Quoting:
Hey, it's a Capitalist system out there 8) Everything to the highest bidder in a free-market, right? :) The US has sold weapons to ruthless dictatorships as well, so there's nothing wrong with Russian companies doing the same...
End Quote

Well, there you go again...
There are, allegedly, Russian technicians in Iraq now teaching Iraqis how to use the GPS jammers.  Which brings up an interesting issue:  Coalition forces are trying to avoid civilian targets.  Their bombs are guided by GPS devices.  If those devices are jammed, a bomb that might have detonated on a military installation will lose guidance. It's going to explode somewhere, though. So jamming the GPS puts Iraqi civilians at greater risk, doesn't it?

Quoting:


Well, there you go again...
There are, allegedly, Russian technicians in Iraq now teaching Iraqis how to use the GPS jammers.  Which brings up an interesting issue:  Coalition forces are trying to avoid civilian targets.  Their bombs are guided by GPS devices.  If those devices are jammed, a bomb that might have detonated on a military installation will lose guidance. It's going to explode somewhere, though. So jamming the GPS puts Iraqi civilians at greater risk, doesn't it?
End Quote

Then maybe the coalition forces shouldn't drop those bombs, then there won't be any possibility of those bombs falling on civilians.

Quoting:
Well we (as in America) gave the Iraqis a boat load of weapons back in the 80's.  
End Quote

That was because Saddam Inssain was the only one there willing to fight the Islamic fundamentalists, so he HAD to get US support no matter what. If there is something worse than Saddam, it is radical Islam. It was bad then, it is still bad now.

Quoting:
I hate to tell you, but Saddam is worse than Ayatolah ever was.
End Quote

Listen, kid, you haven't the slightest clue what the Revolution in Iran was all about back in the late 70s, so don't you go tellin' me this drivel. I am by no means a Saddam sympathizer, but he was the only ruthless bastard crazy enough to hold the fort against our sworn declared enemy: The radical Islamists. Did it slip your mind? Who do you think is responsible for all the highjackings from the late 60s and into the 90s? Who do you think is the biggest terrorist threat in the Middle East, Northeastern Africa, and other parts of the world today? The radical Islamists! It's not just the Ayatollah, but all the sh!tte that comes with him. It's been like that for decades.

Quoting:
What was it all about? I'll tell you.

We supported the shah. He oppressed people. They got ticked off and rebelled. Ayatolah ended up leading the whole thing.
End Quote

You better stick to plagiarizing.

Quoting:
You better stick to plagiarizing.
End Quote

Hi Twigger :)

The way I understand it, John just kinda forgot to include a link, but he understood the definition of socialism fine.  

However, since I personally don't know 70s and 80s Middle East history, could you perhaps enlighten me?  I'm serious, I'd like to learn something, and see why what John was saying is wrong.  Thanks!  :)

Quoting:
F*c* off! I never claimed that was my work!

I posted a bunch of messages that appologized for using that site without proper documentation. Apparently you were too busy building a shrine to George W. to read it!

Allow me to reiterate my previous statement: F*c* off!
End Quote

::)

Wow, does a certain little fussy gus need a nappy-poo?

Quoting:


::)

Wow, does a certain little fussy gus need a nappy-poo?


End Quote

ROFLMAO!!! ;D

Quoting:
Today was not a good day. Everyone in my school is pro-war.  :P I was compared to John Walker in history today (the American Taliban). Everywhere I turn, people spit on me because I think we still had a chance to solve the Iraq situation without going to war.

That's why I'm "fussy". Let me put it in conservative terms.  Stalin has just come back, has taken over the U.S., and sent me to a gulag. That's what it feels like to be in the pro-peace camp. That's why I'm cranky!  >:(
End Quote

Sorry to hear that J.H. I know that it is really hard when you believe something totally different from what seems like everyone else. You are NOT alone. I never believed in this war and now that it has started, I STILL don't agree with it. I think that it is not going to be a quick go in and come out again like this admistration is trying to convince the American public. I think there is going to be repercussions that will last for generations. And I am very scared at what is going to happen. Keep speaking your mind and exersizing your First Admendment Rights! If we lose that, then as a country, we will be totally lost.



Cat

Quoting:

I think that it is not going to be a quick go in and come out again like this admistration is trying to convince the American public.

Cat
End Quote

Cat, where have you heard the administration telling us it would be a quick in and out thing?  I have only heard that it wouldn't be quick...I think that it is the public in general that is thinking it will be quick.  President Bush just said today that it would take a while.  Just wondering.

Quoting:
A world history book would be much better, but this site is fairly good.

Research the Pahlavi Era and anything from 1979 onwards. That the US supported Iran is a partial truth. The US left the Shah high and dry once the Shah got the idea to modernize Iran by implementing social and economical reforms, such as socializing certain aspects of the economy (the oil!), which smacked of Socialism/Communism to the US of A at the time. The Shah was an autocrat, so there were people who wanted to oust him. The problem was similar to that of Spain's Republic back in the 30s. You have small groups of people who opposed the govt., but only one was together enough to carry out the plan to overthrow the Shah. Those were the radical Islamists.

Iraq was having problems with these Islamic assholes who wanted something like that in their country. Saddam Inssain's Ba'ath party was a secular group who wanted to get into power as well and who could fight the good fight against these bastards. Anyone in the US's position would have done the same to protect their interests and their people.
End Quote

Good as far as it goes, but where does the Iran-Contra scandal fit in?  Remember, it was as late as November, 1986, that President Reagan confirmed reports that the United States had secretly sold arms to Iran.  

Quoting:
There was a more urgent threat called Communism and the Soviet Union and it was in the backyard over in Nicaragua who was fanning these same wacky ideas to Guatemala and El Salvador. The US is a juggling act when it comes to foreign policy. We hate radical Islamists, but they were willing to arm them to the teeth and train them for the sake of beating the Russians... The world is not perfect and nothing is black and white, unfortunately.
End Quote

Thanks Twigger  :)  Realpolitiks is hard enough to understand, much less explain or defend.  

Quoting:
First, 80srocked.  How dare you?  You claim to be some kind of intelligent person End Quote

I never claimed to be intelligent.  But, if you got the impression I was, I'm flattered. ;)

Quoting:How dare you stoop to the kind of infantile insult you leveled at John Harvey?  End Quote

um, the reposnse John recived after his little temper tantrum was fitting, considering I thought I was talking to a 5 year old throwing a fit cause he didn't get to have a second cookie with his lunch, considering the way he acted.

Quoting:If you want to fight in the gutter,  take on someone your own size.  John Harvey is much too big for you.End Quote

I'm sorry if I offended your little mouthpiece/sidekick John Harvey.

:'( ::)

Quoting:
This is addressed to several of you, those who don't know how to express your opinions without insulting others.

First, 80srocked.  How dare you?  You claim to be some kind of intelligent person (although you never did answer the simple question I posed for you out of true curiosity).  How dare you stoop to the kind of infantile insult you leveled at John Harvey?  If you want to fight in the gutter,  take on someone your own size.  John Harvey is much too big for you.

And Dagwood, you think this insult is funny?  Guess you don't have the ability to seperate logical, factual arguments from stupidity either.  Man.  If that's the best your conservatives can do, I guess the radicals are shoe-ins.  Let the revolution begin!!!

And Twigger (real guest or troll?): some of what you said is right.  The U.S. did put the Shah in power (was in in 53' or 54?)  the CIA's first successful covert mission.  But you are wrong to suggest that the U.S. ever withdrew its support from him.  Right to the end we were supplying him with weopons and economic support - naturally, our companies controlled Iranian oil.  The guy we overthrew, Mossedec, had nationalized Irani oil.  The Shah was a brutal dictator for sure.  As bad as Saddam if not worse, but then, any dictator who can afford a pair of sun glasses....Once the Kommaini (SP) came to power, we did emphasis support for Saddam (the enemy of my enemy is my friend - that has always been our policy) and Saddam's Suni minority was keeping the Shiia majority (also majority in Iran) in check and was running, as you suggest, a secular regime (oppressing both the Shiia and the Kurds, but who cared - not important).  WE abandoned him, I think, because the conservative cabal surrounding both George I and George II (the same guys, Wolfowith, Chaney, Kristol, Chard, etc) believed that with the end of the cold war it was (is) time to develop the U.S. imporium, to strive for world domination.  And guess what...this isn't just idle speculation, or the rantings of some old lefty.  These guys wrote this stuff in at least one planning document back in the '90s.  I have read several references to it, but can't remember where.  But you guys are smart.  If you want to find it, you will.  Of course, if you don't want to find it, you won't.
End Quote

Where do you get off criticizing anyone? Sorry, Don Carlos, but since you have joined this board the only thing you have managed to do is look down your nose and convince yourself that you are better than anyone here. No more personal attacks. It's no wonder everyone is starting to ignore you. As am I from now on.  ::) You see, I live in a place called reality. Living it every day. You talk about being a Professor and how exhalted you must be, but I cannot imagine you allowing yourself to descend to the world of the everyday person where the real living happens- Step off bud. No one's interested in your propaganda and your pompous posturing.  >:(


Go ahead and rip me now -I don't care. I am not about to take you seriously ever again.

Quoting:



I'm sorry if I offended your little mouthpiece/sidekick John Harvey.

:'( ::)


End Quote

I think for myself, thanks. Don Carlos happens to share my beliefs on this topic.

Quoting:
Communism was never as big of a threat as we imagined. We put so many maniacs in power to "fight the good fight" against communism. Communism as we saw in the Soviet Union was going to die of its own inefficient oppressive beaurocracy.

The only thing we achieved by proping up dictators to fight communism was a lot more countries like Iraq. Using other countries to fight our fights for us was stupid, cowardly and a waste of human life.

I have no love for Stalinist style communism, but that doesn't excuse the kind of maniacs that we stuck in power to "fight" it.

Teaming up with Saddam really worked, didn't it? 1 million Iranis dead and no winner. Sounds like another United States military success to me.
End Quote

Do you honestly believe that Communism was not a big threat?  You yourself state that we were supporting other countries to keep communisim from developing there.  Very clear the communism was to spread as far and fast as the Soviet Union could achieve.  I think just mentioning the Cuban Missile Crisis should be enough for anyone to aknowledge that Communism was very much a danger to the US and the countries we supported.

Quoting:
Communism was never as big of a threat as we imagined. We put so many maniacs in power to "fight the good fight" against communism. Communism as we saw in the Soviet Union was going to die of its own inefficient oppressive beaurocracy.End Quote

What the hell?! They were a HUGE threat. Perhaps you're too young to remember being scared of a day where we thought we would wake up to the sound of alarum bells announcing a nuclear attack from the Soviets. It's so far off now that you can now disclaim the Cold War as "never a big threat." That's how good a job the US did, that you can now state things were always safe and "never a big threat as we imagined."  

Quoting:The only thing we achieved by proping up dictators to fight communism was a lot more countries like Iraq. Using other countries to fight our fights for us was stupid, cowardly and a waste of human life.End Quote

No, it was brilliant. It's called military and global strategy. That's why you're not speaking German or Russian right now.

Life is tough, life is hard. Sh!t happens all over. It's not just our fault, but the fault of the nature of humans all over. Stupidity and cowardice and greed and lazyness, etc.: Those are all human traits. Learn it, deal with it, and live it.

Quoting:I have no love for Stalinist style communism, but that doesn't excuse the kind of maniacs that we stuck in power to "fight" it.End Quote

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

Quoting:Teaming up with Saddam really worked, didn't it? 1 million Iranis dead and no winner. Sounds like another United States military success to me.
End Quote

It did. Radical Islam was quenched in that section of the world. Something no other country could do.

Quoting:

It did. Radical Islam was quenched in that section of the world. Something no other country could do.
End Quote

You gotta be kidding me! Perhaps Bush made a big boo-boo when he included them in his rediculous "Axis of Evil". Radical Islam is alive and well and as dangerous as ever.

I'm worried that radical American militarism might prove to be just as dangerous.

Quoting:


You gotta be kidding me! Perhaps Bush made a big boo-boo when he included them in his rediculous "Axis of Evil". Radical Islam is alive and well and as dangerous as ever.
End Quote

Seriously, you are trying the patience of others.

Iraq was included in the "Axis Of Evil" not because of radical Islam, but because there's an inventory of weapons missing! Saddam Inssain has proven useful before, but this time he wore out his welcome. He grew to believe he was king of the freaking world. His 15 minutes are up and we're coming for him and his cronies. Perhaps this is a testing ground for bigger things to come - like rooting out those Islamic bastards that declared war on the US.

Quoting:
Well, 80sRocked, if its true that you never claimed to be intelligent, then I must agree, but you sure come off like you think you are an expert on just about everything on this post.  And if you're not, than how do you get off personally attacking John Harvey for expressing his views?  End Quote

well, I guess what you call "attacking", I call "responding to a very irratic post in a deserving manner".

I think you must be bored and are just trying to spark a conflict here tonight just for the sake of argument.  Just get off it already. ::)

Quoting:
Seriously, you're not making any sense.End Quote

That's is because reality is way above your head. What? DO you actually want me to explain things word-for-word? If your point is to annoy, then your tactic worked excellently and I applaud you for that. Long live the rabble-rousing-troublemaking spirit!

Quoting:What is the point you're trying to make? If it's that radical Islam is dead, then you're wrong.End Quote

No. I am right. Radical islam was quenched in Iraqi politics (I left this last bit out because I thought you were old enough to put one-and-one together). Iraq is not governed by a bunch of clerics as is the case in Iran. I am right. The facts speak for themselves.

Quoting:If it's to say that Saddam is not radical muslim, then I agree and I think it's silly to associate him with a radical muslim group like Al Qaida.End Quote

I don't know where you got the notion that I associate Saddam Inssain with Al-Qaeda. Obviously, not from anything I have written, so I take it you just like to take statements out of context in order to drag out arguments out of people...

Quoting:Am I close? I'm not too sure what you're trying to say.
End Quote

No. And that is through no fault of my own.

I am done with this one. Anything else you have to state, you'll be stating it to a screen.

Quoting:


Cat, where have you heard the administration telling us it would be a quick in and out thing?  I have only heard that it wouldn't be quick...I think that it is the public in general that is thinking it will be quick.  President Bush just said today that it would take a while.  Just wondering.
End Quote

In the paper today, it said that Bush was asking congress to finance this war for a month. That is pretty short term to me. I really don't think it will end in a month-at least not all the ramifictions that it is going to bring.




Cat

Quoting:
We Latinos like to argue (look at our history) and are willing to do it...


End Quote

Taking this statement in its context:

Pfft-Hahaha :) :D ;D This reads sort of like when Jesse Helms called Hispanics "volatile people." 8) I guess some stereotypes are true ;)

Quoting:


In the paper today, it said that Bush was asking congress to finance this war for a month. That is pretty short term to me. I really don't think it will end in a month-at least not all the ramifictions that it is going to bring.




Cat
End Quote

I guess that is the difference in the news in different parts of the country.  Here, we have only heard that it wasn't going to be quick.   In fact, on the news 5 min or so ago Bush said that the money he asked for was for 6 months.  Oh well, we all know it isn't going to be quick, regardless of what we hear.

Quoting:
OK!  I admit it, I was the source that was saying the war was going to be over quickly.  It was an offhand comment to a drinking buddy of mine and CNN, MSNBC, FOX and all the others picked it up and began spouting how it wasn't going to be as quick as commonly believed.
Sorry, I was just jokin' ::)
End Quote

hey Race, could you get ahold of CNN again, and this time tell them they suck? ;D

Quoting:
Quick fact check:  The war is less than a week old and the Coalition is on the outskirts of Baghdad.  If we weren't trying to protect civilians and Iraq's infrastructure, the war would be over already.
End Quote

Great point Steve.

to add to that:

We could esily carpet bomb Iraq and be done with it(and save a lot of cash too).  However, we are willing to spend the big bucks to use only smart-bombs, ultimately destroying the target and not the civilians.  

Whats so amazing to me is how we can literally turned the target building into a pile of rubble, while just across the street the lights are still on and the water still runs.  These smart bombs are amazing.

Quoting:
OK!  I admit it, I was the source that was saying the war was going to be over quickly.  It was an offhand comment to a drinking buddy of mine and CNN, MSNBC, FOX and all the others picked it up and began spouting how it wasn't going to be as quick as commonly believed.
Sorry, I was just jokin' ::)
End Quote

Way to go, Race. ;)

Quoting:


Great point Steve.

to add to that:

We could esily carpet bomb Iraq and be done with it(and save a lot of cash too).  However, we are willing to spend the big bucks to use only smart-bombs, ultimately destroying the target and not the civilians.  

Whats so amazing to me is how we can literally turned the target building into a pile of rubble, while just across the street the lights are still on and the water still runs.  These smart bombs are amazing.

End Quote

Perhaps the Coalition does care about civilians....in that they don't want too look like barbarians to the rest of the world by murdering them.  Carpet bombing Iraq is stupid.  America wants this country for a reason.  Blowing it to hell would be silly.

The reality is that the TRUE reason that the electricity, water, communications center, and key bridges in Baghdad have not been taken out are because the Americans are going to need them once they take over the city.  Baghdad will be no good to the United States if it's a completely dead city that has no running water or electricity.  

Quoting:
I do wonder who really said that the war was going to be over quick.  End Quote

I partly blame the media, and also I think it was just a misconception by the general public.

I think considering our military(the coalition) is so overwhelmingly more powerful than Iraq's, people just assumed we would be "in and out" in a few days.  And the media just picked up on it and ran with it.

Of course the "talking heads" aka war analysts certainly contributed too.

Quoting:


Perhaps the Coalition does care about civilians....in that they don't want too look like barbarians to the rest of the world by murdering them.  Carpet bombing Iraq is stupid.  America wants this country for a reason.  Blowing it to hell would be silly.

The reality is that the TRUE reason that the electricity, water, communications center, and key bridges in Baghdad have not been taken out are because the Americans are going to need them once they take over the city.  Baghdad will be no good to the United States if it's a completely dead city that has no running water or electricity.  


End Quote

You've got it!  We Americans are going to flood Baghdad and open vacation homes and golf courses.  We're doing our best to keep the civilians alive cause Gawd knows we need pool clearners and grounds keepers.  Doesn't hurt to have an Iraqi that can mix a good marguerita too.  I can't wait until we can flip that little Kuwait out of the way and have little more waterfront property.

This kinda what you were thinking Paul?

Quoting:The reality is that the TRUE reason that the electricity, water, communications center, and key bridges in Baghdad have not been taken out are because the Americans are going to need them once they take over the city.  Baghdad will be no good to the United States if it's a completely dead city that has no running water or electricity.  End Quote

Your tongue-in-cheek tone is very blatant.

Anyway, think about it this way:  The more the coalition destroys, the more they will have to replace during the regime change.  And the more that needs replaced, the more it will cost.  And if that was the case, I'm sure you would be up in arms about that!  Right?  

So what are you complaining about?

Quoting:


I partly blame the media, and also I think it was just a misconception by the general public.

I think considering our military(the coalition) is so overwhelmingly more powerful than Iraq's, people just assumed we would be "in and out" in a few days.  And the media just picked up on it and ran with it.

Of course the "talking heads" aka war analysts certainly contributed too.
End Quote

I think you hit the nail on the head, 80srocked.  I couldn't have said it better. :)

Quoting:

You've got it!  We Americans are going to flood Baghdad and open vacation homes and golf courses.  We're doing our best to keep the civilians alive cause Gawd knows we need pool clearners and grounds keepers.  Doesn't hurt to have an Iraqi that can mix a good marguerita too.  I can't wait until we can flip that little Kuwait out of the way and have little more waterfront property.
End Quote

I've got dibs on the riverfront property!!! ;)

Quoting:

You've got it!  We Americans are going to flood Baghdad and open vacation homes and golf courses.  We're doing our best to keep the civilians alive cause Gawd knows we need pool clearners and grounds keepers.  Doesn't hurt to have an Iraqi that can mix a good marguerita too.  I can't wait until we can flip that little Kuwait out of the way and have little more waterfront property.

This kinda what you were thinking Paul?
End Quote

Not to mention all of the restaurants, gotta have that food service! I wonder, does anyone want to go in on a time share with me?  ::)

Quoting:

You've got it!  We Americans are going to flood Baghdad and open vacation homes and golf courses.  We're doing our best to keep the civilians alive cause Gawd knows we need pool clearners and grounds keepers.  Doesn't hurt to have an Iraqi that can mix a good marguerita too.  I can't wait until we can flip that little Kuwait out of the way and have little more waterfront property.

This kinda what you were thinking Paul?
End Quote

Quoting:


I've got dibs on the riverfront property!!! ;)
End Quote

Quoting:


Not to mention all of the restaurants, gotta have that food service! I wonder, does anyone want to go in on a time share with me?  ::)

End Quote

Quoting:
A'hh yes, fly fishing the Tigris river, sailboarding the Euphrates.  Good points too on the food-service, can't eat just falafel.  Keeping with the corporate and political greed theme all our established fast food restaraunts have to spring up quickly.  Starbucks can easily put at least 300 stores in Iraq.  I sure do like the Outback Steakhouse and Claim Jumpers and lets not forget Hooters!, that may take some getting used to, what with the local gals pulling on them tight shorts and cutting the t-shirt up but we'll let them don that veil too.
Exploitation is a heady experiance, I could really get into this. 8)
End Quote

*WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP*  *WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP*

SARCASM ALERT

Quoting:


Taking this statement in its context:

Pfft-Hahaha :) :D ;D This reads sort of like when Jesse Helms called Hispanics "volatile people." 8) I guess some stereotypes are true ;)
End Quote

Passionate might be a more accurate term.  Combined with (in me) with a commitment to U.S. values like freedom and justice.

Quoting:

Passionate might be a more accurate term.  Combined with (in me) with a commitment to U.S. values like freedom and justice.
End Quote

Then, I take it you agree with me that some stereotypes are true.

Quoting:


Not to mention all of the restaurants, gotta have that food service! I wonder, does anyone want to go in on a time share with me?  ::)

End Quote

Time shares s**K, IMO.  ::)  I know this is tongue-in-cheek, Shaz, but I think there is a grain of truth in all this banter.  Not to beat a dead horse, but I think the notion that we can "United Statsize" (akin to supersize?) the world and everything will be ok is just nonsense.  I think that most Statesiders would agree that other people have a right to their own religions and cultures.  I also think that that Mr'rs Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and crew don't accept that, and want to impose US values and belief on them.  That I call arrogance - the arrogance of power.  In another thread (Hummmm) I tried to make it clear that since I don't know any of you personally, I wasn't calling any of you racist.  Likewise here, I am not calling any of you arrogant (though personally I think you should be - or at least thick skinned).  I AM calling our leaders, and our "national mood" arrogant toward the rest of the world.  I'm disappointed that people who are obviously involved in the affairs of the world, intelligent (forgive my "cheap shot" at 80's) and articulate can't (or refuse to) distinguish between the two.  So yippy for McUndernurished, Burger Shah, and Tigres T1tties (Iraqi Hooters).   ::)

Quoting:


Then, I take it you agree with me that some stereotypes are true.
End Quote

I would say that all stereotypes are based on a grain of truth, but are false because they make that grain into an innate characteristic.  Jews in feudal Europe we merchants and money lenders because (in most countries) they were given no other options - couldn't own land, couldn't follow a trade, had no rights of usefruct etc.  Hispanics tend to be more open about their emotions (more "publicly passionate") than Calvinists who are taught to be reserved etc.  These are learned responses - we get them from our culture and from our personal backgrounds - just as I get my "arrogance" - a word laid on me by others, which I admittedly embraced - from my forebearers.  I'm condensing a dissertation into a paragraph and hope its +/- clear and not offensive to anyone.  As I have said on other threads, just think about what I'm saying not in terms of who YOU are, but in terms of these United States.

Quoting:


Time shares s**K, IMO.  ::)  I know this is tongue-in-cheek, Shaz, but I think there is a grain of truth in all this banter.  Not to beat a dead horse, but I think the notion that we can "United Statsize" (akin to supersize?) the world and everything will be ok is just nonsense.  I think that most Statesiders would agree that other people have a right to their own religions and cultures.  I also think that that Mr'rs Bush, Chaney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and crew don't accept that, and want to impose US values and belief on them.  That I call arrogance - the arrogance of power.  In another thread (Hummmm) I tried to make it clear that since I don't know any of you personally, I wasn't calling any of you racist.  Likewise here, I am not calling any of you arrogant (though personally I think you should be - or at least thick skinned).  I AM calling our leaders, and our "national mood" arrogant toward the rest of the world.  I'm disappointed that people who are obviously involved in the affairs of the world, intelligent (forgive my "cheap shot" at 80's) and articulate can't (or refuse to) distinguish between the two.  So yippy for McUndernurished, Burger Shah, and Tigres T1tties (Iraqi Hooters).   ::)
End Quote

I see you have a chip on your shoulder because Puerto Rico is not a state of the USA and you blame the USA government for this instead of your commonwealth/territory's government.

Quoting:
I've got the outline down now-
1) Conquer
2) Exploit
3) Westernize
Great, who wants to start a game of croquet?

End Quote

Only if I can have red.  :D Oh, dear, are we playing in all that sand?

Quoting:


Only if I can have red.  :D Oh, dear, are we playing in all that sand?
End Quote

Yeah, how are the arch-thingies going to stay up?

Quoting:
With Wicket in hand I say let the game commense.
Shaz is red
Dagwood is blue
80s Cheerleader is black
and Race is Green.
1st off green always makes the 1st rule. "Everyone to the cocktail tent!" ;D

End Quote

Here's hoping the bartender can make a decent martini!  :-/

Quoting:
With Wicket in hand I say let the game commense.
Shaz is red
Dagwood is blue
80s Cheerleader is black
and Race is Green.
1st off green always makes the 1st rule. "Everyone to the cocktail tent!" ;D

End Quote

Woohoo...Long Island Iced Tea, anyone? :D

Quoting:


Woohoo...Long Island Iced Tea, anyone? :D
End Quote

Sounds excellent!  :D

Quoting:
Hold up.........liquor is being served & I'm not present?   :o

Can I play your wacky Crochet game?  Or Cricket?  Or whatever this crazy hoopla is all about?  ;D
End Quote

Sure, orange, yellow or brown?

Quoting:


Here's hoping the bartender can make a decent martini!  :-/
End Quote

I've got the shaker, good vodka, and crused ice.  H'mm Croquet with vodka martinis and 5 beautiful women? :o  Iraq is a great place! ;D

Quoting:


Sure, orange, yellow or brown?
End Quote

I'll take yellow!  Now will somebody please explain the rules to me?  Is it kinda like playing pool?  Or more like playing shuffleboard?   ::)

Quoting:


I see you have a chip on your shoulder because Puerto Rico is not a state of the USA and you blame the USA government for this instead of your commonwealth/territory's government.
End Quote

???

Quoting:
I believe what Enlight is trying to point out is that several times you have mentioned how the people in your home have no vote for the President of the United States, nor do they have avoting member of Congress, and yet each time you mention that you fail to mention that it is a result of they themselves voting against statehood and opting to remain a Commonwealth, two times in the past decade.  And why not, right?

They don't get taxed by the U.S. Government, they receive welfare benefits (food stamps, etc.), yet they also have a modicum of independence that states of the union don't have.  While there are arguments both for and against statehood, becoming a state of the union would afford them access to much mroe federal money, wihich could improve the illiteracy rate of the people, better their living conditions, work toward a lower illiegitimacy rate and improve their economy.

Bottom line, though, is that we believe that you using the Puerto Ricans not having voting privileges is crap, a cop-out.  It's THEIR choice.  So, far, they've chosen otherwise, and for you to claim offense at the U.S. Government for it doesn't wash.
End Quote

Everything you said here about the status of Puerto Rico is true.  The only reference I ever made to it, though, was that P.R.'s were made citizens by act of Congress in 1917, just in time for the WWI draft.  I don't blame anyone for PR's status, which has both benefits and liabilities, and since I don't live on  the island, I really have no firm opinion on the status question.  I also wonder how Congress would respond if PR asked to become a state.  Mostly I just don't get where this is coming from.  I only mentioned it once or twice, and only in regard to other issues. ???