30 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI stand corrected, Sam. It was generalissimo: as he said, in reply to a post by you... "It means Obama is going to have to attack N.Korea, lets hope he has the balls to do it." Seems he doesn't want a non-military way out.
Stop making up things. Nobody is acting gleeful.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFyour darn right you stand corrected, I am not gleeful about anything concerning this. Very concerned maybe even terrified would be a better description. I got family and friends in S.Korea. Being an American or prior military does not make one a war monger,you know. War sucks .Its a reality to me not some hollywood movie or video game. For most people who have never seen action would literally crap their pants if put in that situation for real. I dont wish that on anybody,friend or foe alike
I stand corrected, Sam. It was generalissimo: as he said, in reply to a post by you... "It means Obama is going to have to attack N.Korea, lets hope he has the balls to do it." Seems he doesn't want a non-military way out.
30 May 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonNo. But serving in the military ought to have made you more respectful of the contribution of the French to Operation Overlord 1944. But instead you fell for one of McSwain's small minded "fibs" which does no favours to the honour you assume you are entitled to having 'been in uniform'. Yes, I stand corrected about the glee you appear to feel. It was in fact generalissimo. If you indeed feel war sucks I wonder why you didn't take exception to his from-the-armchair urgings of the "let's hope there's a war" kind on the other NK thread.
Being an American or prior military does not make one a war monger,you know.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFof course I respect the french contribution. I was agreeing That It seemed like the Queen( England )(and Canada as well) were snubbed. Now dont go putting words in my mouth again please. I do not assume I am entitled to any honor for serving. If I come off that way its unintentional and just not so. BTW I didnt comment on the other thread you mentioned because I either did not read it or was not up to commenting on the time.I honestly dont recall reading a comment like that. Any how, Im glad we cleared that up
No. But serving in the military ought to have made you more respectful of the contribution of the French to Operation Overlord 1944. But instead you fell for one of McSwain's small minded "fibs" which does no favours to the honour you assume you are entitled to having 'been in uniform'. Yes, I stand corrected about the glee you appear to feel. It was in fact gen ...[text shortened]... om-the-armchair urgings of the "let's hope there's a war" kind on the other NK thread.
30 May 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonAllow me to put these words in your mouth: "I agree."
of course I respect the french contribution. I was agreeing That It seemed like the Queen( England )(and Canada as well) were snubbed. Now dont go putting words in my mouth again please.
That was your response to this:
"I don’t remember there being much ‘Franco’ involvement on those beaches 65 years ago."
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFOK I did read that apparently. Dont remember but I did 🙂 One too many dead shows. J.K.
Allow me to put these words in your mouth: "I agree."
That was your response to this:
"I don’t remember there being much ‘Franco’ involvement on those beaches 65 years ago."
Any how, I would have to stand by that. There was not alot of franco involvment (by comparison) on the beaches. that I do agree on. So that being said,The Brits and the Canadians were snubbed. It was not strictly a Franco-American thing.
30 May 09
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI was very drunk when I wrote that but am feeling much better now. I have reviewed the sentence I wrote and am pretty impressed that really, it is only missing a comma.
What? You strung too many words together and stopped making sense about half way through the sentence.
With that in mind, I will have to revert to my gut reaction to your post which was that if you can´t understand a sentence, it doesn´t necessarily mean it doesn´t make sense. I do however appreciate, that splitting it into a couple of sentences may have made it a bit easier for you.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMF…building a nuclear deterrent is apparently extremely popular with the Iranian people...…
the Iranian president is in the midst of an election campaign, culminating on June 12. building a nuclear deterrent is apparently extremely popular with the Iranian people.
S**t
30 May 09
What I think is interesting in this Axis of Evil thing is the one country that DID NOT have WMD's the US(with the help of our wonderful coalition, thanks guys) invaded. Maybe that is what the leaders of Iran and N.K. figured out, if you actually have the weapons the US will slow down the war machine a bit. Great lesson the US is teaching the rest of the world. I would not worry about N.K. though. They don't have any resources that the west wants.
30 May 09
Just like when a person with dementia starts spouting gibberish, a nation that spouts gibberish should not be taken seriously.
Neither should that nation be allowed to harm others through irresponsible acts.
Where the analogy breaks down -- where a nation has to be treated differently from a person -- is when you consider that there are perfectly sane people living inside the apparently demented nation who are suffering. So where one might not treat a demented individual without their consent (and even then one does in certain cases), a nation does necessarily have to 'consent' to a change in regime. That should be decided by an international body of nations.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFThat's incorrect. The government of Iran claims it is building a civilian nuclear power program; it's fair to say that the Iranian people believe that and are opposed to foreign interference in Iran's internal matters.
the Iranian president is in the midst of an election campaign, culminating on June 12. building a nuclear deterrent is apparently extremely popular with the Iranian people.
As of yet, those claiming that Iran is trying to build a nuclear deterrent have failed to produce any serious evidence that this is so.
30 May 09
Originally posted by FMFI would understand, but it would be most unwise for them to go down that path. I personally don't think they are; plans for an extensive civilian nuclear program in Iran pre-date the Islamic Revolution.
Indeed. Personally I imagine they are. And if I am right, I understand why they are.