationalists, who did nothing to help us in WWII. The Tokyo fire bombings were horrendous. The Hydrogen bombs were unnecessary since Japan had been trying to surrender for some time. The H-bombs were dropped to intimidate Russia, not out of necessity to win the war. The short story is that the U.S. turned on our own allies after WWI and WII simply because they were Communist. There system of government and economics were different from ours and we couldn't permit that. We started the Cold War. We may think we have won the Cold War and that we've reached "the end of history" as some moron put it. After WWII. I'm getting tired. But I'll add some more. Undeclared wars ( the only kind ) after WWII, Korea, Viet Nam, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Iraq I ( immediately after we told Iraq we had no interest in Arab-Arab conflicts--April Glaspie, James Baker ), Afghanistan, Iraq II. Is Iran and/or North Korea next? Stay tuned! it's well past time for all the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, men, women and children to attack every possible American or coalition soldier. Many will die, but they will be rid of "the great satan", the cancer that infests this planet. Ronald Wilson Reagon ( 666 because each name had 6 letters, was the Anti- Christ--hey, I don't make the rules. Google on "666". George W. Bush. Both men with serious, dangerous mental disorders. Both were or are delusional and out of touch with reality. Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal and should have been impeached. PLanes went down to Central America with weapons and money; flew back with cocaine. Oliver North's diary shows that he knew about this. I'm not anti-drug ( I'm neutral on drugs ), but if I have to live with insane anti-drug laws, I think the CIA, Oliver North, and other government agencies have to live with them as well. I would go to jail; Oliver North is a hero for the conservatives and walks away a millionaire for breaking laws and far worse behavior than I would be allowed. I'll point out that the technology for, if not the actual chemical and biological weapons used by Iraq against Kurds, Shiites, and Iran's soldiers were sold by private U.S. countries with U.S. Dept. of Commerce approval. And we knew damn well how those weapons were going to be used. READ BLUM'S BOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Right wing death squads in Central and South America; trained at the School of The Americas in the U.S. in the fine arts of torture, subversion, destruction. The U.S. funds them as well. Look. I have a lot more material. You could find this information yourself. That you don't know any of this suggests that you are a lazy ****-ant who does not deserve the right to vote. Religion=ignorance! Belief in God = Mental Disorder! The most religious developed country in the world beset by the highest incidence of social problems and most types of criminal activity of any developed country in the world. And we have the highest incarceration rate of _any_ country in the world. We are not free. We are not noble. We are not virtuous. But, we keep over-spending on the military so we don't have to be free, virtuous or noble. Noriega (Panama) and Saddam (Iraq) met the same fate as any other of our allies who have outlived their usefulness and become ( too much of ) an embarrassment to the U.S. Do your own research! Holy smokes! I've read other posts in this thread and it seems I'm amongst people much like me...anarchists! And in the rec.radio.shortwave NG. Bet you've all been listening to radio Havana--I do. Occasionally, I get SW from Moscow and Japan. Too bad Al-Jazeera can't get on broadcast AM here in the states. So much for "freedom of speech"! A-J audio and perhaps video is on the Internet I think. Still have to ground my antenna. Soon! MM DISCLAIMER: I am not responsible for any misspellings or grammatical errors in any of my posts, e-mails, or discussions. P.S. I request that, as a courtesy, any responses containing parts or all of my posts have the "X-No-Archive:" in the first line to avoid permanent archiving. "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." -Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965) |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
I emailed a photo to tack1.That's all the photo(s) I will send.
cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On Feb 22, 3:51 pm, wrote:
I emailed a photo to tack1.That's all the photo(s) I will send. cuhulin That's cool. I'll check. Yes, I got the photo. She died too young. What kind of cancer? |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On Feb 22, 5:18 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 3:51 pm, wrote: I emailed a photo to tack1.That's all the photo(s) I will send. cuhulin That's cool. I'll check. Yes, I got the photo. She died too young. What kind of cancer? Moonlight Mile sent another diatribe. I did not read it, except for the first paragraph and the last. Too distressing for me to read the writings of fools and nuts. I will no longer read nor respond to him or David. David is unwise, but Mile is a nutjob. It would be well if you and DXace and all others ignore them; maybe they'll go away. I do not participate in these groups to find kooks, flakes, and haters. I took history in college, and enjoyed it. Made excellent grades. History is important, it should be studied carefully, but very rarely is. Something I noticed in American history is that the country should not be here. From the beginning and through every period of American history, we've overcome pitfall after pitfall, beat all the odds. The odds are overwhelming that we still exist, and exist with so much power. Like Paul Harvey said, we have only 5% of the worlds population, but half of all its good things. I firmly believe the hand of Providence is in it. There is so much that should've gone wrong; a benevolent first president that could have become king, but guided a young Republic. The first of Presidential elections went with a smooth transition of power (there was much enmity between parties involved) which never occurred before in history. And on and on and on. Something else I learned: Judge past historical players NOT by your own standards, or the present day standards. They must be judged by the standards of the period, and of their PEERS. When they lived, the future did not exist! No brainer, ha. Too easy to fall into the hindsight trap. The US had many faults and did some bad things, but the only proper way to judge her is by comparing her to other peoples and nations during the relevant periods. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
I don't know what kind of cancer.She once sent me a few photos via snail
mail of her in her kitchen and a lady standing by her wheelchair,she was hooked up to some kind of a machine and her head was bald.Some other pictures of her house and her two little doggys.She used to own a beautifull red mare Horse and sometimes on the weekends she would go riding.She once said her Horse threw her and damn near killed her.I used to get in a Cork,Ireland,Examiner online newspaper chatroom (I think they closed that chatroom down) and usually she would be in there too. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
I studied some History too.I also get History Net email newsletters at
one of my other webtv usernames. www.devilfinder.com abraham lincoln: Tyrant,Hypocrite,or Consummate Stateman? (He was a Traitor) Also, www.patriotist.com www.chuckbaldwinlive.com cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
In article
, Moonlight Mile wrote: Snip all Another half wit posting insane political crap. Plonk -- Telamon Ventura, California |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
In article ,
"jeryy" wrote: On a percentage basis, I suppose we're about as ****** up as the Americans. Snip Well, at least you have made a good first step toward recognizing how screwed up you are but you must get over the envy next. Plonk -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On Feb 22, 6:33 pm, wrote:
I studied some History too.I also get History Net email newsletters at one of my other webtv usernames.www.devilfinder.com abraham lincoln: Tyrant,Hypocrite,or Consummate Stateman? (He was a Traitor) Also, www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com cuhulin I went to www.devilfinder.com and typed in: "Abraham Lincoln: Tyrant,Hypocrite,or Consummate Stateman?" and came up with the article by that name. The writer defends Lincoln against the libertarians and other critics. It's a good read. He does not say Lincoln was a Traitor; just the oposite. |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression.
cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
Those ''democrats'' in d.c.(District of Criminals) they go to lincoln's
statue to get their pictures taken,then they head on over to the nearest church's chicken grease joint.Oregon Magazine, www.oregonmag.com has a good article too,if you know how to find it.If you see Mrs.Margaret Whitcombe (Peggy) in there,she is one of the good gals. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
m II will show up and throw up that bianca.com thingy.
cuhulin |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote:
California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression. cuhulin I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that the association of the states together, united, under a federal government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him, and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the Northern people with persuasive argument. I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know. |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote: California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression. cuhulin I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that the association of the states together, united, under a federal government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him, and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the Northern people with persuasive argument. I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know. What's that bianca.com? |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
On Feb 22, 9:34 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote: On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote: California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression. cuhulin I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that the association of the states together, united, under a federal government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him, and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the Northern people with persuasive argument. I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know. What's that bianca.com?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That website you pointed out to me: www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com Has some good information. I like the quotes of the Founding Fathers. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On 22 Feb 2007 12:01:08 -0800, "tack" wrote:
the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation as in that one, (as evidenced by folks like yourself) there is still a significant patriotic core. http://www.tehachapinews.com/home/Blog/samheath/5990 |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
On Feb 22, 9:44 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:34 pm, "tack" wrote: On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote: On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote: California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression. cuhulin I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that the association of the states together, united, under a federal government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him, and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the Northern people with persuasive argument. I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know. What's that bianca.com?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That website you pointed out to me:www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com Has some good information. I like the quotes of the Founding Fathers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - OK I looked up bianca.com on wikipedia. I see what it is now. They said that bianca.com is: ". . . a sort of petri dish for incubating deviant behavior . . . " |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
On Feb 22, 10:04 pm, "tack" wrote:
On Feb 22, 9:44 pm, "tack" wrote: On Feb 22, 9:34 pm, "tack" wrote: On Feb 22, 9:32 pm, "tack" wrote: On Feb 22, 8:44 pm, wrote: California wasen't even in the War of Northern Aggression. cuhulin I've read and studied much about the civil war. I still cannot make up my mind about whether or not it should've occurred. I think perhaps that the Southern states may had better presented their case to the North petition. By presenting the proofs and evidences of the will of the peoples of the Southern States. Send delegations to speak to Congress. Reason things out, point out to the Northern States that as the first 13 colonies (states) decided to separate from the British Empire and form their own destiny, then naturally others have the exact same right as they deem proper and necessary. If it was done with reason and not emotion, the Southern secession perhaps could had occurred peacefully and smoothly. One of Lincolns arguments was that the association of the states together, united, under a federal government, was a sort of "contract" together, and all sides must agree. Of course Lincoln was saying that the North did not agree with the breaking of this "contract". That could've been used against him, and his position undermined, if the proposition was placed before the Northern people with persuasive argument. I still think that Providence had a hand in it all. Considering the events of the 20th century, I think that it would been very difficult for the divided continent to get cooperate to triumph over foes in Europe and Asia. The territories and lands in the west may had ended up in the US, or in the CS, or as their own country. Who knows. What would had happened during WWII? The cold war? I don't know. What's that bianca.com?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - That website you pointed out to me:www.patriotist.comwww.chuckbaldwinlive.com Has some good information. I like the quotes of the Founding Fathers.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - OK I looked up bianca.com on wikipedia. I see what it is now. They said that bianca.com is: ". . . a sort of petri dish for incubating deviant behavior . . . "- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Closer to the proper use of this forum: Anyone do any longwave work? Below the broadcast band? |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
As a "dumbass Canuck" I just have a few things to say. Some people
here seem to think that Communist countrys simply have a "different system of government and economics", as one poster has said. If you think that that is all it is, then maybe you should read "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. No nation's government has enslaved or murdered more of its own citizens then the former U.S.S.R., well, except for, perhaps, The People's Republic of China. No the U.S., and the rest of the western world aren't perfect. We get some jerky leaders sometimes. A lot of us take our freedom for granted, and because of that, we are slowly losing our freedom to gradual, creeping socialism of one sort or another. It's happening in Canada. We had more freedom forty or fifty years ago. It's also happening in the U.S., but they aren't as far along the road as we are. But if things keep going the way they are, we will all eventually lose all our freedom. But our western way of life is a hell of a lot better then anything in any Communist or Fascist, or Islamic country, or in any country that has some sort of totalitarianism. And although the U.S. has its problems and isn't perfect, it's a hell of a lot better then any of those dictatorial countrys. And none of the rest of us are perfect either. But hell, if it wasn't for the U.S., our countrys would all be Communist countrys controlled from Moscow a long time ago. And we would all be brainwashed slaves to our "comrade great leader", or slowly dieing in concentration camps, or already dead. So, for this, all freedom loving people in the world, owe the U.S. a huge "Thankyou". Oh yes, someone said that the U.S. dropped H bombs on Japan??? No, they didn't! Look it up. |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
Canadians are good trading partners. I once traded a Bobby Orr for a Gordie
Howe card. Kept the gum though. Gave it to my next door neighbor for some conversation. wrote in message ... www.devilfinder.com Mississippi and Canada There are some nice people in Canada,lots of beautifull territory in Canada too.I have been to Cardston,Alberta,Canada before,in 1956.Canadians are good trading partners with America. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
On 22 Feb 2007 12:01:08 -0800, "tack" wrote:
...instead of marching across Asia at the end of WWII, we assisted in rebuilding our former enemies' infrastructure... the QUALITY of the American people isn't the same in this generation as in that one... |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
tack1,look up Ken Burn's book(s) about the so-called (what was civil
about it?) ''civil war''.I think his name is Ken Burns,I have some books here. cuhulin |
OT Canadians now in the race to the bottom.
bianca.com? I am not so unabashed to say that I did (I don't remember if
I was sober at the time or not,I am only sober when I am drunk) once go to bianca.com and I did pretend I was a nineteen year old girl interested in sex with dogs. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
All Canadians aren't dumb.I read www.americasnewssource.com every
day/night. www.montanasnews.com www.kidon.com Wherever my wandering mind roams. cuhulin .................................................. ............ There she goesss,,, down on the cornerrr,,,, down by the streetlight,,,,,, baby's got her bluejeans onnnnn,,,,,,, www.us963.com Jacksonnnnnnnn,, Where God isn't dead. .................................................. ............ |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
There is a reason,a very good reason too,why America is installing
U.S.Military Bases around the World.Ruling the World,, which Country,or Countries,would you choose? I am American,born and raised.I prefer America to rule the World.Outer Space too. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
I am a week late and a dollar short.I just now remembered I need to
apply a tube of Advantage 55 (it's made by Bayer company) to the top of doggy's neck. cuhulin |
(OT) : Canadians Partners in The-War-on-Terror
I spent 1964 in Vietnam.I KNOW America's system is better.
cuhulin |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com