I remember when I first read about the details of WW2. My prior, simple, understanding was that, stopping the mass-murder Hitler must have been an obvious goal of the world.
This childish notion was seriously up-rooted when I read about the very large numbers of Americans that wanted the US to stay out of other peoples bussiness.
I thought, how can it be? How can so many let this mass-murder (exterminator!) continue down his path?
Then I learned about how the horror stories of death camps had been dismissed as fiction when the red-cross went and inspected one of these so-called death-camps. Of course the red-cross found a camp of prisoners enjoying a concert, of all things.
Done! . .. if you can't find it, it must not be there.

So here we are, at another historical time, and I'm reading the thoughts and rationalizations, of reasonable people stongly advocating against taking out a killing regime.
This leads to help my understanding of what 1940 must have been like. -thanks-
And, makes me think of a few words from the past.

& Blair & Bush are unreasonable, good men!

wow.

Wow is right!

These pro bush wing-nuts should be posting their mia culpa, mia maxima culpa to all who opposed this idiotic war. Reading these (2003 era) pro-war bovine republican suck-ups would be hilarious if not for the deaths and treasure squandered by bush and his nitwits. :eek: :rolleyes:

Do tell us what 9/11 had to do with our invasion of Iraq?

I didn't re-read this entire thread, but suffice it to say that I didn't vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. ;)

I take little satisfaction in being right about it, I'd much rather have been proven wrong by the great success of that foreign policy. But that's like saying, "wouldn't it be great if they found out that french fries were good for you..." You knew it wasn't going to happen.

Suffice it also to say that Tabs is singing a slightly different tune these days...:D

Dear Speeder....this is a former Thread on 10/20/07

Better Pay Attention To Pakistan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me be the first to lay it out for ya all. Better forget about Iraq, better forget about Iran, better forget about Turkey and better forget about the Dali Lama. We got a far bigger problem than that its called Pakistan.

Ever since Musharraf signed that peace deal with the NW Tribal leaders in Sept 2006 his power has been slippin. He had to let Bhutto come back because he needs the moderates support as a hedge against the Islamo Facists.

If the moderates and Musharraf fail and are overthrown the Islamo Facists will take over in Pakistan and there goes the hood...only these radicals will have their hands on Nuclear weapons.

I would venture to guess that if Pakistan goes Islamo facist boom goes Karchi, boom goes New Delhi, boom goes Islambad and boom goes Bombay...

I think that within 5 years your going to see war from India to Israel.



__________________
The Former "Master Buffeter"
The Amazing Mullah Tabdulla the Rug Merchant and Prophet.
10-20-2007, 01:02 AM

Or this on 8/6/07

Another consequence of the Iraqi adventure has been a focus on Iraq at expense of our efforts in Afganistan and the corollary situation in Pakistan. To ignore these areas is to do so at our own peril. President Musharraf has a literal tiger by the tail when dealing with the forces of Islamic fundlementalism in his country. He by no means has a firm grasp on that tiger and any faltering on his part means his end. With that end comes the large risk of a Islamic government in Pakistan with their hands on nuclear weapons. This has been the aim of Al Qaedeas number two man, Al Wahari. For then it is possible for Al Qaedea to become a nuclear power.
__________________
The Former "Master Buffeter"
The Amazing Mullah Tabdulla the Rug Merchant and Prophet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by tabs : 08-06-2007 at 01:59 AM.

Or on 9/15/06 this

The Man Who Stands Between US and He11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sifting through captured Al Qaeda Computers and Disks..they have found recon videos of numerous American Highrise Buildings in NYC Financial district as well as other buildings through out the USA. They show detail as to the structure and vunerabilities of the buildings.

Along with other known plots to blow up Airplanes while in flight it is a wonder how we have been so Lucky as to have avoided attack.

It can be credited to One man who at a crucial time to ally himself and his country with the USA. Since the war on Terrorism began nearly all the successes the US and her allies have achieved in thwarting further attacks have come about through intel his country has provided. There have been apx 500 Al Qaeda Operatives captured in his country including the #3 Khalid Mohamed . He has survived 2 assination attempts on his life. Yet his country is slowly slipping into radical Muslim fundlementalism.

The man of course is Perez Musharraf, President of Pakistan. It is obvious that he is the glue that holds the Moderates in Pakistan together, in their alliance with the USA and West. It would also be incorrect to assume that he doesn't have some powerfull supporters in his own country that allow him to hold unto the reins of power. It is known that all his Bodyguards are Americans or Brits.

However it will be the Wests worst nighmare come true if Perez falls. For it is likely that Pakistan will become a Islamic State which has Nuclear weapons.



.
__________________
The Former "Master Buffeter"
The Amazing Mullah Tabdulla the Rug Merchant and Prophet.
09-15-2006, 03:18 AM

Listen up (that's gonzo military slang) Froggy! We be da super-powuh an' dats da name o' da game, muffuh! Y' know wha'm sayin?

Sheee-it! Sooo sick o' yo muffuhs don' see da Merikan way!

MIGHT MAKES FUKKIN RIGHT, MUFFAH!

Gee whiz - I'm a vet, shouldna' be talkin' this way (much less affecting a Scottish accent).

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-1Y5sMJLwJU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-1Y5sMJLwJU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I like this one.

AH, the idiots whom believe times are worse now than When BJ Bill left. When the US military was dumping resources into keeping Saddam and his army contained in the middle of Iraq . . while his boys took pot-shots at our passing planes ... while the FRENCH funneled money to Saddam, and Saddam paid-off the families of every "suicide bomber" .. .while women in Afghanistan were stoned to death for slight defiance of a hyper-religious protocol. While OBL pulled the trigger on his second attempt on the WTC. Ah yes, the idiots were quiet back then. ..Back when they hid their idiocy well. --good times. :rolleyes:

I have no inclination to lay off the Bush-bashing. The reason I don't do it more is just a time constraint. Don't tempt me. I truly believe George W Bush is a massive worldwide embarassment. I believe he has done more damage to America than just about anybody else could have. He is a dolt and a stooge and a coward. He is mean-spirited and easily manipulated, and he has made an unbroken series of tragic mistakes that our children's children will still be unravelling fifty years from now.

So......don't ask me to lay off the Bush-bashing. I've laid off as much as I can. I may swing back into motion. American needs to be constantly reminded of the dangers of electing men of his ilk. You guys are "tired" of Bush-bashing because he IS an embarrassment and becuase his record is going to STING the Republican party BADLY in November. You make your bed, you lie in it. As some of you will recall, seven years ago I opined that Dubya will teach American why we don't let Republicans run the government. Dubya is hands-down, BY FAR the worst president in American history.

If I were you guys, I would stop asking folks to accept, or to stop bashing, Dubya. It makes me want to launch a fresh rampage of criticism. He is a COLOSSAL failure. In fact, it would be better if his performance was limited to just a COLOSSAL FAILURE. Sadly, his decisions have been worse than that.

These are miniscule problems compared with many of the ones we face today. But you know that.

I don't think you want to use "whom" in this case. You may want to stick to iPhones from here on out.

Wow! Classic ressurrection. I had to double take the 1st comments until I saw the date. Then it all made sense.

I don't think pointing out the faults of the previous administration exonerates the current one. I also don't think pointing out the faults of the current administration is time well spent at this point in time either. It's too easy and what more can be said? There's simply too much material.

Now, lets talk about the "new" Afghanistan - Pakistan....... which was a problem before Afghanistan as Tabs pointed out. Who the heck would want to preside over this mess? Vote for the guy(gal) you like the least because they will bear the brunt of current times. I fall back on my comments from years back. Time to step back and let them sort it out. Call it isolationism if you want. We have no business there. Homeland security is where it's at and it doesn't have to happen by manipulating foriegn policy, which we have proved is ineffective.

Well don't let anything else get in the way of what is most important ...Bashing our Prez. Such focus on priorities makes you all appear not only smart, but kind and good looking too.

hmmm, are you sure?

per American Heritage Dictionary:

USAGE NOTE: The traditional rules that determine the use of who and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, and whom is used elsewhere. Thus, we write The actor who played Hamlet was there, since who stands for the subject of played Hamlet; and Who do you think is the best candidate? where who stands for the subject of is the best candidate. But we write To whom did you give the letter? since whom is the object of the preposition to; and The man whom the papers criticized did not show up, since whom is the object of the verb criticized. · Considerable effort and attention are required to apply the rules correctly in complicated sentences. To produce correctly a sentence such as I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite, we must anticipate when we write whom that it will function as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses distant from it. It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward should often have interchanged who and whom. And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style, strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance. In speech and informal writing who tends to predominate over whom; a sentence such as Who did John say he was going to support? will be regarded as quite natural, if strictly incorrect. By contrast, the use of whom where who would be required, as in Whom shall I say is calling? may be thought to betray a certain linguistic insecurity. · When the relative pronoun stands for the object of a preposition that ends a sentence, whom is technically the correct form: the strict grammarian will insist on Whom (not who) did you give it to? But grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality of whom in these cases is at odds with the relative informality associated with the practice of placing the preposition in final position and that the use of who in these cases should be regarded as entirely acceptable. · The relative pronoun who may be used in restrictive relative clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required. Thus, we may say either The scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized, where the clause who discovers a cure for cancer indicates which scientist will be immortalized, or The mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known, where the clause who solved the four-color theorem adds information about a person already identified by the phrase the mathematician over there. · Some grammarians have argued that only who and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers; it is entirely acceptable to write either the man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you. · The grammatical rules governing the use of who and whom apply equally to whoever and whomever. See Usage Note at else, that, whose.
————————————————————

Hard for me to imagine something more important than saving this nation from further damage by whitewashing the devastation of this current "administration" in the hope that another anarchist might be elected who might continue to pursue the course of running America into the ground. It is vitally important that we keep the mistakes of the current "administration" in full and bright view, for the purpose of ensuring that the current course is corrected before America becomes more of a laughing-stock than it already is.

Gentlemen, we are at war. And it's not a military thing, occuring in Iraq. It is an economic thing occurring nearly everywhere except Iraq. It is just not possible for America to be further off course than it already is. We need to grasp what is happening, and grasp it immediately. That task is beyond the capabilities of our current "president," and outside the agenda of his potential Republican replacements.

The Republican party has made its bed. Now it's up to us to ensure they are made to lie in it. Nope. We're not going to ease off the Bush-bashing. Bush-bashing is very much in America's best interest. the other nations on this planet need to see our resolve in removing him and others of his ilk.

yes, I'm sure. Chicago Style Manual. Get one. Who uses a dictionary for grammar?:rolleyes:

here's a test for usage Glenn that will help you in the future. Substitute "him" for "whom" in your sentence. you'll get it.

Exactly. It's one of the simpler rules of grammar, actually. How they wrote such a long-winded paragraph about it is funny when one sentence would do. :cool:

..