Quagmire?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 11:45
I like long, hot wet kisses that last for hours and pleated pants. :blink:

---

that's not nearly as kinky as penetrating tanks

sounds like a whole lot more fun though [apart from ironning the pleats]

my issue is that few who support the deployment will comment upon the situation and i am itchingly curious as to the feelings of americans about it.
i hear from colon powell and condaleeza(sic) rice each day, but not from you or him or her, you're just people with internet access like me except you've got a very different perspective
i want to know what you thinking
but i get hassled for asking the question

with building bridges being so fraught and difficult it should be little wonder that there is mistrust and anxiety expressed toward the USA

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna@1 July 2003 - 21:26

with building bridges being so fraught and difficult it should be little wonder that there is mistrust and anxiety expressed toward the USA

---

Regardless of Hobbes' preference for kisses, both he and I both are considered master bridge-builders.

We are somehow deficient, I guess, in coaxing people to traverse our spans of goodwill.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by echidna+2 July 2003 - 03:26--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (echidna @ 2 July 2003 - 03:26)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 July 2003 - 11:45
I like long, hot wet kisses that last for hours and pleated pants. :blink:

---

that&#39;s not nearly as kinky as penetrating tanks

sounds like a whole lot more fun though [apart from ironning the pleats]

my issue is that few who support the deployment will comment upon the situation and i am itchingly curious as to the feelings of americans about it.
i hear from colon powell and condaleeza(sic) rice each day, but not from you or him or her, you&#39;re just people with internet access like me except you&#39;ve got a very different perspective
i want to know what you thinking
but i get hassled for asking the question

with building bridges being so fraught and difficult it should be little wonder that there is mistrust and anxiety expressed toward the USA [/b][/quote]
I think you word a more reasonable post than the sources you quote. Continue to read your media, but rather than quote them, mull it over and present it in a way that you think will elicit input, rather than reactive defensivity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@2 July 2003 - 12:22
My post made no comment on American media.&nbsp; You think that his bias is ok because you don&#39;t like "legendary" Fox bias. Two wrongs make a right?&nbsp; Have I ever lauded American media?

My post specifically states that his post is intentionally inflammatory, nothing else.

When I read a post I try to infer, was this meant to start a discussion or just to anger.&nbsp; If I wanted to start a discussion I would word things differently.

---

mea culpa II
i&#39;m what&#39;s called [here] a shit stirrer, meaning i [too]often play the devil&#39;s advocate to illicit responses

we all come from societies with adversarial courts and governmental systems i didn&#39;t think it would be too foreign a tactic

as to the media, what are examples of un-biased media? what do you read/listen_to/watch? i know well that two wrongs don&#39;t make a right, i just have never seen/heard media as you described it

two wrongs don&#39;t make a right but might is right and retaliation de rigeur

This is what I posted on May 25th on the Filesharing, Socialist Activity thread.

"I personally think you are male, living in Australia (where else can you find an Echidna) but with Middle Eastern parents and religious influence(the symbol in your Avatar). You learned to speak English very young (your syntax is natural), indicating that you were probably born outside the homeland of your parents.

Actually I was joking about Australia, your use of English has a strong American influence. You could potentially live in the US, but your comments are more akin to an observer from afar. This places you in Europe somewhere.

I think you are left handed, single, over 30, and like long romantic walks in the park and post in the nude."


Are you still posting nude? Gross. Oh well, I HAVE (past tense) been known to penetrate a tank.

Night all, must work a double shift tomorrow (7am to 11pm) so that I can afford to be humilitated and insulted on this forum. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@1 July 2003 - 23:51
Clear enough?

---

Certainly is&#33; Perhaps more than you realise.

I say this because you tacitly admit that the US is not in control of Iraq (how else would Saddam be able organise and trade in WMDs?), and that the US is (despite all of it&#39;s resources) powerless to find the said weapons (assuming they exist).

Not much of a victory there then. It looks like a failure in terms of the stated war aim of neutralising Saddam and his arsenal.

Slappy.

Wanting to see new posts..... :rolleyes:

:ninja:

The whole thing stinks. If 1441 was enough of a mandate to send in the troops, why didn&#39;t they go in before Christmas? Why wait until they knew they were not going to get a second resolution, when time was running out because of the seasons, before deciding that 1441 gave them the so-called right to invade under international law?

They must think the rest of the world is as stupid as they are.. Everyone knows they pulled a dirty underhanded little stunt, but because no-one is strong enough to stand up to them, they&#39;re all pretending it never happened.

A judge or magistrate will issue a search warrent on reasonable grounds that further investigation is needed, thats exactly what resolution 1441 was...nothing more than a search warrent.




Agent Orange was a herbicide, at concentrations of 20-40 times those allowed...AT THAT TIME. It was used mainly on wild plantlife (read jungle or whatever), however its been known since the mists of time that poisons that are otherwise harmless in small doses, are leathal in large doses.

This does make it a chemical weapon....however, I dont believe that it was used delibratly as such, just that those that made the decisions were incredibly ignorant.

Agent Blue however, also used in Vietnam, was used exclusively to kill crops...ie the food supply of the enemy. This means that Agent Blue was used delibratly as a Chemical Weapon, in its fullest sense....a weapon does not necessarily kill directly. Some of the best ones are those that tie up personell that would otherwise be attacking you....in this case forcing them to hunt/plant more crops to feed themselves.


Agent Orange seems to grab all the news...however there were a number of chemicals in use: Agent Orange, Agent White, Agent Blue, (all herbicides), Malathion (insecticide), CS etc etc.

Notice, the only one above that is designed to be anti personnel..is CS, still in use today by police forces all over the world, as well as the military.

Agent Orange by itself is leathal...the combination of all these chemicals is more leathal (although most other ones, on there own, wouldnt kill anyone...but would incapacitate them)

.....I&#39;d be scared if i thought it was all deliberate. :unsure:


There is also plenty of evidence and has been for years, about the long term effects of Depleted Uranium tipped ammo.

All of it bad, a lot of it from the Pentagon and its own scientists.



Just to keep this going ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by slaphappy+2 July 2003 - 03:08--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (slaphappy @ 2 July 2003 - 03:08)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@1 July 2003 - 23:51
Clear enough?

---

Certainly is&#33; Perhaps more than you realise.

I say this because you tacitly admit that the US is not in control of Iraq (how else would Saddam be able organise and trade in WMDs?), and that the US is (despite all of it&#39;s resources) powerless to find the said weapons (assuming they exist).

Not much of a victory there then. It looks like a failure in terms of the stated war aim of neutralising Saddam and his arsenal.

Slappy. [/b][/quote]
Worry not, we&#39;ll let you know when the job is finis.