Afghanistan
Mr Jinx
There's a war going on in Afghanistan. Apparenly they grow 90 per
cent of the world's heroin. And if we prevent them from doing this
many of them will starve because there is no way that the land they
have can provide as much money as the heroin (poppy) crop produces and
they need that money to survive.
I tried herion once. I found it very relaxing. But I had the feeling
it could become a little too more-ish so I made sure I never tried it
again.
What should we do about the Afghans and their heroin? Should we
confiscate it and bomb them into the stone age?
Mr Jinx
crazytimes
http://www.travelblog.org/pix/maps/middle-east.jpg
Take a look at a map... What do Iraq and Afghanistan have in common
(besides some headgear and religious affiliations)?... They are the
bread that sandwiches the meat of the region (geopolitically in the
eyes of the 'West'); the real objective lies in between those two
countries, because of the oily stuff that lies between the fissures
down below the ground... If and when there is an invasion of Iraq, it
will be staged from both sides...
JimK
Why waste the bombs? Afghanistan is still in the stone age.
JimK
crazytimes
> Why waste the bombs? Afghanistan is still in the stone age.
>
> JimK
And we're still in the Oil age... Makes nice tourism for our armed
forces...
gemjack
<vernon_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
We should leave them be and enjoy the decrease in retaliation for
meddling in other people's countries.
-gj
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> We should leave them be and enjoy the decrease in retaliation for
> meddling in other people's countries
Hey, that might just work
Just Walkin'
I agree. We should let Harry and The Royals defend their own opium
franchise and leave us the hell alone.
really real
easy because America was fighting on the wrong side, and all they had to
do was withdraw. But the Taliban really are a nasty bunch, with the way
they treat women, not to mention banning music. If Nato withdraws and
lets the Taliban take over, the women who have been going to school are
going to be in real trouble.
It's complicated because America sort of created the Taliban by arming
them to fight the Soviets and then leaving the country to fall apart
after the Soviets withdrew.
Ironically, it would have been a lot better if the Soviets had been
allowed to control Afghanistan. Women have equal rights under their
system, and with the fall of Communism, Afghanistan could have turned
into a semi-decent country.
Also ironically, a real solution to the current war would be to legalize
drugs, thus eliminating opium as a cash crop. But that will never
happen, not when there is so much money to be made from drug
enforcement. Many of the problems of the world would disappear if we
legalized drugs.
My solution for Afghanistan would be for the US and Nato to withdraw and
covertly fund the anti-Taliban forces, like the way the US used to run
its secret wars in Latin America.
I think what is really needed is for the women of Afghanistan to take
matters into their own hands. Women should form a guerrilla army to
fight the Taliban. With secret funding and training from the US, perhaps
the women of Afghanistan can take over the country, or at least make
sure that the country gives them human rights. Political power grows out
of the barrel of a gun, and the women of Afghanistan need political power.
Mr Jinx
We had a sort of Taliban in England once. It was led by a woman called
Thatcher. She turned into a cat the other day and died. But like
Jesus she rose again.
Mr Jinx
Mon Mir
Have you seen the movie 'Osama'? If you have not, please do at your
earliest opportunity.
crazytimes
> Obama has a real dilemma in Afghanistan. Solving the Vietnam War was
> easy because America was fighting on the wrong side, and all they had to
> do was withdraw. But the Taliban really are a nasty bunch, with the way
> they treat women, not to mention banning music. If Nato withdraws and
> lets the Taliban take over, the women who have been going to school are
> going to be in real trouble.
Do you really think the US army is there to stablilize Afghanistan for
its own sake?... They're there to stabilize the region so they can
set up shop until the Oil is gone... Do you see US going into chaotic
regions of Africa and trying to 'stabilize' things?... There ain't no
Oil there...
It's about the Oil and where it is and who is sitting on top of it...
Nato isn't going to suddenly lose interest in the Oil... Taliban or no
Taliban...
badlands420
> Obama has a real dilemma in Afghanistan. Solving the Vietnam War was
> easy because America was fighting on the wrong side, and all they had to
> do was withdraw. But the Taliban really are a nasty bunch,
Taliban - nasty
Viet Cong - not nasty
Rationale?
really real
> Do you really think the US army is there to stabilize Afghanistan for
> its own sake?... They're there to stabilize the region so they can
> set up shop until the Oil is gone... Do you see US going into chaotic
> regions of Africa and trying to 'stabilize' things?... There ain't no
> Oil there...
>
> It's about the Oil and where it is and who is sitting on top of it...
> Nato isn't going to suddenly lose interest in the Oil... Taliban or no
> Taliban...
I think this is too simplistic. There's always going to be oil. It seems
there's always going to be drugs, as well.
The US (and Canada) went into Afghanistan to stabilize things away from
Al Qaeda.
And it's in their interests to have a thriving, stable Afghanistan.
And we all support women's rights, don't we?
really real
Are you asking me to explain the difference?
The Viet Cong fought nastily, but the other side fought even worse.
The Viet Cong's motives were purer. They'd been fighting the French and
the Japanese, and all they wanted was their own country.
The Taliban have been twisted by war and they're more like the Khymer
Rouge. They may think their motives are pure, but they really should be
stopped or co-opted.
really real
>
> http://www.sendspace.com/file/19x285
>
> It's a still from Bergman's "Winter Light."
No, pr, I don't do downloads. If it's a simple picture, just post it
somewhere.
Just Walkin'
They went in there to defend construction of the Unocal pipeline and
the British royal family's poppy franchise. Everything else is but a
pretext.
But it sounds to me like you'll be a real pushover for Hillary's
campaign for "humanitarian imperialism" whence it is unleashed, eh?
really real
>
> They went in there to defend construction of the Unocal pipeline and
> the British royal family's poppy franchise. Everything else is but a
> pretext.
Yes, we open minders call this the single bullet theory. True, there is
a pipeline but before 9-11, the US was just swatting at the Al Qaeda
desert hideouts.
>
> But it sounds to me like you'll be a real pushover for Hillary's
> campaign for "humanitarian imperialism" whence it is unleashed, eh?
I'm waiting for Hilliary's meeting with Sarah Palin before I give my
judgment.
Just Walkin'
> > They went in there to defend construction of the Unocal pipeline and
> > the British royal family's poppy franchise. Everything else is but a
> > pretext.
>
> Yes, we open minders call this the single bullet theory. True, there is
> a pipeline but before 9-11, the US was just swatting at the Al Qaeda
> desert hideouts.
>
cleansed. Operation mop-up.Like the Legions after competing Gospels,
only more theatrical. And with the chance of a shoot to boot. Lots of
sleight of hand needed to control the historical record. It's still
unfolding, if you pay attention...
Shoes are still dropping all over the place.
>
> > But it sounds to me like you'll be a real pushover for Hillary's
> > campaign for "humanitarian imperialism" whence it is unleashed, eh?
>
> I'm waiting for Hilliary's meeting with Sarah Palin before I give my
> judgment.
Oh why? If she's in, you're out?
Holy smoke Bullwinkle!
crazytimes
> I think this is too simplistic. There's always going to be oil.
Ah, yes, Oil... But cheap extractable oil for Everyone?... Always?...
Janice
> Also ironically, a real solution to the current war would be to legalize
> drugs, thus eliminating opium as a cash crop. But that will never
> happen, not when there is so much money to be made from drug
> enforcement. Many of the problems of the world would disappear if we
> legalized drugs.
What keeps us from legalizing marijuana?
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gemjack
wrote:
>
>> Do you really think the US army is there to stabilize Afghanistan for
>> its own sake?... They're there to stabilize the region so they can
>> set up shop until the Oil is gone... Do you see US going into chaotic
>> regions of Africa and trying to 'stabilize' things?... There ain't no
>> Oil there...
I wish they'd strike oil in Darfur.
>>
>> It's about the Oil and where it is and who is sitting on top of it...
>> Nato isn't going to suddenly lose interest in the Oil... Taliban or no
>> Taliban...
>
>
>I think this is too simplistic. There's always going to be oil. It seems
>there's always going to be drugs, as well.
I'll bet that we run out of oil before we run out of drugs.
-gj
gemjack
<jan...@dixoncreekstudio.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 11:25�am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Also ironically, a real solution to the current war would be to legalize
>
>
>> drugs, thus eliminating opium as a cash crop. But that will never
>
>
>> happen, not when there is so much money to be made from drug
>
>
>> enforcement. Many of the problems of the world would disappear if we
>
>
>> legalized drugs.
>
>
>
>What keeps us from legalizing marijuana?
Too much revenue for fines and penalties of possession? And a
politician slammig their fist down and declaring 'war on drugs' does
wonders to bring the sheep to the poles. Whatever it is, it has to do
with money. Anyone that thinks government cares for your well-being
is a fool.
-gj
Just Walkin'
It's a weed and grows for free. No way to control it. The only way for
it to be profitable is for it to be illegal, dontcha' know?
Janice
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:29:02 -0800, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca>
> >I think this is too simplistic. There's always going to be oil. It seems
> >there's always going to be drugs, as well.
>
> I'll bet that we run out of oil before we run out of drugs.
Yes. Drugs are renewable, and people will always search for
alternative realities.
If we would acknowledge the truth of this -- that humans always
incorporate drugs and their effects into culture -- it could provoke
education and investigation that might enlighten and perhaps even
provide benefits to the culture.
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Janice
> > What keeps us from legalizing marijuana?
> It's a weed and grows for free. No way to control it. The only way for
> it to be profitable is for it to be illegal, dontcha' know?
You will appreciate this, JW:
1989 - Office of National Drug Control Policy is created.
President Bush appoints William Bennett to lead the new Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). As drug 'czar' he campaigns to
make drug abuse socially unacceptable, an approach he calls
denormalization. Federal spending on treatment and law enforcement
increase under Bennett's tenure, but treatment remains less than 1/3
of the total budget.
Thirty years of America's drug war:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/
~`~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
badlands420
> The Viet Cong's motives were purer.
Military conquest of a sovereign nation? That's a pure motive?
badlands420
> No, pr, I don't do downloads.
Why?
badlands420
>What keeps us from legalizing marijuana?
We're going to in California next November.
really real
>
>> I think this is too simplistic. There's always going to be oil.
>
> Ah, yes, Oil... But cheap extractable oil for Everyone?... Always?...
Okay, admittedly we will one day run out of oil. But then there will be
some other resource that is badly needed, like water. Watch out for the
invasion of Canada.
really real
>> The Viet Cong's motives were purer.
>
> Military conquest of a sovereign nation? That's a pure motive?
Are you saying that the southern half of Vietnam was a sovereign nation?
The pro-French Vietnamese forces were supposed to regroup in the south
before the vote called for by the Geneva convention. When Eisenhower
realized that 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi
Minh, the American's cooked up this idea that the south could be an
anti-communist nation. Clearly the population of Vietnam wasn't in
favour, and the Vietnamese were able to unite their country again by
winning a way against America.
There were three million deaths caused by this senseless, futile war.
One would have to be insane to believe in the domino theory and believe
in a war against Ho Chi Minh's 80% followers.
really real
>> What keeps us from legalizing marijuana?
>
> We're going to in California next November.
Breckenridge is now the most legalized place in America.
I think the reason that marijuana's legalization is taking so long is
that there is so much right wing religious hysteria against it.
Politicians don't want to take the issue on.
Just Walkin'
No, it's because those business-minded people making all that money on
drugs need to keep it illegal so as to keep its economics up. It won't
be legalized until they figure out another way to profit from it (eg.
medical dispensation clinics, coffee shops, vending machines, etc.)
badlands420
> Are you saying that the southern half of Vietnam was a sovereign nation?
If you think South Vietnam wasn't a sovereign nation, then you also think
South Korea isn't a sovereign nation.
Your red-baiting is unconvincing and tiresome.
badlands420
> I think the reason that marijuana's legalization is taking so long is
> that there is so much right wing religious hysteria against it.
Please show me an example of this.
badlands420
> Watch out for the
> invasion of Canada.
I've been advocating the annexation of Canada for many years. As soon as we
take over, we'll immediately outlaw hockey, Kraft Dinner, and milk in a bag.
badlands420
If we would acknowledge the truth of this -- that humans always
incorporate drugs and their effects into culture -- it could provoke
education and investigation that might enlighten and perhaps even
provide benefits to the culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Drugs are already a huge part of our culture. Most people you pass on the
street are strung out on one or more prescription meds, and many of them
would take great offense to being called "drug users." It's one of the great
ironies of our society. Illegal drug users, on the whole, probably spent
less time being chemically intoxicated than your typical drinker or pill
popper.
really real
It's nice to see that you are a true moron, badlands. If you think that
South Vietnam was a sovereign nation, then surely you want to work for
its liberation.
South Korea is half a sovereign nation and will probably remain so for a
long time because of the trouble with the northern half. The South
Koreans want unification, or haven't you heard that?
Do you think that Taiwan will never be reunited with mainland China? The
Tawianese do.
Poor badlands, you must have never got over the loss of that sovereign
nation, the Confederate States of America.
Face it badlands, there is no way to justify what your country did to
the Vietnamese people.
really real
How about that bible thumping, right wing, president Bush Jr who had the
feds prosecute medicinal marijuana distributors in states that had
legalized medicinal marijuana.
Face it badlands, your Republican heroes that you always tout are
responsible for the anti-legalization sentiment in America.
Just Walkin'
Check out this list that never made David Letterman's late night Top
Ten:
Top Ten Reasons Drug Dealers Vote Republican
10. Toughening current drug laws mean higher prices.
9. Democrats would impose Quality Standards Act and Bureau of
Administration.
8. End to food stamps program means cash customers only.
7. Harder to blackmail politicians when it’s legal.
6. When you’re wasted, even Rush Limbaugh sounds intelligent.
5. Hey, it’s free market capitalism, isn’t it?
4. You need guns to do the business right.
3. Payoffs have to count for something.
2. Best way to appear legitimate in the community.
1. They control the drug supply, don’t they?
gemjack
One certainty: It isn't the Left that's opposed to legalizing pot. I'd
have to say that almost all the people I know that are staunchly
opposed to marijuana are hard nosed, god-fearing, republicans.
-gj
badlands420
> It's nice to see that you are a true moron, badlands. If you think that
> South Vietnam was a sovereign nation, then surely you want to work for its
> liberation.
>
> South Korea is half a sovereign nation and will probably remain so for a
> long time because of the trouble with the northern half. The South Koreans
> want unification, or haven't you heard that?
>
> Do you think that Taiwan will never be reunited with mainland China? The
> Tawianese do.
>
> Poor badlands, you must have never got over the loss of that sovereign
> nation, the Confederate States of America.
>
> Face it badlands, there is no way to justify what your country did to the
> Vietnamese people.
Again, your baiting fools no one. Please grow up.
badlands420
> Face it badlands, your Republican heroes that you always tout
Bait, bait, bait, troll, troll, troll, lie, lie, lie.
badlands420
> One certainty: It isn't the Left that's opposed to legalizing pot. I'd
> have to say that almost all the people I know that are staunchly
> opposed to marijuana are hard nosed, god-fearing, republicans.
I think this is, on some level, a misconception. Federal drug laws came into
being under a Democratic president and congress, and federal drug policy has
remained largely unchanged since, no matter which party currently holds
power.
khematite
And with no reason to think that things will change anytime soon,
according to Obama's drug czar :
http://ondcp.gov/news/press09/marijuana_legalization.html
"Marijuana legalization, for any purpose, remains a non-starter in the
Obama Administration. It is not something that the President and I
discuss; it isn't even on the agenda."
badlands420
>House site and it seemed like every other question was pot-related.
>Really sad.
Why? After 72 years, it's about time our government was held to account for
its nonsensical drug policies, policies that have been far more detrimental
than beneficial to our society and whose very existence was a result of
paranoia and racial stereotyping.
really real
>> Face it badlands, there is no way to justify what your country did to the
>> Vietnamese people.
>
> Again, your baiting fools no one. Please grow up.
Three million die in a way that didn't have to be fought and you call
this baiting?
badlands420
> The opiate of the people
turns out to be--weed.
Which, ironically, is much less dangerous than the legal opiates upon which
many of us rely.
gemjack
<mike...@uranus.net> wrote:
>
>> The opiate of the people
>turns out to be--weed.
And yet it remains a dangerous 'narcotic'.
>
>Which, ironically, is much less dangerous than the legal opiates upon which
>many of us rely.
>
Especially alcohol.
-gj
gemjack
But from another angle:
AMA Advocates Change in Marijuana Classification
Posted on: November 11, 2009 12:37 PM, by Nick Anthis
Yesterday, the influential AMA (American Medical Association)
announced that it would cease its opposition to the concept of medical
marijuana and instead advocate for a change in federal classification
of the drug. From the LA Times:
The American Medical Assn. on Tuesday urged the federal government to
reconsider its classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no
accepted medical use, a significant shift that puts the prestigious
group behind calls for more research.
The nation's largest physicians organization, with about 250,000
member doctors, the AMA has maintained since 1997 that marijuana
should remain a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restrictive
category, which also includes heroin and LSD.
In changing its policy, the group said its goal was to clear the way
to conduct clinical research, develop cannabis-based medicines and
devise alternative ways to deliver the drug.
"Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number
of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked
cannabis," said Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, noting that
the limited number of studies was "insufficient to satisfy the current
standards for a prescription drug product."
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/11/ama_advocates_change_in_mariju.php
-gj
badlands420
> "Despite more than 30 years of clinical research, only a small number
> of randomized, controlled trials have been conducted on smoked
> cannabis," said Dr. Edward Langston, an AMA board member, noting that
> the limited number of studies was "insufficient to satisfy the current
> standards for a prescription drug product."
Also, the studies which have found cannabis smoke to be a dangerous
carcinogen are fatally flawed in terms of quality control, since they failed
to differentiate between cannabis smokers who also smoke tobacco and those
who do not. A legitimate clinical study of cannabis smokers who do not smoke
tobacco has yet to happen, which is absolutely unconscionable.
badlands420
> Three million die in a way that didn't have to be fought and you call
> this baiting?
There's a significant Vietnamese population in Canada, as there is in the
United States. I would like to see you walk up to one of those people and
tell them the VC and NVA were the good guys in that fight. Whether or not
you believe me is immaterial. Talk to them about it.
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> One certainty: It isn't the Left that's opposed to legalizing pot. I'd
> have to say that almost all the people I know that are staunchly
> opposed to marijuana are hard nosed, god-fearing, republicans
That's true in this country too, although far fewer of them are god-
fearing
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Could we have a show of hands of the drug-addled on in this ng?
I stick to booze. I tried to roll a joint for the first time in about
12 years last week, and it was so loose it was unsmokable. As far as
pills go, I quite like the idea of whatever Bob was taking in 1966,
but I rarely even use asprin. When I get a hangover - which isn't
often - I treat it with food and water
really real
>
> There's a significant Vietnamese population in Canada, as there is in the
> United States. I would like to see you walk up to one of those people and
> tell them the VC and NVA were the good guys in that fight. Whether or not
> you believe me is immaterial. Talk to them about it.
Do you think any Vietnamese refugee in Canada or the US is happy that
the American War there caused three million deaths?
Did you ever see the movie Hearts and Minds? There was a key scene in
the movie where the narrator points out that you can always get people
to fight against their own country if you pay them enough. The movie
goes on to explain that the war was not a case of America fighting on
the wrong side. In a war where one side was created and paid for by the
US, America was not fighting on the wrong side. America was the wrong side.
really real
> The opiate of the people
> turns out to be--weed.
I think that one of the reasons why marijuana was not legalized is
because it is the opposite of the opiate of the people. It gives people
a more open mind and encourages people to be less capitalistic.
The trouble is, by keeping marijuana illegal, they encouraged a very
strong indoor plant that has an effect like opium and does make people
stupid.
TIM...@aol.com
LIST...@listserv.brown.edu writes:
really real <reall...@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Afghanistan
>> Are you saying that the southern half of Vietnam was a sovereign
nation?
>
> If you think South Vietnam wasn't a sovereign nation, then you also
think
> South Korea isn't a sovereign nation.
>
> Your red-baiting is unconvincing and tiresome.
>It's nice to see that you are a true moron, badlands. If you think that
>South Vietnam was a sovereign nation, then surely you want to work for
>its liberation.
Do the veitnamese refugees have a say? I know a lot of folks in the
Vietnamese American community and they indeed believed that South Vietnam was a
sovereign nation.
>South Korea is half a sovereign nation and will probably remain so for a
>long time because of the trouble with the northern half. The South
>Koreans want unification, or haven't you heard that?
What does half a sovereign nation mean? Do you think that South Koreans
want unification under North Korean rule? Where is the South Korean insurgency
that is similar to the Vietcong? What price are these south koreans
willing to pay for reunification?
>Do you think that Taiwan will never be reunited with mainland China? The
>Tawianese do.
Huh? I know a lot of Taiwanese who are leaving because Taiwan is now
reunited with China, techincally. No one recognizes Taiwan as a soverign nation.
really real
> What does half a sovereign nation mean? Do you think that South Koreans
> want unification under North Korean rule? Where is the South Korean insurgency
You can't compare Vietnam to Korea. Korea got divided after WWII in the
same way Germany got divided. The allies, Russia and the USA had very
different views on how their newly occupied countries should be, and so
Korea and Germany got split in two.
No one thought Vietnam should have been split until Eisenhower realized
that Ho Chi Minh would win the election. He then created a fake South
Vietnam and claimed that they couldn't go through with the elections
because this so called new sovereign nation would then disappear.
Ironically, the USA did not believe in democracy when it could lead to
an election victory they weren't in favour of.
The biggest irony, of course, is that America has learned to get along
with communist countries like Vietnam and that whole domino theory
turned out to be as ludicrous and almost as deadly as the master race
theory.
After America declared South Vietnam to be sovereign, the Viet Cong, who
lived in the south, started fighting this regime. The Viet Cong used to
be the Viet Minh, who fought the French. No troops from North Vietnam
fought in the south until after America started bombing the north.
really real
> Hey rr: the war's over. You can take off your helmet.
I'm responding to a post where someone expressed some honest concerns.
What are you doing?
Red Strange
essentially correct
all these national borders - iraq, vietnam divided, korea divided,
even israel are fabrications of british and us imperialism
people in the us have a hard time seeing that not only is america
wrong on a lot of matters but cannot even see how wrong nationalism
itself is
it is as if the nazis won ww II not in name but in the practical
application of their nationalistic ideology to the destruction of the
american working class and its attendant ideologies
in fact it was the bush family that was the greatest benefactor of
this aspect of the nazi legacy
one big american ruling class presiding over the "new world order"
where former american proles have all their dirty work done by mexican
and chinese labor
really real
>>
>> What are you doing?
>
> I'm grievin'. 'Cause your side won.
>
You're still fighting the domino theory, aren't you.
My side is humanitarianism. I lost big in Vietnam
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
really real
>>
>> My side is humanitarianism. I lost big in Vietnam
>
>
>
You're hilarious, treadleson. Someone tells you that the Vietnam War was
wrong, so you assume that only a dirty commie would talk that way.
Treadleson, I am not a Viet Cong. Nor am I an Islamic terrorist. I'm
just another person, one who decries the fact that 3 million people died
in an unnecessary war fought because of anti-communist paranoia.
It's time you joined the human race.
really real
>
>> I lost big in Vietnam
>
> A leg? An arm?
>
Fuck you Marin. When are you going to apologize for your stupid jokes
that attempt to derail threads. Don't you have an honest serious thought
about the Vietnam War to share?
Just Walkin'
> On Nov 18, 3:05 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> ....
>
> > > Hey rr: the war's over. You can take off your helmet.
>
> > I'm responding to a post where someone expressed some honest concerns.
>
> > What are you doing?
>
The Canadians won the war in southeast Asia? This is news to me; when
did this happen?
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
really real
>> I'm grievin'. 'Cause your side won.
>
> The Canadians won the war in southeast Asia? This is news to me; when
> did this happen?
We certainly won in Cuba. Not only do we get to hang out on wonderful
beaches, with no American tourists in sight, our country gets to engage
in meaningful economic and cultural relationships.
You get Ry Cooder's Buena Vista Social Club, complete with a $60,000
fine for Ry for going to Cuba in the first place.
really real
>
> Huh? I just heard you extolling the VietCong as freedom fighters
> against the evil Amerikkkans. Maybe you see the Hajees in the same
> terms. Are you now trying to say your sympathies were NOT with the
> Cong?
The Vietcong were fighting against a foreign invader which was the
mightiest military power on earth. I sympathize with any soldier
fighting an invader, and I sympathize with most underdogs. But that
doesn't mean I was on the Vietcong's side. I just wanted the war to end.
gemjack
Can't remember where you're at, but I got a big kick and dose of
reality when, as a small child, my mom's (my mom is afundamentalist-
jesus/elvis nut) British pen-pal for the first time and she casually
mentioned her interest in the occult and such. Cool family. They had
a daughter slightly older than I was.
...as you were.
-gj
gemjack
Cheech?
-gj
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> Can't remember where you're at, but I got a big kick and dose of
> reality when, as a small child, my mom's (my mom is afundamentalist-
> jesus/elvis nut) British pen-pal for the first time and she casually
> mentioned her interest in the occult and such. Cool family. They had
> a daughter slightly older than I was
Not sure where Britain is at, but 98% of the people I know enough to
be aware of such things are not religious. Quite a few might say
they're 'spiritual' in the 'beauty of nature' sense. I don't know for
certain, but I would guess that most consider the concept of god and/
or following an organised religion to be totally irrelevant to modern
life. The few people I know who *do* have those beliefs don't mention
them much. Is that what you meant?
gemjack
No. I meant that all British were devil worshippers.
-gj
Upbeat & Cheerful Martin
> No. I meant that all British were devil worshippers
Oh I see. Yes, they are