Good move, John :)
- Thread starter Mr. Charts
- Start date
- Watchers 5
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
MILF
Mother(s) I('d) like to fuck: A (putative) mother found sexually attractive.
1999: Movie American Pie - "Dude, that chick's a MILF!"
MILF - Wiktionary
Lovely YummyMummies with evenings and weekends off.
Mother(s) I('d) like to fuck: A (putative) mother found sexually attractive.
1999: Movie American Pie - "Dude, that chick's a MILF!"
MILF - Wiktionary
Lovely YummyMummies with evenings and weekends off.
There is something, here, that does not click into place with me.
What is "right" and what is "wrong"? It's all relative stuff. What is right is what suits us to be so. We have decided that it is no longer right to go into other nations and beat the **** out of them, simply because they may, one day, be able to do it to us. That one day is coming to us very quickly. In my opinion, the US is the only nation capable of defending us when that happens.
I can remember when everything East of Suez, apart from Japan, Australia and New Zealand,which are smart nations and quick to catch on to American thinking, consisted of an impoverished bunch of ragheads. Pardon the expression, but that is what we thought fifty years ago.
That is not the case today. India, Pakistan and China are nuclear powers. All are our friends until the day that they are not. Now we are facing another potential nuclear power, Iran. I am not suggesting that they intend to make war on us but, everyone who says that they are not, IMO, are not sufficiently convincing to me and none are saying how they intend to assume the responsibility of their words if they are wrong. I am not so positive that wishful thinking is a sure solution for my family's wellbeing. I am not prepared to say to my grandchildren, especially when I will not be here to share their agony, "Don't take any notice of the Americans, the Iranians mean us no harm"
I'd prefer that they be stopped right now.
I can remember the postwar, when we had to contend with the Russians. The UK was rife with communist unions who loved the Russians.We needed someone nasty, like Thatcher, to stop them.
The only thing that stopped the Russians was the US and I am, absolutely, positive that there will always be an upstart power that will try to take away from us by force, what they are unable to do by other means. Our way of life is a threat to theirs. Their people are coming to us in their millions and that, in itself, is a threat to the regimes that exist there, because they are spreading the word back home.
That's how I feel about things. I know that there will be plenty, here, who will disagree with me but there are, also, a lot will agree.
Split
What is "right" and what is "wrong"? It's all relative stuff. What is right is what suits us to be so. We have decided that it is no longer right to go into other nations and beat the **** out of them, simply because they may, one day, be able to do it to us. That one day is coming to us very quickly. In my opinion, the US is the only nation capable of defending us when that happens.
I can remember when everything East of Suez, apart from Japan, Australia and New Zealand,which are smart nations and quick to catch on to American thinking, consisted of an impoverished bunch of ragheads. Pardon the expression, but that is what we thought fifty years ago.
That is not the case today. India, Pakistan and China are nuclear powers. All are our friends until the day that they are not. Now we are facing another potential nuclear power, Iran. I am not suggesting that they intend to make war on us but, everyone who says that they are not, IMO, are not sufficiently convincing to me and none are saying how they intend to assume the responsibility of their words if they are wrong. I am not so positive that wishful thinking is a sure solution for my family's wellbeing. I am not prepared to say to my grandchildren, especially when I will not be here to share their agony, "Don't take any notice of the Americans, the Iranians mean us no harm"
I'd prefer that they be stopped right now.
I can remember the postwar, when we had to contend with the Russians. The UK was rife with communist unions who loved the Russians.We needed someone nasty, like Thatcher, to stop them.
The only thing that stopped the Russians was the US and I am, absolutely, positive that there will always be an upstart power that will try to take away from us by force, what they are unable to do by other means. Our way of life is a threat to theirs. Their people are coming to us in their millions and that, in itself, is a threat to the regimes that exist there, because they are spreading the word back home.
That's how I feel about things. I know that there will be plenty, here, who will disagree with me but there are, also, a lot will agree.
Split
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
Split, the zones in the world that have absolute immunity from hankypanky from any upstart nations are the EU, the US, China, India, and Russia.
No upstart would even dream of lobbing a nuclear missile at us, we are simply too enormous and well armed and the outcome would be guaranteed, retaliation.
Iran being a threat - that is just more fearmongering from the NeoCons who want to go after Irans oil.
The biggest threat to any other nation in this new millenium was not Iran, Iraq or North Korea, that was the US, as measured per people killed.
All that is needed to run the world smoothly is a sufficient deterrent, and we have that in abundance.
All the monies spent beyond that fulfill no purpose as the lost wars of Iraq and Afghanistan amply prove.
Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11 as it is perfectly contained
YouTube - Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11
Deterrence and the threat of retaliation, plus a return to dialogue amongst nations, is what does the trick.
Attacking innocent nations doesn't subdue nor overcome them, it simply creates terrorists or freedom fighters that no army is equipped to overcome, all that begets is the infamous vicious cycle of assymetric warfare we are witnessing today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for centuries in the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, for many decades also between the Brits and the Northern Irish.
The last two are perfect examples of how no amount of force and counter force ever changes the staus quo of death and suffering on both sides...
You Brits solved the situation when you ended the military engagement, and came to a nagotiated settlement based not on any loudly proclaimed positions, but instead on the true and legitimate interests of both sides.
Thats how winners act, not this childish posturing of big armies in third world sand boxes without any tangible results, and with no more justification than that it was based on the behest of a personal coward like Bush who had no qualms in sending soldiers to death and mutilation while he himself ran away from that fate in his time even though he supported that other disastrous example of misguided foreign policy, the Vietnam war.
No upstart would even dream of lobbing a nuclear missile at us, we are simply too enormous and well armed and the outcome would be guaranteed, retaliation.
Iran being a threat - that is just more fearmongering from the NeoCons who want to go after Irans oil.
The biggest threat to any other nation in this new millenium was not Iran, Iraq or North Korea, that was the US, as measured per people killed.
All that is needed to run the world smoothly is a sufficient deterrent, and we have that in abundance.
All the monies spent beyond that fulfill no purpose as the lost wars of Iraq and Afghanistan amply prove.
Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11 as it is perfectly contained
YouTube - Powell and Rice assure everyone Iraq is NO THREAT pre-9/11
Deterrence and the threat of retaliation, plus a return to dialogue amongst nations, is what does the trick.
Attacking innocent nations doesn't subdue nor overcome them, it simply creates terrorists or freedom fighters that no army is equipped to overcome, all that begets is the infamous vicious cycle of assymetric warfare we are witnessing today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for centuries in the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, for many decades also between the Brits and the Northern Irish.
The last two are perfect examples of how no amount of force and counter force ever changes the staus quo of death and suffering on both sides...
You Brits solved the situation when you ended the military engagement, and came to a nagotiated settlement based not on any loudly proclaimed positions, but instead on the true and legitimate interests of both sides.
Thats how winners act, not this childish posturing of big armies in third world sand boxes without any tangible results, and with no more justification than that it was based on the behest of a personal coward like Bush who had no qualms in sending soldiers to death and mutilation while he himself ran away from that fate in his time even though he supported that other disastrous example of misguided foreign policy, the Vietnam war.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
Dear Split,
For all the history in the world look at the facts and history on the ground. The most recent history if I may be bold enough to say.
World War1
World War2
Attrocities in Latin America - all those nice Juntas put in place by US...
Attrocities in ME - all those Kings and 100s of Princes put in place by US...
Who then bang their drum about freedom and liberty.
Europe and US account for just about the whole lot. Even those attrocities in Central Asia have been instigated or supported in one way or another by the US or UK.
In comparison Russia/China/Iran or the ME have been more than peaceful shuffling our blood lusts for all resources.
Finally, US were are allies but for their help we gave away the ME and all those rich oil fields and British influence was replaced by US ones. Not to mention all the gold used to pay for their help.
Nothing in life is free.
Churchill even had a plan to ship 10 ton of gold to create inflation in America to re-establish the £1=$8 parity...
Time to rethink mi thinks...
Change is not only possible, it is happening before our eyes.
BSD, do you feel easy about the Russians, today? How do you think they will be in another couple of decades? Half of your country has had them for 50 odd years and the other half has been a bit too close to them for comfort.Why do you think that the Poles are allowing US weapons on their territory? Because they love America? Not on your life. Because they have had enough of being torn apart and they can see that Putin is not much different from his Communist predecessors except that, possibly, he is worse. He talks democracy and friendship.
I know that the Americans are not angels but, for the present, I don't like the alternatives.
Split
BSD, do you feel easy about the Russians, today? How do you think they will be in another couple of decades? Half of your country has had them for 50 odd years and the other half has been a bit too close to them for comfort.Why do you think that the Poles are allowing US weapons on their territory? Because they love America? Not on your life. Because they have had enough of being torn apart and they can see that Putin is not much different from his Communist predecessors except that, possibly, he is worse. He talks democracy and friendship.
I know that the Americans are not angels but, for the present, I don't like the alternatives.
Split
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
Split, I'm not worried about Russia at all actually,
because A: I am firmly convinced that we in the West are far too important economic partners for them to want to destroy that (and yes, Georgia was absolutely superfluous, but also basically the fault of that Georgian Cowboy and possibly his US advisors).
Economic development is where Russias main focus lies, and we (meaning every industrialized country) are the answer to that.
and B: we all know that one side could not possibly destruct the other - why on earth would we want to in the first place - without guaranteeing mutual self destruction anyway.
Nato and the Warsaw pact existed in peaceful coexistence for half a century without any need for action of any sort, because the only thing that really worked then and works now, is deterrence.
But now we have far more than deterrence between Russia and us, we have one heck of a lot of mutually beneficial business to do.
As always with partners and in friendship, when there are things that are wrong, as indeed there are lots in Russia with lack of democracy, proper judiciary etc etc, we need not a cold war, but instead dialogue, cooperation and engagement.
The EU ended Centuries of war in Europe not through the mother of all wars, no,but through understanding that we are all in the same boat, and that the only way forward is exactly that, dialogue, cooperation and engagement, that has given us a peace divident of over half a century, and made us rich beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors who were usually busy fighting one war or the other that never changed the status quo anyway.
because A: I am firmly convinced that we in the West are far too important economic partners for them to want to destroy that (and yes, Georgia was absolutely superfluous, but also basically the fault of that Georgian Cowboy and possibly his US advisors).
Economic development is where Russias main focus lies, and we (meaning every industrialized country) are the answer to that.
and B: we all know that one side could not possibly destruct the other - why on earth would we want to in the first place - without guaranteeing mutual self destruction anyway.
Nato and the Warsaw pact existed in peaceful coexistence for half a century without any need for action of any sort, because the only thing that really worked then and works now, is deterrence.
But now we have far more than deterrence between Russia and us, we have one heck of a lot of mutually beneficial business to do.
As always with partners and in friendship, when there are things that are wrong, as indeed there are lots in Russia with lack of democracy, proper judiciary etc etc, we need not a cold war, but instead dialogue, cooperation and engagement.
The EU ended Centuries of war in Europe not through the mother of all wars, no,but through understanding that we are all in the same boat, and that the only way forward is exactly that, dialogue, cooperation and engagement, that has given us a peace divident of over half a century, and made us rich beyond the wildest dreams of our ancestors who were usually busy fighting one war or the other that never changed the status quo anyway.
Last edited:
Ostensibly, this is supposed to be a defence against ME nations, I'm not naive, though, and I think I know where America is coming from.
I am not sure that it will go ahead. yet. Perhaps the Americans will back off. But I believe that the mere idea of it taking place could bring a different point of view to the Russians if, for example, they have any thoughts of continuing similar exploits to the recent one in Georgia.
From the Polish perspective, though, I can understand their concerns.
I want to make myself clear. I am not an expert on any of this but I do know how we would feel if America did not exist and Russia started to turn the energy tap off. They are trying to threaten us now and, without America, we would be decidedly uneasy about what could be coming next.
My opinion is that without the US, Europe would be easy meat for the Russians and there would be a nuclear arms race in the ME.
Do you think that any of our political leaders are any different to Chamberlain, who came back from Munich waving that piece of paper and shouting "Peace in our time"? We haven't anyone, Yacarob, and that is the pity. That is the reason that the UK and France are so independant, when it comes to defence questions.
I am not sure that it will go ahead. yet. Perhaps the Americans will back off. But I believe that the mere idea of it taking place could bring a different point of view to the Russians if, for example, they have any thoughts of continuing similar exploits to the recent one in Georgia.
From the Polish perspective, though, I can understand their concerns.
I want to make myself clear. I am not an expert on any of this but I do know how we would feel if America did not exist and Russia started to turn the energy tap off. They are trying to threaten us now and, without America, we would be decidedly uneasy about what could be coming next.
My opinion is that without the US, Europe would be easy meat for the Russians and there would be a nuclear arms race in the ME.
Do you think that any of our political leaders are any different to Chamberlain, who came back from Munich waving that piece of paper and shouting "Peace in our time"? We haven't anyone, Yacarob, and that is the pity. That is the reason that the UK and France are so independant, when it comes to defence questions.
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
There is a new world order now.
Technology news and people power. Politicians have to convince the electrate. And even if one side does try, opposition is very easy to muster with little effort.
1. Vietnam
2. Russia v Afghanistan
3. USA v Afghanistan
4. USA v Iraq
You know if these superpowers can't deal with these little countries what real chance do they have of each other.
Yes they have the ability to destroy but where does that get them. How far before someone sees it fit to exact a response. If not now 5 or 10 years down the line.
What I find is that people don't realise the Pentagon with billions at it's command with many big industries and players are a law onto them selves.
I seriously believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Split how would you feel if it can be proven that 9/11 was an elitist instigation to justify war?
You are reluctant to believe USA is bad because they helped us to beat the Nazis. However, Russia helped considerably taking on the supreme German fighting machine but you give them no credit.
911 mysteries - Google Video
9-11 Was An Inside Job - A Call To True Patriots
The Attack on The Pentagon
How do you think you would feel if you found out USA instigated this incident?
I think you are in denial.
I dare you to look at the evidence.
Today is 9/11 and I'm appalled by the volume of evidence and lack of desire to investigate these allegations by the White House.
Historically, France and Germany have been our arch enemies and I can't see war between any of the European countries anymore.
Your fear of the Russian is irrational imho.
Last edited:
Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,775
- Likes
- 3,976
Also...
One of the most plausible motives for the assasination of JFK was that he was considering cutting the Pentagons defence budget. So they had the Mafia take him out.
I used to be a good shot and fired rifles in the Air Cadets. 49F Squadron in Willoughby Road, Hamstead Heath I'm proud to say. It was hard enough hitting a stationary A4 sheet of paper from 50 yards. Some shots would miss the target altogether. But to hit a moving target from 300 yards is pure Hollywood.
I would challenge the best marksman in the world to take that kind of a shot today with the best sniper rifles of today and I would wager a bet they wouldn't be able to hit the mark.
IMHO the Pentagon is an entity beyond any accountability or control by the masses.
In the name of National Security you can get away with murder.
One of the most plausible motives for the assasination of JFK was that he was considering cutting the Pentagons defence budget. So they had the Mafia take him out.
I used to be a good shot and fired rifles in the Air Cadets. 49F Squadron in Willoughby Road, Hamstead Heath I'm proud to say. It was hard enough hitting a stationary A4 sheet of paper from 50 yards. Some shots would miss the target altogether. But to hit a moving target from 300 yards is pure Hollywood.
I would challenge the best marksman in the world to take that kind of a shot today with the best sniper rifles of today and I would wager a bet they wouldn't be able to hit the mark.
IMHO the Pentagon is an entity beyond any accountability or control by the masses.
In the name of National Security you can get away with murder.
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
Split, you really need to get over your irrational fears and start thinking in motives...
WHY ON EARTH would Russia want to attack us ??
We are by FAR too enormous, powerful, wealthy, and well armed for that to be even REMOTELY possible...
But it still beggars the question of why ???
They want to get rich, for which WE are the answer.
Besies, even IF they would want to overrun us, lol, there is NO CHANCE IN A BILLION of that being feasible...
They could not even subdue a THIRD WORLD SAND BOX like Afghanistan or Iraq - any more than the USA CAN...
Where ON EARTH are you coming from with the notion that WE could be overrun ??
Pardon me Split, but that is really nothing but ridiculous and a joke.
We in the EU are totally immune from ANY outside threat, as are the USA, Russia itself, China, India, et al.
But it still TOTALLY beggars the question of WHY ON EARTH would Russia WANT to attack us ???
They want to get rich, and WE are the answer to that.
They do NOT want mutual destruction, which is ALL they would get from attacking us.
The days of taking over countries are over and done with, at least for the major players on the world stage, and, pardon me, but everybody knows that, and nobody has any plans to mutually self-destruct.
That is what is so absolutely pathetic and laughable about the fearmongering rampage Bush went on to justify his oil war in Iraq, the idea that even if Saddam had had his WMD's - a sorry lie nobody apart from some Americans ever believed in - that he would then ever even have thought one second about lobbing them at either the US or us.
The mere idea was just such a sad joke.
Russia is just as interested in a partnership with us as pretty much most other nations in the world, which includes the loonies in Iran and North Korea.
And hey, after Iraq, its absolutely no wonder that iran etc want to get nuclear weapons to protect themselves against foreign powers trying to steal their natural resources.
Well, ok, N.Korea doesn't have any, so they have nothing to worry about anyway, lol.
Nuclear weapons are actually the best deterrent to the conventional wars we have had throughout our history.
But really, get over this fear of everything and its shadow mate, you've just been fearmongered, thats all.
Russia wants to do business with us, and, trust me, after witnessing the sorry spectacles of the last decades in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the latter both under the Soviets and then Nato, NOBODY in the world believes that anybody, LEAST of all a Russia trying to get rich, wants to attack us.
Lol.
WHY ON EARTH would Russia want to attack us ??
We are by FAR too enormous, powerful, wealthy, and well armed for that to be even REMOTELY possible...
But it still beggars the question of why ???
They want to get rich, for which WE are the answer.
Besies, even IF they would want to overrun us, lol, there is NO CHANCE IN A BILLION of that being feasible...
They could not even subdue a THIRD WORLD SAND BOX like Afghanistan or Iraq - any more than the USA CAN...
Where ON EARTH are you coming from with the notion that WE could be overrun ??
Pardon me Split, but that is really nothing but ridiculous and a joke.
We in the EU are totally immune from ANY outside threat, as are the USA, Russia itself, China, India, et al.
But it still TOTALLY beggars the question of WHY ON EARTH would Russia WANT to attack us ???
They want to get rich, and WE are the answer to that.
They do NOT want mutual destruction, which is ALL they would get from attacking us.
The days of taking over countries are over and done with, at least for the major players on the world stage, and, pardon me, but everybody knows that, and nobody has any plans to mutually self-destruct.
That is what is so absolutely pathetic and laughable about the fearmongering rampage Bush went on to justify his oil war in Iraq, the idea that even if Saddam had had his WMD's - a sorry lie nobody apart from some Americans ever believed in - that he would then ever even have thought one second about lobbing them at either the US or us.
The mere idea was just such a sad joke.
Russia is just as interested in a partnership with us as pretty much most other nations in the world, which includes the loonies in Iran and North Korea.
And hey, after Iraq, its absolutely no wonder that iran etc want to get nuclear weapons to protect themselves against foreign powers trying to steal their natural resources.
Well, ok, N.Korea doesn't have any, so they have nothing to worry about anyway, lol.
Nuclear weapons are actually the best deterrent to the conventional wars we have had throughout our history.
But really, get over this fear of everything and its shadow mate, you've just been fearmongered, thats all.
Russia wants to do business with us, and, trust me, after witnessing the sorry spectacles of the last decades in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the latter both under the Soviets and then Nato, NOBODY in the world believes that anybody, LEAST of all a Russia trying to get rich, wants to attack us.
Lol.
BSD
Veteren member
- Messages
- 3,819
- Likes
- 988
That is so very true, and that goes back to the theme, we ARE in a new world order, which has PROVEN that change IS possible.
Btw, Split, no offense at my words in my earlier post, I get carried away a tad sometimes, but I DO understand that you are of the generation my father was of, a generation that EXPERIENCED the horror of a war that WE - or at least I - have only heard and read about, so I DO understand that YOUR personal history must affect your take on the world.
While I do not agree with you on this particular subject, I do have lots of respect for you and I do wish you all the best.
Attilla, even the then President Eisenhower was warning of the dire ramifications of an unnacountable military industrial complex ostensibly starting wars to make a buck or for other reasons not in a nations best interest.
Eisenhower warns us of the US military industrial complex.
YouTube - Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.
Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Last edited:
Markus
You appear to be assuming that Russia will behave in a rational manner.
Humans have frailties, one of which is to act irrationally.
Hitler and George Bush are good examples of people who behaved in an irrational manner.
Who is to say that Putin and his fellow gangsters are not crazed megalomaniacs who are hell bent on confrontation regardless of the consequences.
I think Split is right to be concerned and the worst case scenario should never be discarded on the grounds that it would require irrational behaviour.
You appear to be assuming that Russia will behave in a rational manner.
Humans have frailties, one of which is to act irrationally.
Hitler and George Bush are good examples of people who behaved in an irrational manner.
Who is to say that Putin and his fellow gangsters are not crazed megalomaniacs who are hell bent on confrontation regardless of the consequences.
I think Split is right to be concerned and the worst case scenario should never be discarded on the grounds that it would require irrational behaviour.
