No, don't laugh
Mick the Merciless
of this article
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
--
Mick. <Heu! Tintinnuntius meus sonat>
"A drum, a drum; Mickbeth doth come."
Enzo Matrix
> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the writer
> of this article
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
--
Enzo
I wear the cheese. It does not wear me.
Mick the Merciless
> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the writer
>> of this article
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
>
> Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
No, it's for real. Boyes is a Times writer and I tracked that
article back from today's edition.
MartinS
> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the
>> writer of this article
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
>
> Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
Like your friend Dick Swallow?
--
Martin S.
Enzo Matrix
That was just sheer stupidity on the part of his parents!
redstar
"MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote in message
news:hh7rn.109133$Ye4....@newsfe11.iad...
hugh jarse`s cousin?
wayne kerr`s brother in law?
>
> --
> Martin S.
MartinS
> MartinS wrote:
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>>>> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the
>>>> writer of this article
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
>>>
>>> Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
>>
>> Like your friend Dick Swallow?
>
> That was just sheer stupidity on the part of his parents!
So was Roger Boyes.
--
Martin S.
MartinS
> "MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote...
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>>>> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the
>>>> writer of this article
>>>>
>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
>>>
>>> Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
>>
>> Like your friend Dick Swallow?
>
> hugh jarse`s cousin?
>
> wayne kerr`s brother in law?
There was a character on the Goon Show called Hugh Jampton.
There's a poster on another group who calls himself "Mike Easter".
--
Martin S.
Gill
"MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote
> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> MartinS wrote:
>>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>>>>> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the
>>>>> writer of this article
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
>
>>>> Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
>>> Like your friend Dick Swallow?
>> That was just sheer stupidity on the part of his parents!
> So was Roger Boyes.
What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned to
such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
Enzo Matrix
Are you saying that we've just got dirty minds? :-D
Mick the Merciless
> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned to
> such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
Tend to agree with , RGill. There are a large number of Richard Heads in
this world and not all of them can have stupid or malicious parents. I
mean, 'Head' isn't a particularly uncommon surname so there's no reason
why any particular Christian name/surname combo a few times. By the same
token, if you've grown up with a surname like Head, you'd think you would
have heard all the possible horror names before you got around to breeding.
Not sure that 'Boyes', ordinarily, would be a problem though.
Gill
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Gill wrote:
>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned to
>> such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>
> Are you saying that we've just got dirty minds? :-D
Well to be perfectly blunt, REnzo <puts on serious face and wags finger> an
explicit knowledge of every grubby innuendo possible in the Anguish Languish
is simply not in everyone's possession, mine included. I've actually had to
investigate to find out what you mean with half these name-thingies as it
is. And think about this: absolutely anyone's name *could* become a source
of derision - it would only take some jumped-up half-comedian somewhere to
start using a particular name as a substitute for something else and another
name would bite the dust, so to speak <ceases to wag finger>.
Gill
"Mick the Merciless" <mick....@gmail.com> wrote
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:07:09 +1300, Gill wrote:
>
>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned to
>> such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>
> Tend to agree with , RGill. There are a large number of Richard Heads in
> this world and not all of them can have stupid or malicious parents.
I wonder if officials who register births are sometimes tempted to point
things out...? ;-)
Mick the Merciless
>
> I wonder if officials who register births are sometimes tempted to point
> things out...? ;-)
I wonder if officials who register births go into fits of hysterical
laughter after it's been made official. No, I doubt they are even
*slightly* tempted to point these things out.
Mick the Merciless
> Well to be perfectly blunt, REnzo
Yeah. And what name is he hiding by using the name of a cartoon character.
What's he ashamed of, eh? <lol>
Peter
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:48:04 +1300, Gill wrote:
>
>> Well to be perfectly blunt, REnzo
>
> Yeah. And what name is he hiding by using the name of a cartoon character.
> What's he ashamed of, eh? <lol>
Yeah!
--
PPG.
Enzo Matrix
"Gill" <wo...@home.mop> wrote in message
news:hoj6hs$anf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Cor! Excellent finger waggage, RGill!
Enzo Matrix
There was a report a couple of years ago about a Serbian woman who liked the
sound of the name "Osama Bin Laden" and attempted to give her newborn son
that name. She was arrested.
Enzo Matrix
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:48:04 +1300, Gill wrote:
>
>> Well to be perfectly blunt, REnzo
>
> Yeah. And what name is he hiding by using the name of a cartoon character.
> What's he ashamed of, eh? <lol>
My real name is Yortlebluzzgubbly Q Halibutmangler.
Gill
>> I wonder if officials who register births are sometimes tempted to point
>> things out...? ;-)
>
> I wonder if officials who register births go into fits of hysterical
> laughter after it's been made official. No, I doubt they are even
> *slightly* tempted to point these things out.
In that case they are mean and 'orrible and I will not give them any
dessert. So there!
AlfaMS
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:07:09 +1300, Gill wrote:
>
>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned to
>> such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>
> Tend to agree with , RGill. There are a large number of Richard Heads in
> this world and not all of them can have stupid or malicious parents. I
> mean, 'Head' isn't a particularly uncommon surname so there's no reason
> why any particular Christian name/surname combo a few times. By the same
> token, if you've grown up with a surname like Head, you'd think you would
> have heard all the possible horror names before you got around to breeding.
>
> Not sure that 'Boyes', ordinarily, would be a problem though.
Coming to think of it, I have often wondered about titles, as well: what
does a Head Teacher teach when a PT teaches sports, and gymnastics? And
are there others?
--
Josef
Gill
After which she decided to change the name to Heldin Custodee....
Gill
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote >
> "Gill" <wo...@home.mop> wrote in message
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>> Gill wrote:
>>>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned
>>>> to such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that we've just got dirty minds? :-D
>>
>> Well to be perfectly blunt, REnzo <puts on serious face and wags finger>
>> an explicit knowledge of every grubby innuendo possible in the Anguish
>> Languish is simply not in everyone's possession, mine included. I've
>> actually had to investigate to find out what you mean with half these
>> name-thingies as it is. And think about this: absolutely anyone's name
>> *could* become a source of derision - it would only take some jumped-up
>> half-comedian somewhere to start using a particular name as a substitute
>> for something else and another name would bite the dust, so to speak
>> <ceases to wag finger>.
>
> Cor! Excellent finger waggage, RGill!
It was my bestest finger... you are honoured yannow...
Mick the Merciless
> I will not give them any
> dessert.
Can I have it? I'm hungry. ;-)
Enzo Matrix
I'm just glad it's not the middle one! :-D
Mick the Merciless
Vice Headmistress?
Enzo Matrix
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:36:13 +1300, Gill wrote:
>
>> I will not give them any
>> dessert.
>
> Can I have it? I'm hungry. ;-)
Where I work, there is a department which is officially called "Pot
Desserts". They produce desserts which have two halves: fruit and jelly or
fruit and custard or jelly and crumble etc. So we call the department
"Gemini".
Anyroads... it drives me mad each time I go in there, because all their
documentation is headed "Pot Deserts".
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGHGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
AlfaMS
Oh Missus..
--
Josef
Enzo Matrix
"AlfaMS" <Alf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hoja4r$3lc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Ooo er! :-D
Mick the Merciless
> Anyroads... it drives me mad each time I go in there, because all their
> documentation is headed "Pot Deserts".
Ohmygawd. I'd add the other S over the top with the upside down V pointing
to where it should go. On every sheet that came my way.
Enzo Matrix
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:52:46 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> Anyroads... it drives me mad each time I go in there, because all their
>> documentation is headed "Pot Deserts".
>
> Ohmygawd. I'd add the other S over the top with the upside down V pointing
> to where it should go. On every sheet that came my way.
A year ago, when I worked in the Quality Systems department, it bugged the
hell out of me and I went on a one-man crusade to set everything straight.
I no longer work in that department and sadly I don't have the time to
crusade in the way that I want to...
Mudge
> "Enzo Matrix" wrote >
>> "Gill" wrote:
>>> "Enzo Matrix" wrote:
>>>> Gill wrote:
>>>>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned
>>>>> to such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>>>>
>>>> Are you saying that we've just got dirty minds? :-D
>>>
>>> Well to be perfectly blunt, REnzo <puts on serious face and wags
>>> finger> an explicit knowledge of every grubby innuendo possible in the
>>> Anguish Languish is simply not in everyone's possession, mine included.
>>> I've actually had to investigate to find out what you mean with half
>>> these name-thingies as it is. And think about this: absolutely anyone's
>>> name *could* become a source of derision - it would only take some
>>> jumped-up half-comedian somewhere to start using a particular name as a
>>> substitute for something else and another name would bite the dust, so
>>> to speak <ceases to wag finger>.
>>
>> Cor! Excellent finger waggage, RGill!
>
> It was my bestest finger... you are honoured yannow...
Hmmm - I fort your bestestest finger was the one with the pinkish splint !!!!
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Save our precious CO2 - plant many trees
MartinS
> Gill wrote:
>
>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned
>> to such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>
> Tend to agree with , RGill. There are a large number of Richard Heads
> in this world and not all of them can have stupid or malicious
> parents. I mean, 'Head' isn't a particularly uncommon surname so
> there's no reason why any particular Christian name/surname combo a
> few times. By the same token, if you've grown up with a surname like
> Head, you'd think you would have heard all the possible horror names
> before you got around to breeding.
>
> Not sure that 'Boyes', ordinarily, would be a problem though.
I once met a tough US Army officer called John Thomas. I guess that
euphemism doesn't have the same significance to Americans.
--
Martin S.
MartinS
> schrieb Mick the Merciless:
>> Gill wrote:
>>
>>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not
>>> attuned to such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word
>>> here.
>>
>> Tend to agree with , RGill. There are a large number of Richard Heads
>> in this world and not all of them can have stupid or malicious
>> parents. I mean, 'Head' isn't a particularly uncommon surname so
>> there's no reason why any particular Christian name/surname combo a
>> few times. By the same token, if you've grown up with a surname like
>> Head, you'd think you would have heard all the possible horror names
>> before you got around to breeding.
>>
>> Not sure that 'Boyes', ordinarily, would be a problem though.
>
> Coming to think of it, I have often wondered about titles, as well:
> what does a Head Teacher teach when a PT teaches sports, and
> gymnastics? And are there others?
What about the French Teacher? Or a French Head teacher?
--
Martin S.
MartinS
>>>
>>>> What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not
>>>> attuned to such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> Tend to agree with , RGill. There are a large number of Richard
>>> Heads in this world and not all of them can have stupid or malicious
>>> parents.
>>
>> I wonder if officials who register births are sometimes tempted to
>> point things out...? ;-)
>
> There was a report a couple of years ago about a Serbian woman who
> liked the sound of the name "Osama Bin Laden" and attempted to give
> her newborn son that name. She was arrested.
Maybe they should arrest Barack Hussein Obama II. ;-)
He has commented that if his parents had known he would one day be US
President, they would have given him a different middle name.
--
Martin S.
Gill
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Gill wrote:
>> It was my bestest finger... you are honoured yannow...
>
> I'm just glad it's not the middle one! :-D
Why? <glares suspiciously>
Do middle fingers have connotations?
Gill
"Mudge" <Nos...@never.ever> wrote
Pardon? What? and hulloooooooo....? <furrowed brow>
®óñ© © ²°¹°
>
>"MartinS" <m...@my.place> wrote
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> MartinS wrote:
>>>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>>>>>> cos it's not funny, but it is unfortunate. Look at the name of the
>>>>>> writer of this article
>
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece
>>
>>>>> Awwww come *on* ! That's gotta be a joke!!!!
>
>>>> Like your friend Dick Swallow?
>
>>> That was just sheer stupidity on the part of his parents!
>
>> So was Roger Boyes.
>
>What you're not factoring in is that everyone's minds are not attuned to
>such interpretations, so stupidity is not the right word here.
>
I knew someone called O'Toole who named his son "Miles"
--
(¯`·. ®óñ© © ²°¹° .·´¯)
Enzo Matrix
At the time they named him, I doubt anyone would have known who Saddam
Hussein was.
Anyway, it seems that Obama has used a number of different names throughout
his life. Which name is the real one?
Mick the Merciless
> Anyway, it seems that Obama has used a number of different names throughout
> his life. Which name is the real one?
What names has he used? I haven't heard anything about this, but then I
don't read newspapers.
Enzo Matrix
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:54:48 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> Anyway, it seems that Obama has used a number of different names
>> throughout
>> his life. Which name is the real one?
>
> What names has he used? I haven't heard anything about this, but then I
> don't read newspapers.
He was born "Barack Hussein Obama" but later on legally changed his name to
"Barry Soetoro". This is apparently still his legal name.
He has also used a number of aliases in different states in the US. He has
had at least three different social security numbers in three different
states, all under slightly different names.
Why should that be?
Mick the Merciless
> He was born "Barack Hussein Obama" but later on legally changed his name to
> "Barry Soetoro". This is apparently still his legal name.
If he actually *did* legally change it, rather than simply adopting it, it
would be because his mother married one Lolo Soetoro, after her divorce
from Barack's father.
As to there any chance of it still being his legal name, then no. You can
say what you like about the US and its citizens but they are quite
thorough when it comes to things like the President's real name.
> He has also used a number of aliases in different states in the US. He has
> had at least three different social security numbers in three different
> states, all under slightly different names.
>
> Why should that be?
Now you'll have to furnish some references to those claims since I can
find none. It smacks of the whole sickening crap circus that goes around
trying to discredit the guy.
Enzo Matrix
news:pan.2010.03.27....@gmail.com...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:50:24 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> He was born "Barack Hussein Obama" but later on legally changed his name
>> to
>> "Barry Soetoro". This is apparently still his legal name.
>
> If he actually *did* legally change it, rather than simply adopting it, it
> would be because his mother married one Lolo Soetoro, after her divorce
> from Barack's father.
>
> As to there any chance of it still being his legal name, then no. You can
> say what you like about the US and its citizens but they are quite
> thorough when it comes to things like the President's real name.
Unless there was a deliberate conspiracy to hide his personal history
> Now you'll have to furnish some references to those claims since I can
> find none. It smacks of the whole sickening crap circus that goes around
> trying to discredit the guy.
I shall try and find them.
It's about time that Obama *was* discredited. He is a very dangerous man.
He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary Clinton
have destroyed the "special relationship".
AlfaMS
> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
:-(
--
Josef
AlfaMS
"special relationship".
And as far as that goes: you know when keeping an eye on the pupils at
our school I tend to read "random articles" from Wikipedia, and
yesterday I was shocked to read this entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
:-(
--
Josef
redstar
"Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8172bh...@mid.individual.net...
why not?
i`ve had two ss numbers and i`m certainly known by a different name to that
i was born with - my middle name no longer exists - all legal and above
board :-)
Enzo Matrix
Actually I think they were very good at it. Bush understood who his allies
were - the Western countries.
Obama despises everything to do with the West. He especially despises the
UK. He seems to be doing everything in his power to destroy all the good
relations with allies built up over fifty years or more.
How else can we explain the fact that Obama is willing to kow-tow to Hugo
Chavez, who is openly hostile to the US, yet he is equally willing to insult
Binyamin Netanyahu, the head of state of a country who has been a loyal ally
of the US for over forty years?
redstar
"Mick the Merciless" <mick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.03.27....@gmail.com...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:50:24 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> He was born "Barack Hussein Obama" but later on legally changed his name
>> to
>> "Barry Soetoro". This is apparently still his legal name.
>
> If he actually *did* legally change it, rather than simply adopting it, it
> would be because his mother married one Lolo Soetoro, after her divorce
> from Barack's father.
it looks like he anglicised his first name ?
redstar
> AlfaMS wrote:
>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
>> Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
>>
>> Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
>
> Actually I think they were very good at it. Bush understood who his
> allies were - the Western countries.
bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
iraq + kuwait = 20% of world oil production :-(
dubya just tried to finish a job his father hadn`t :-/
>
> Obama despises everything to do with the West. He especially despises the
> UK. He seems to be doing everything in his power to destroy all the good
> relations with allies built up over fifty years or more.
what good relations?
>
> How else can we explain the fact that Obama is willing to kow-tow to Hugo
> Chavez, who is openly hostile to the US, yet he is equally willing to
> insult Binyamin Netanyahu, the head of state of a country who has been a
> loyal ally of the US for over forty years?
maybe obama understands that you have to talk to your detractors to solve
things and that israel are american backed thugs in the middle east ?
i think history will show obama to be a better politician than even bonking
bill :-)
Enzo Matrix
For you, maybe. But I just don't trust Obama. I have a nasty feeling that
in the next couple of years, he will try and force us to give up the
Falklands. Obama is not a man to be trusted.
In the UK we know that the NHS is a massive drain on the nation's resources.
But we have it in place and we need to support it. However, if a country
doesn't have an NHS equivalent in place, the current economic crisis would
be the absolute worst time to introduce one. It doesn't take a rocket
scientist to work that one out. Obama is supposed to be an intelligent man,
yet he has forced his healthcare bill through into law. I honestly believe
that he is trying to destroy the United States from inside the system.
redstar
twas only a plan :-)
i dread to think what *plans* our govt has!
> --
> Josef
redstar
> redstar wrote:
>>
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8172bh...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:54:48 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, it seems that Obama has used a number of different names
>>>>> throughout
>>>>> his life. Which name is the real one?
>>>>
>>>> What names has he used? I haven't heard anything about this, but then I
>>>> don't read newspapers.
>>>
>>> He was born "Barack Hussein Obama" but later on legally changed his name
>>> to "Barry Soetoro". This is apparently still his legal name.
>>>
>>> He has also used a number of aliases in different states in the US. He
>>> has had at least three different social security numbers in three
>>> different states, all under slightly different names.
>>>
>>> Why should that be?
>>
>> why not?
>>
>> i`ve had two ss numbers and i`m certainly known by a different name to
>> that i was born with - my middle name no longer exists - all legal and
>> above board :-)
>
> For you, maybe. But I just don't trust Obama. I have a nasty feeling
> that in the next couple of years, he will try and force us to give up the
> Falklands. Obama is not a man to be trusted.
why do we want/need the falklands?
gib and the falklands - not much of an empire these days, is it?
how could he force us?
>
> In the UK we know that the NHS is a massive drain on the nation's
> resources. But we have it in place and we need to support it. However, if
> a country doesn't have an NHS equivalent in place, the current economic
> crisis would be the absolute worst time to introduce one. It doesn't take
> a rocket scientist to work that one out. Obama is supposed to be an
> intelligent man, yet he has forced his healthcare bill through into law. I
> honestly believe that he is trying to destroy the United States from
> inside the system.
the US needs social healthcare
the recession is not obama`s fault
Enzo Matrix
>
> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8176j4...@mid.individual.net...
>> AlfaMS wrote:
>>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>>> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
>>> Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
>>>
>>> Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
>>
>> Actually I think they were very good at it. Bush understood who his
>> allies were - the Western countries.
>
> bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
>
> iraq + kuwait = 20% of world oil production :-(
>
> dubya just tried to finish a job his father hadn`t :-/
The Gulf War was certainly - in part - concerned with safeguarding oil
supplies. What is wrong with that?
However, that was only a small part of it. I served in Saudi, Kuwait and
Iraq during the Gulf War. The horrors that I saw there convinced me that
the operations to liberate Kuwait were entirely just and moral.
George HW Bush did want to oust Saddam but the the UN resolutions would not
authorise that. Saddam then spent the next dozen years thumbing his nose at
the UN. There was a constant state of low-intensity warfare occurring since
about 1997. It was only a matter of time before someone lost patience with
Saddam. Thankfully, George W Bush actually had the spine to do something
about it.
Mick the Merciless
> it looks like he anglicised his first name ?
Like I say, I don't actually believe any of the stuff that's been written
about the man. The American way seems to have become one of 'If you lose a
democratic election, well then just make up a load of lies, cos you just
know that half the world will believe it.'
It was a delightful policy that got a good man (John McCain) kicked into
touch so that W could get the nomination and ultimately the White House.
AlfaMS
Somehow - so do I.
:-(
--
Josef
Enzo Matrix
>> that in the next couple of years, he will try and force us to give up the
>> Falklands. Obama is not a man to be trusted.
>
> why do we want/need the falklands?
It's not about *us* . It's about the Falkland Islanders. They wish to
remain British.
> how could he force us?
No doubt the EU would be more than happy to see us relinquish the Falklands.
With the EU and the US applying pressure, I doubt that Gordon Brown would
resist for more than five minutes. If we have a regime change after the
next election, I think that David Cameron would resist for twice as long.
>> In the UK we know that the NHS is a massive drain on the nation's
>> resources. But we have it in place and we need to support it. However,
>> if a country doesn't have an NHS equivalent in place, the current
>> economic crisis would be the absolute worst time to introduce one. It
>> doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out. Obama is supposed
>> to be an intelligent man, yet he has forced his healthcare bill through
>> into law. I honestly believe that he is trying to destroy the United
>> States from inside the system.
>
> the US needs social healthcare
Why? It seems to have managed quite well without social healthcare so far.
> the recession is not obama`s fault
That's true. However, he is just making it all the more difficult for the
US to climb out of the recession.
Mick the Merciless
Bliar's speciality was licking Bush's arse while the Pres ignored him as
much as possible. The special relationship exists in the eyes of British
politicians who long for the great days of Empire. Certainly not in the
eyes of any US president in living memory.
AlfaMS
And another thought: why draw plans against a nation with one has a
"special relationship" in the first place, and to such detail? Tehre
seem to appear more, and more 'grey spots' on the for me on the once
'shining armour'. As I wrote before - I was, and still am shocked.
:-(
--
Josef
Mick the Merciless
> i think history will show obama to be a better politician than even bonking
> bill :-)
Nice one Martin.
Enzo Matrix
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:51:05 +0100, AlfaMS wrote:
>
>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
>> Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
>>
>> Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
>> :-(
>
> Bliar's speciality was licking Bush's arse while the Pres ignored him as
> much as possible. The special relationship exists in the eyes of British
> politicians who long for the great days of Empire. Certainly not in the
> eyes of any US president in living memory.
Ronald Reagan.
redstar
> redstar wrote:
>>
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8176j4...@mid.individual.net...
>>> AlfaMS wrote:
>>>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>>>> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
>>>> Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
>>>>
>>>> Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
>>>
>>> Actually I think they were very good at it. Bush understood who his
>>> allies were - the Western countries.
>>
>> bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
>>
>> iraq + kuwait = 20% of world oil production :-(
>>
>> dubya just tried to finish a job his father hadn`t :-/
>
> The Gulf War was certainly - in part - concerned with safeguarding oil
> supplies. What is wrong with that?
it`s a commercial (i.e. profit-related) decision, rather than a political or
moral one :-/
who runs america? - the people or business?
>
> However, that was only a small part of it. I served in Saudi, Kuwait and
> Iraq during the Gulf War. The horrors that I saw there convinced me that
> the operations to liberate Kuwait were entirely just and moral.
i`m sure they were and i doff my cap to those who serve
>
> George HW Bush did want to oust Saddam but the the UN resolutions would
> not authorise that. Saddam then spent the next dozen years thumbing his
> nose at the UN. There was a constant state of low-intensity warfare
> occurring since about 1997. It was only a matter of time before someone
> lost patience with Saddam. Thankfully, George W Bush actually had the
> spine to do something about it.
i think you`ll also find that hw thumbed his nose at the un :-/
liberate kuwait - yes
invade iraq - no
i expect the marsh arabs and the kurds are waiting in line to thank him :-(
Mick the Merciless
> Ronald Reagan.
Got where you're at now.
redstar
he was a warmonger :-/
and so was thatcher :-(
redstar
someone, somewhere thought "plan R for robert" was a good idea ...?
> --
> Josef
redstar
the special relationship was garnered through the second world war (we
invited the yanks over for the "duration" and they ain`t f*cked off yet!)
> --
> Josef
Enzo Matrix
> Am 27.03.2010 21:19, schrieb redstar:
>> "AlfaMS"<Alf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:holo5h$1m6$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>>
>>> "special relationship".
>>>
>>> And as far as that goes: you know when keeping an eye on the pupils at
>>> our
>>> school I tend to read "random articles" from Wikipedia, and yesterday I
>>> was shocked to read this entry:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
>>> :-(
>>
>> twas only a plan :-)
>>
>> i dread to think what *plans* our govt has!
>
> And another thought: why draw plans against a nation with one has a
> "special relationship" in the first place, and to such detail?
The special relationship didn't exist at that time. As the article states,
the US distrusted the UK because of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. However,
if memory serves, that alliance ended in the mid 20s, around the time that
War Plan Red was instituted. During the 30s, the plan would have been more
and more outdated. By 1934, I doubt anyone in the US armed forces made any
realistic attempts to conform with it.
AlfaMS
> i`m sure they were and i doff my cap to those who serve
So do I - and I have met quite a few from the Brit Forces here who also
have been there. It was their job, and I believe that about 99% of them
did what they believed was the best they could. That is not necessarily
true for all those involved in governments past, and present.
--
Josef
AlfaMS
Nature was unkind towards RR - he wasn't allowed to remember in the end.
:-(
--
Josef
redstar
>
>> it looks like he anglicised his first name ?
>
> Like I say, I don't actually believe any of the stuff that's been written
> about the man. The American way seems to have become one of 'If you lose a
> democratic election, well then just make up a load of lies, cos you just
> know that half the world will believe it.'
>
> It was a delightful policy that got a good man (John McCain) kicked into
> touch so that W could get the nomination and ultimately the White House.
>
tell me more.....?
redstar
> redstar wrote:
>>
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> For you, maybe. But I just don't trust Obama. I have a nasty feeling
>>> that in the next couple of years, he will try and force us to give up
>>> the Falklands. Obama is not a man to be trusted.
>>
>> why do we want/need the falklands?
>
> It's not about *us* . It's about the Falkland Islanders. They wish to
> remain British.
chuck them on a boat and bring them home, then?
(i think you`ll find our interest and determination with the falklands is
more to do with the great chunk of antarctica and it`s untold mineral wealth
that it has access to - rather than 1500 crofters and their romney marsh
sheep! - and the newly-found oil - obviously!)
>
>> how could he force us?
>
> No doubt the EU would be more than happy to see us relinquish the
> Falklands. With the EU and the US applying pressure, I doubt that Gordon
> Brown would resist for more than five minutes. If we have a regime
> change after the next election, I think that David Cameron would resist
> for twice as long.
what sort of pressure?
why would the eu give a damn?
>
>>> In the UK we know that the NHS is a massive drain on the nation's
>>> resources. But we have it in place and we need to support it. However,
>>> if a country doesn't have an NHS equivalent in place, the current
>>> economic crisis would be the absolute worst time to introduce one. It
>>> doesn't take a rocket scientist to work that one out. Obama is supposed
>>> to be an intelligent man, yet he has forced his healthcare bill through
>>> into law. I honestly believe that he is trying to destroy the United
>>> States from inside the system.
>>
>> the US needs social healthcare
>
> Why? It seems to have managed quite well without social healthcare so
> far.
er.........no it hasn`t :-/
>
>
>> the recession is not obama`s fault
>
> That's true. However, he is just making it all the more difficult for the
> US to climb out of the recession.
we are all in the same boat :-)
Enzo Matrix
>
> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8177sm...@mid.individual.net...
>> redstar wrote:
>>>
>>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8176j4...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> AlfaMS wrote:
>>>>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>>>>> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
>>>>> Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
>>>>>
>>>>> Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
>>>>
>>>> Actually I think they were very good at it. Bush understood who his
>>>> allies were - the Western countries.
>>>
>>> bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
>>>
>>> iraq + kuwait = 20% of world oil production :-(
>>>
>>> dubya just tried to finish a job his father hadn`t :-/
>>
>> The Gulf War was certainly - in part - concerned with safeguarding oil
>> supplies. What is wrong with that?
>
> it`s a commercial (i.e. profit-related) decision, rather than a political
> or moral one :-/
Disagree quite strongly with your statement. And, as I've said, even if it
*was* a commercial decision, it was still proven just and moral - at least
to me.
> i think you`ll also find that hw thumbed his nose at the un :-/
>
> liberate kuwait - yes
>
> invade iraq - no
Oh there was an invasion of Iraq. How do you think I ended up at Tallil air
base in Nasiriyah? and I would point out this was 1991, not 2003. There
was just no occupation. The invasion went much further than many people
realise.
> i expect the marsh arabs and the kurds are waiting in line to thank him
> :-(
Blame the UN Security Council. It was the UNSC who would not provide the UN
resolutions which would have allowed military action to support the Kurds
and the Shia.
redstar
> redstar wrote:
>>
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8177sm...@mid.individual.net...
>>> redstar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:8176j4...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> AlfaMS wrote:
>>>>>> Am 27.03.2010 20:48, schrieb Enzo Matrix:
>>>>>>> He is certainly no friend to the UK. Between them, he and Hilary
>>>>>> Clinton have destroyed the "special relationship".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well - do you think Dubbya and Blair were better at that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I think they were very good at it. Bush understood who his
>>>>> allies were - the Western countries.
>>>>
>>>> bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
>>>>
>>>> iraq + kuwait = 20% of world oil production :-(
>>>>
>>>> dubya just tried to finish a job his father hadn`t :-/
>>>
>>> The Gulf War was certainly - in part - concerned with safeguarding oil
>>> supplies. What is wrong with that?
>>
>> it`s a commercial (i.e. profit-related) decision, rather than a political
>> or moral one :-/
>
> Disagree quite strongly with your statement. And, as I've said, even if
> it *was* a commercial decision, it was still proven just and moral - at
> least to me.
so- why invade?
>
>
>> i think you`ll also find that hw thumbed his nose at the un :-/
>>
>> liberate kuwait - yes
>>
>> invade iraq - no
>
> Oh there was an invasion of Iraq. How do you think I ended up at Tallil
> air base in Nasiriyah?
no idea - airmiles?
and I would point out this was 1991, not 2003. There
> was just no occupation. The invasion went much further than many people
> realise.
>
>> i expect the marsh arabs and the kurds are waiting in line to thank him
>> :-(
>
> Blame the UN Security Council. It was the UNSC who would not provide the
> UN resolutions which would have allowed military action to support the
> Kurds and the Shia.
er...the UN didn`t vote for the invasion?
Enzo Matrix
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:34:55 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> Ronald Reagan.
>
> Got where you're at now.
Wot took you so long? :-D
Mick the Merciless
>> It was a delightful policy that got a good man (John McCain) kicked into
>> touch so that W could get the nomination and ultimately the White House.
>>
>
> tell me more.....?
McCain was looking good for the nomination until the lies started. If
you'll excuse me, I'll paste a bit from a website on the subject. It was
all public knowledge at the time, hell, I even believed it for a while.
--------
The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock
(the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his
wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a
"Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from
his North Vietnam POW days.
--------
you know that my politics is way to the right of yours, but I have no time
for right wing politics in the US. This time around, McCain came across as
a centre right politician with a conscience and I rather liked him.
I realised my mistake from earlier years and genuinely would have liked
him to win - if he'd been the 8 years younger that he was the first time.
Mick the Merciless
> bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
Dick Cheney actually, but it's the same thing.
Mick the Merciless
> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:34:55 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>>
>>> Ronald Reagan.
>>
>> Got where you're at now.
>
> Wot took you so long? :-D
I'm a sucker for this sort of crap. It's why I abandoned many groups with
predominantly US readerships who wind me up and let me go.
Enzo Matrix
I'd say they were both skilled in the art of brinkmanship. Reagan bombed
Libya. He knew that Libya was, strictly speaking, a sideshow but it
demonstrated his will to the Soviets in a manner that was unlikely to cause
any escalation. Thatcher supported him (allowing the air bases at Upper
Heyford, Fairford and Lakenheath to be used to provide the forces for the
strike) to show solidarity. It helped that it also provided a measure of
vengeance for Yvonne Fletcher.
The resolve of Reagan and Thatcher served to show the Soviets that NATO was
resolved to defend western Europe. The Soviet Union was collapsing from
within. In such situations, states tend to look for external wars in order
to divert attention from internal problems. For an example, look at the
1982 Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands. In 1989, there was a
distinct possibility that the Soviet Union could have instigated an attack
on the FRG and maybe even attempted to seize the Channel ports. I believe
that Reagan and Thatcher's demonstration of their resolve prevented that
attack from happening.
I would like to say that I had a small part in that myself. In 1990, as the
Berlin Wall came down, I was sat in a hole in the ground, no more that two
miles away from the action, watching Soviet tanks revving their engines.
That's how close we were.
redstar
>
>>> It was a delightful policy that got a good man (John McCain) kicked into
>>> touch so that W could get the nomination and ultimately the White House.
>>>
>>
>> tell me more.....?
>
> McCain was looking good for the nomination until the lies started. If
> you'll excuse me, I'll paste a bit from a website on the subject. It was
> all public knowledge at the time, hell, I even believed it for a while.
disinformation?
> --------
> The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock
> (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that his
> wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a
> "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from
> his North Vietnam POW days.
> --------
i`m not sure that any of the above would stop me from voting for a good man?
> you know that my politics is way to the right of yours, but I have no time
> for right wing politics in the US. This time around, McCain came across as
> a centre right politician with a conscience and I rather liked him.
> I realised my mistake from earlier years and genuinely would have liked
> him to win - if he'd been the 8 years younger that he was the first time.
>
i think the difference in politics between both sides of the pond is that
there is no *left* in the states :-/
Enzo Matrix
Indeed. Sharing that fate scares me witless! :-(
Enzo Matrix
Neither have the Brits! :-D
Enzo Matrix
Sadly, that's true.
redstar
>> he was a warmonger :-/
>>
>> and so was thatcher :-(
>
> I'd say they were both skilled in the art of brinkmanship.
hardly - they were warmongers :-/
brinksmanship involves getting a result without going over the *brink*
Reagan bombed
> Libya. He knew that Libya was, strictly speaking, a sideshow but it
> demonstrated his will to the Soviets in a manner that was unlikely to
> cause any escalation. Thatcher supported him (allowing the air bases at
> Upper Heyford, Fairford and Lakenheath to be used to provide the forces
> for the strike) to show solidarity.
they needed a *war* to keep people`s eyes off what they were doing :-/
It helped that it also provided a measure of
> vengeance for Yvonne Fletcher.
surely governments would want *justice*?
>
> The resolve of Reagan and Thatcher served to show the Soviets that NATO
> was resolved to defend western Europe.
not a NATO action :-/
The Soviet Union was collapsing from
> within. In such situations, states tend to look for external wars in order
> to divert attention from internal problems. For an example, look at the
> 1982 Argentinean invasion of the Falkland Islands. In 1989, there was a
> distinct possibility that the Soviet Union could have instigated an attack
> on the FRG and maybe even attempted to seize the Channel ports.
was it a *plan*?
redstar
>
>> bush was told what to do by the oil companies :-/
>
> Dick Cheney actually, but it's the same thing.
the american old-boy network :-/
redstar
>> the special relationship was garnered through the second world war (we
>> invited the yanks over for the "duration" and they ain`t f*cked off yet!)
>
> Neither have the Brits! :-D
from where?
Mick Fanner
> disinformation?
yep. It was alleged the the Bush campaign started it all, but they, of
course, denied it.
>
> i`m not sure that any of the above would stop me from voting for a good man?
Nor me, but we're not from there where stuff like that is important to
some folks. the worst thing about the right wing over there is the
religious right. They hold a lot of sway and wouldn't have liked a man
with that record (if true)
> i think the difference in politics between both sides of the pond is
> that there is no *left* in the states :-/
You cannot be left as we know it. If you are that far left, you are a
communist.
--
Mick.
Mick Fanner
> the american old-boy network :-/
that'll do.
--
Mick.
redstar
"Mick Fanner" <mick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.03.27....@gmail.com...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:08:55 +0000, redstar wrote:
>
>> disinformation?
>
> yep. It was alleged the the Bush campaign started it all, but they, of
> course, denied it.
>
>>
>> i`m not sure that any of the above would stop me from voting for a good
>> man?
>
> Nor me, but we're not from there where stuff like that is important to
> some folks. the worst thing about the right wing over there is the
> religious right. They hold a lot of sway and wouldn't have liked a man
> with that record (if true)
a bible in the left hand and a gun in the right?
:-/
>
>
>> i think the difference in politics between both sides of the pond is
>> that there is no *left* in the states :-/
>
> You cannot be left as we know it. If you are that far left, you are a
> communist.
who?
me?
i`m a zillion miles further :-)
there is an american communist party :-)
>
> --
> Mick.
>
>
redstar
"Mick Fanner" <mick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.03.27...@gmail.com...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:17:10 +0000, redstar wrote:
>
>> the american old-boy network :-/
>
> that'll do.
i think there`s a fundemental difference between UK & US
and it is expressed in the nhs and the dhss (or whatever it`s called these
days!)
>
> --
> Mick.
>
>
Enzo Matrix
>
> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:81787h...@mid.individual.net...
>> redstar wrote:
>>>
>>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> For you, maybe. But I just don't trust Obama. I have a nasty feeling
>>>> that in the next couple of years, he will try and force us to give up
>>>> the Falklands. Obama is not a man to be trusted.
>>>
>>> why do we want/need the falklands?
>>
>> It's not about *us* . It's about the Falkland Islanders. They wish to
>> remain British.
>
> chuck them on a boat and bring them home, then?
But they don't want to live in the UK. They're happy living in the
Falklands. Would you give up your house and your land and move elsewhere
just because someone in France (for example) decided they wanted your hoem
town?
> (i think you`ll find our interest and determination with the falklands is
> more to do with the great chunk of antarctica and it`s untold mineral
> wealth that it has access to - rather than 1500 crofters and their romney
> marsh sheep! - and the newly-found oil - obviously!)
The wishes of the Stills *does* factor into the equation, even if it is a
minor factor. And if the newly-found oil is the major factor... so what?
What is wrong with that?
>> No doubt the EU would be more than happy to see us relinquish the
>> Falklands. With the EU and the US applying pressure, I doubt that Gordon
>> Brown would resist for more than five minutes. If we have a regime
>> change after the next election, I think that David Cameron would resist
>> for twice as long.
>
> what sort of pressure?
>
> why would the eu give a damn?
The UN considers the Falklands to be a colony and as such is opposed to UK
governance. The EU is also opposed to its vassal states having
post-colonial possessions.
The UK populace (but not the ruling political elite) is very Eurosceptic.
The EU needs some way of demonstarting its overwhelming power to the UK
populace.
I think it would be very easy for the EU to introduce a law requiring the UK
to relinquish the Falklands. The campaign to liberate the Falklands in 1982
is ingrained into the British psyche and is a great part of our national
pride. Forcing the UK to relinquish the Falklands to the nation that had
attempted to take it by force would be a major blow to the morale of the UK.
Doing so is very much in the interests of the EU.
>>> the US needs social healthcare
>>
>> Why? It seems to have managed quite well without social healthcare so
>> far.
>
> er.........no it hasn`t :-/
Tell me more.
>>> the recession is not obama`s fault
>>
>> That's true. However, he is just making it all the more difficult for
>> the US to climb out of the recession.
>
> we are all in the same boat :-)
That's certainly true!
Mick Fanner
>> You cannot be left as we know it. If you are that far left, you are a
>> communist.
>
> who?
>
> me?
That was an hypothetical 'you'. <lol>
> i`m a zillion miles further :-)
>
> there is an american communist party :-)
Is it 'Bring a bottle'? ;-)
--
Mick.
Mick Fanner
> i think there`s a fundemental difference between UK & US
>
> and it is expressed in the nhs and the dhss (or whatever it`s called these
> days!)
Oh do continue. Please. At least the DHSS bit - (or whatever it's called
these days!)
Imagine younguns discovering Mommy's copy of Wham's Greatest Hits asking
'What's DHSS mean?' ;-)
--
Mick.
redstar
>
>> i think there`s a fundemental difference between UK & US
>>
>> and it is expressed in the nhs and the dhss (or whatever it`s called
>> these
>> days!)
>
> Oh do continue. Please. At least the DHSS bit - (or whatever it's called
> these days!)
dwp?
>
> Imagine younguns discovering Mommy's copy of Wham's Greatest Hits asking
> 'What's DHSS mean?' ;-)
george used to dj in a club i worked in - in croydon - when he was still
greek and on £30 a week with innervision :-)
>
> --
> Mick.
>
>
redstar
bring an icepick ?
the commies never liked trotsky :-/
> --
> Mick.
>
>
redstar
> redstar wrote:
>>
>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:81787h...@mid.individual.net...
>>> redstar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Enzo Matrix" <enz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> For you, maybe. But I just don't trust Obama. I have a nasty feeling
>>>>> that in the next couple of years, he will try and force us to give up
>>>>> the Falklands. Obama is not a man to be trusted.
>>>>
>>>> why do we want/need the falklands?
>>>
>>> It's not about *us* . It's about the Falkland Islanders. They wish to
>>> remain British.
>>
>> chuck them on a boat and bring them home, then?
>
> But they don't want to live in the UK. They're happy living in the
> Falklands. Would you give up your house and your land and move elsewhere
> just because someone in France (for example) decided they wanted your hoem
> town?
i wouldn`t give a sh*t :-)
>
>> (i think you`ll find our interest and determination with the falklands is
>> more to do with the great chunk of antarctica and it`s untold mineral
>> wealth that it has access to - rather than 1500 crofters and their romney
>> marsh sheep! - and the newly-found oil - obviously!)
>
> The wishes of the Stills *does* factor into the equation, even if it is a
> minor factor. And if the newly-found oil is the major factor... so what?
> What is wrong with that?
the problem is that the govt dresses it up as protecting the islanders - if
the had no oil or mineral reserves, they`d be as british as india!
:-)
>
>>> No doubt the EU would be more than happy to see us relinquish the
>>> Falklands. With the EU and the US applying pressure, I doubt that Gordon
>>> Brown would resist for more than five minutes. If we have a regime
>>> change after the next election, I think that David Cameron would resist
>>> for twice as long.
>>
>> what sort of pressure?
>>
>> why would the eu give a damn?
>
> The UN considers the Falklands to be a colony and as such is opposed to UK
> governance. The EU is also opposed to its vassal states having
> post-colonial possessions.
since when?
surely a *post-colonial* possession is no longer *colonial*
(in french guyana the rate of benefit for the unemployed is equivalent to
that in france!)
>
> The UK populace (but not the ruling political elite) is very Eurosceptic.
are they ............?
not in the mansions, they ain`t :-)
> The EU needs some way of demonstarting its overwhelming power to the UK
> populace.
>
> I think it would be very easy for the EU to introduce a law requiring the
> UK to relinquish the Falklands. The campaign to liberate the Falklands in
> 1982 is ingrained into the British psyche and is a great part of our
> national pride.
no - it was thatcher`s warmongering way to win an election after she had
ground us all into the ground and sold the family silver :-/
Forcing the UK to relinquish the Falklands to the nation that had
> attempted to take it by force would be a major blow to the morale of the
> UK.
>
> Doing so is very much in the interests of the EU.
why?
Enzo Matrix
Why invade where? The Coalition invasion of Kuwait was liberation.
The invasion of Iraqi territory was a standard military strategy. It's no
good pushing the enemy back to their borders and then standing fast. The
situation then is pretty much status quo ante bellum. The enemy is still
able to counterattack in strength.
Far better to strike into the enemy's homeland and neutralise his ability to
continue to fight. That's exactly what we did. The strategy was wise
because it led to some important intelligence which reflected badly on
certain so-called allies.
>> Oh there was an invasion of Iraq. How do you think I ended up at Tallil
>> air base in Nasiriyah?
>
> no idea - airmiles?
LOL That's a whole new can of worms. Let's not go there! :-D
>> Blame the UN Security Council. It was the UNSC who would not provide the
>> UN resolutions which would have allowed military action to support the
>> Kurds and the Shia.
>
> er...the UN didn`t vote for the invasion?
No. the UNSC voted for the liberation of Kuwait. There was no mandate for
an invasion of Iraq leading to regime change.
Enzo Matrix
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:55:02 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>
>> Mick the Merciless wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:34:55 +0000, Enzo Matrix wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ronald Reagan.
>>>
>>> Got where you're at now.
>>
>> Wot took you so long? :-D
>
> I'm a sucker for this sort of crap. It's why I abandoned many groups with
> predominantly US readerships who wind me up and let me go.
Well, I have to say that I'm really, reeely impressed with this group. This
is a very divisive subject which can tear a group apart. Redstar and I are
engaged in a quite robust discussion which in other groups would long ago
have degenerated into name calling and maybe an invocation of Godwin's Law.
But here, were still discussing amicably. But this is great!
Enzo Matrix
> If
> you'll excuse me, I'll paste a bit from a website on the subject. It was
> all public knowledge at the time, hell, I even believed it for a while.
> --------
> The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of
> that he was a homosexual
ROFL The two would seem to be mutually exclusive! :-D
> you know that my politics is way to the right of yours
But probably slightly to the left of mine... ;-)
Mick Fanner
> the commies never liked trotsky
He was soooo boring at piss ups. ;-)
--
Mick.
Mick Fanner
> when he was still
> greek
Love it. ;-)
--
Mick.
Enzo Matrix
>
> "Mick the Merciless" <mick....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2010.03.27....@gmail.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 20:44:57 +0000, redstar wrote:
>>
>>>> It was a delightful policy that got a good man (John McCain) kicked
>>>> into
>>>> touch so that W could get the nomination and ultimately the White
>>>> House.
>>>>
>>>
>>> tell me more.....?
>>
>> McCain was looking good for the nomination until the lies started. If
>> you'll excuse me, I'll paste a bit from a website on the subject. It was
>> all public knowledge at the time, hell, I even believed it for a while.
>
> disinformation?
>
>> --------
>> The smears claimed that McCain had fathered a black child out of wedlock
>> (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter was adopted from Bangladesh), that
>> his
>> wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a
>> "Manchurian Candidate" who was either a traitor or mentally unstable from
>> his North Vietnam POW days.
>> --------
>
> i`m not sure that any of the above would stop me from voting for a good
> man?
Nor should it. But some people are sheep.
>> you know that my politics is way to the right of yours, but I have no
>> time
>> for right wing politics in the US. >
>
>
> i think the difference in politics between both sides of the pond is that
> there is no *left* in the states :-/
Then how do you explain Mr Obama and Ms Clinton?