[OT] F1 Qualifying... run that past me again

(Bruce Kennewell) wrote:

> tens of thousands of Britons think that every Australian walks
> around saying "bloody hell!" in every sentence we utter to each
> other.

It's OK Bruce, we all know what Aussies are *really* like. Mainly because
you can't run a corner in this country without bumping into one. Are
there any young people left in Australia? Well, apart from all the young
Brits filling aircraft in the opposite direction, obviously. ;-)

Andrew McP

"Mitch" wrote...
> In ohter words a troll, eh Jan...
> <snip>

Reply to the business end of my post, Mitch.

Jan.
=---

Andrew,
Apart from the imported back-packers (from every country in Europe plus
plenty from the United Kingdom) there are one or two youths still down here,
yes.
One of them is my 22-year old son. I think you folk need him over there,
actually.

Bruce

"Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message
ddress_disguised...

> Are there any young people left in Australia? Well, apart from all the
young
> Brits filling aircraft in the opposite direction, obviously. ;-)

With 20/20 hindsight history still shows that the U.S. military forces did a great job in Vietnam against guerilla warriors despite the political upheaval and lack of battlefield doctrine for jungle warfare. The US did not lose a single major battle in Vietnam (you can look that up) - the war was lost on the political side. Would you not say that the military did a great job despite the lack of support for it?

The Iraq war isn't likely to be lost on the political side even though the approval ratings are down. The reason is that most reasonable politicians realize that the fight for Iraq is now the main battle ground against Al Qaeda. Only the fringes of the left-wing call fail to see this and call for a pullout. (The people who generally get the most air time on the news here)

I don't know Russian politics well so I won't comment.

Wag

"Bruce Kennewell" > wrote in message ...
I have a funny feeling of deja vu coming over me. (Cue "Twilight Zone" theme)

Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and, I think, Leonard V. Brezhnev all said something similar in times past.
In fact, didn't King George say much the same around 1775?

BK
"B Wegner" > wrote in message . ..

So given the nature of the enemy, we're doing a fine job in Iraq.

It wasn't all about the WMDs - that's how it was sold to the public to garner support. Ironically, all of the major intelligence agencies agreed with that assessment and I believe our government made a mistake in selling it that way because they thought it was a sure thing (just like everyone else did). BTW, ask the Russians where it went - they supposedly helped to transport it out to Syria in 2001.

I believe, and several recent books support my belief, that the war is one whose main goal was to drive out a dictator and replace it with a democracy that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East. The strategic location of the land should not be dismissed though either. It's geographic location and energy resources made it more important than, then say, Syria in the war on terror.

If you are speaking of the Shah of Iran, I agree with you. Our past foreign policy failures are a disgrace. They had been lacking any long-term continuity or moral basis. There are so many holes you could poke in the policies from the recent past that you'll get no argument here.

I think the main difference with us bringing it now is that the war was brought to us and so public support has allowed for the policies to shift. Not so when they attacked our embassies in '96 for example.

Wag


"mcewena" > wrote in message oups.com...
>3) Most importantly...

But I thought it was all about WMDs?

>Do you not realize that being in Iraq gives us the ability to having forward staging bases in order > to attack Iran

Too bad the appreciation for democracy wasn't discovered when the Shaw
(sp?) was in power

"Jan Verschueren" > wrote in message ...
"B Wegner" wrote...

Ah... but before reality filtered back to the US, democracy was going to
restored by January last year and the barbarians were an oppressed people
who'd only be too happy to be liberated by the US army.

It's just the poor and inaccurate way our government sold this war. The sad part is that honesty would have worked better.

Certainly that was the impression I got from Mitch as he brushed aside my
misgivings with regard to the invasion and therefore I attempted to rub his
face in it a little.

I'm not speaking for Mitch, he's entitled to his opinion just the same as we are. I now see the logic in your response. Although you didn't need to rub his face in it. You're a better person than that even if I disagree with you on virtually everything

So, apologies, I wasn't expecting anyone to attempt a reasonable response.
Seeing as this whole deal has gone far enough off topic already, I won't
enter into public exchange with you. Feel free to decipher my spamblock if
you're interested in an exchange of opinion.

That's for sure - F1 qualifying to political flame-fest. LOL! If we can't get along or agree to disagree then we're really up ****s creek without a paddle because the terrorists will use it to drive a wedge between us.

Wag

Jan.
=---

No **** - these so-called reality shows make me sick - talk about mid-numbing.
"mcewena" > wrote in message oups.com...
>I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce
>The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong.

For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with
Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust". I imagine it's
the same on the other side of the pond.

It costs less to put together a crap show that appeals to the masses
then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer... lowest common
denomotaer marketing.

1) The Shield
2) 24
3) Prison Break
4) CSI
5) Anything Motorsports related

Wag
"Larry" > wrote in message news:4eGSf.249838$oG.145224@dukeread02...
Is anyone else bored to death with that new show Howie Mandell is hosting?

It would be fun. IF it moved along about 200% faster. Jeez....

For me, my favorites a

1. 24. C'mon, you KNOW you love it
2. Lost.
3. Sopranos.
4. Deadwood (Brilliant show).
5. CSI, when it's a good episode.
6. Crossing Jordan.
7. Tripping The Rift.

-Larry

"mcewena" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >I think that's probably true everywhere, but a nation which can produce
>>The Sopranos, Frasier, Lost, etc certainly isn't doing everything wrong.
>
> For every one of those there's half a dozen like "Dancing with
> Celibarties", "The Simple Life", or "Build or Bust". I imagine it's
> the same on the other side of the pond.
>
> It costs less to put together a crap show that appeals to the masses
> then it does a quality show that appeals to fewer... lowest common
> denomotaer marketing.
>

"B Wegner" > wrote in message
> - the war was lost on the political side.




The funny thing is: the war was never lost as such. The US forced the North
Vietnamese to the bargaining table through comprehensive bombing, got a
declaration of peace and left. TWO years later, the North reinvaded and took
the South and, by that time, there was absolutely no desire on the part of
the US to get involved again. Hardly the fault of the US that the South
steadfastly refused to take responsibility for there own defense. The end
result was that the war was pointless from the start, but it wasn't lost.
The peace was lost and that's the South's fault.

It's similar to Taiwan now. If they think the US will protect them if China
invades, they're in for a big surprise.



ps If the politicians would just declare war (something the US has not done
since WW2) and then step aside and let the military do it's job, the war in
Vietnam would have been over years before the US withdrew.

>
> The funny thing is: the war was never lost as such. The US forced the
> North Vietnamese to the bargaining table through comprehensive
> bombing, got a declaration of peace and left. TWO years later, the
> North reinvaded and took the South and, by that time, there was
> absolutely no desire on the part of the US to get involved again.
> Hardly the fault of the US that the South steadfastly refused to take
> responsibility for there own defense. The end result was that the war
> was pointless from the start, but it wasn't lost. The peace was lost
> and that's the South's fault.
>
> It's similar to Taiwan now. If they think the US will protect them if
> China invades, they're in for a big surprise.
>
>
>
> ps If the politicians would just declare war (something the US has not
> done since WW2) and then step aside and let the military do it's job,
> the war in Vietnam would have been over years before the US withdrew.
>
>
>

Remember too, that Senator Kennedy got all funding for support of the
South Vietnamese cut off. So no more American bullets for the guns they
had, no more fuel for the jets they flew, no more repairs for the
American tanks we'd given them. Truly, even with continued funding, SVN
was not capable of stopping the Northerners...but we seemed to do
everything possible to hasten the end.
dave henrie