Canadian flag on the backback myth

Xomicron wrote:

The US didn't lose the War of 1812.

Are you saying or intimating that the US won it??

Depends whose textbooks you read. You should get your head around properly
but first read some Japanese textbooks regarding THEIR version of WW II.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:30:15 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron
wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:25:58 -0500, ANONYMOUSE wrote:



GWB Jr.


who's this "GWB Jr."?

some canadian?

It seems to me, the US is at War against Afghanistan


these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Nice exercise in semantics. The US did not lose a war in Vietnam
because they have decided that technically it was not a war, presumably?

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

No, they lost it militarily as well.

Van wrote in
:

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:30:15 +0000 (UTC), Xomicron
wrote:

devil wrote in
news
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 14:25:58 -0500, ANONYMOUSE wrote:

GWB Jr.

who's this "GWB Jr."?

some canadian?

It seems to me, the US is at War against Afghanistan

these united States have not been at war since 1945.

Nice exercise in semantics. The US did not lose a war in Vietnam
because they have decided that technically it was not a war,
presumably?

The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

No, they lost it militarily as well.

The United States did not suffer a military defeat in Vietnam. The American
military was the supreme force in Vietnam. Just look at the kill ratios.

The US withdrew because the politicians were unwilling to commit to doing
what was needed to totally defeat the enemy.

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:17:04 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

So is a dose of gonorrhea especially if you have to take a **** but
that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Much of the comments in this thread are based on experiential evidence, thus I
assume you have experienced this sensation as you describe it. I really don't
know, nor want to know that sensation.

Much of the comments in this thread are based delusional canuckleheads
with a huge inferiority complex brought on by having to live in the
shadow of our greatness as the sole superpower.

Not true confession time on my part, BUT I sincerely hope you were/are cured of
the aforementioned gonorrhea if you did indeed have it.

Actually I never have had it but I suspect it might be less painful
than having to listen to all this pathetic whining by a bunch of
worthless moose ****ers who spend most of their time living in
Florida.

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:33:44 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:



Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 15:15:20 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:

Xomicron wrote:

The war in Iraq is virtually won. There's just some mopping up that needs
to be done. Most of the country is back on track and is happy with the
American effort. They are also enjoying their new found freedom.

You really need medical care. Mopping up?? It seems that a LOT of US soldiers
are dying in the on-going hostilities. All that is really happening is staunch
geurilla resistance.

Then the US will "win the war" and hand their stinky mess to the UN to "solve"
along with peacekeepers from canada and other nations.

So you're suggesting instead the US maintain control in Iraq? How do
you think the Iraqi government is going greet your suggestion?

The US won't "win"

Really? Where is Saddam? Where are the Sunni thugs who ruled that
country with an iron fist? Who makes up the new Iraqi government and
what are their goals? How many newspapers are now being published in
Baghdad free of censorship? How many women make up that new governing
council? How many young girls are for the first time going to school
in Iraq? How is it that Iraq now has more social infrastructure in
place than it ever did under Saddam? I understand you're mad. Rabid
dogs get mad. What I don't understand is your ignorance and your
willingness to spread it all over the world via the usenet.

You caused it all. You fix it if you can. You are so good at fixing things. Like Vietnam. Maybe you can bring back all your dead and maimed
boys and the millions of Vietnamese as well.

You sure as **** didn't win anything there!




and will hand over the stinking mess they started (with their invasion) for someone else to deal with while at the same
time extolling their mattra "WE won the war!! WE won the war!! What revisionistic bull****.

Your superpower does not have the ability to create peace, just to "win" by killing all opposition and flattening the country. Kinda like
the German Panzer division did when they opened up on the Polish Calvary at the beginning of WW II. Even though they overran Poland they
had nothing but trouble for the rest of the "war". Then the Germans were defeated. The US won't win the peace offensive because they do
NOT have the capability. If they did have that capability why do they pass off the destroyed countryside to someone else AND ask them to
get involved in the peace process.

You need to look more closely at WW2 history. The two countries who
were the chief architects of WW2 - Germany and Japan were both leveled
by the United States and both rebuilt via the Marshal Plan into first
world countries by the same United States of America.

You're such a dope you must be Canadian.

---
Poor gay "nick" the stupid fat homo wishes he hadn't written the following solicitation for gay sex.

*****
Posted 17 July 2002: Hi I'm Nick, 42 genuine solvent gay guy
looking for Arab guys top or bottom between the ages of 21 -
38. I live in a South Wales coastal town can accommodate any
time. E-mail me at nick nick
*****

Nick the Fat Homo Declares He's a BI Bottom with New Gay Sex Ad.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ut put=gplain

From: "nick"
Newsgroups: alt.personals.homosexual
Subject: bi guy seeks fun in chilterns area
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:43:41 +0100
Organization: Webplus NEWS server
Lines: 4
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: m531-mp1.cvx3-c.bre.dial.ntli.net
X-Trace: news.wplus.net 1085506599 45344 62.255.106.19 (25 May 2004
17:36:39 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:36:39 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165

Str8 looking bi-guy seeks top, must be able to accommodate, for
discreet no strings fun. Email nick.mercedes AT ntlworld.com

****

Jesus ****ing Christ, Nick! Use a anonymous nym and throwaway email addy you stupid fat homo.

----

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 09:05:05 +0100, "nick" wrote
his limp wristed surrender:

I don't have to prove anything, you obsess over me, I don't care about
you...

Xomicron wrote:


The United States did not lose the Vietnam militarily. They lost it
politically.

According to most Americans, you didn't lose the War of 1812 either.

The US didn't lose the War of 1812.

Sure you did. The US declared war on Britain and invaded Canada, but were
unsuccessful. After several attempts to achieve their objective they gave
up. So I guess your idea of a victory in that conflict, like Vietnam, is
gathering up your troops and running home.

Xomicron wrote:




The United States did not suffer a military defeat in Vietnam. The American
military was the supreme force in Vietnam. Just look at the kill ratios.

Look at the kill ration between the Germans and the Russians in WW II. By your
standards, Germany must have won that one. For a better idea of who won a
war, just look at whose flag is flying in Vietnam.

The US withdrew because the politicians were unwilling to commit to doing
what was needed to totally defeat the enemy.

Okay. They failed to defeat the enemy. How does that translate to a voctory?

Xomicron wrote in message ...

No, it isn't, but yours is from a well known homosexual.

Funny...I never met your father.

The US has the potential to be, but we prefer to use up everyone
else's oil first.

Bull****...the War on Iraq was just as much about oil as it was
about redrawing the Middle Eastern map and regime change. I guess
Alberta's 175 billion barrels reserves should ignore the US market
then, and concentrate on the growing energy demands of places like
China and India, since the US has the potential to be. After all,
Alberta doesn't need to find customers for oil. There is more
than enough willing customers to buy her black gold.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn14774.htm
http://www.targetoil.com/article.php?id=12
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/May/05252...ness/59728.asp
http://www.progress.org/archive/energy07.htm
http://www.mideastfacts.com/ususesirqoil.html

That onlt happened because the kook environmentalists opposed
the building of new power plants.

You're wrong. The Sierra Club wanted to modernize older plants
or replace them with newer ones. Come back to talk when you
stop fibbing. I know you can't help it because you jerk off
to pictures of Dubya's mom.
http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/energy/myths_facts.asp

A brief refresher:

All Canadians are arrogant pigs.

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:17:04 -0500, Ken Pisichko wrote:

Ken Ehrett wrote:

So is a dose of gonorrhea especially if you have to take a **** but
that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Much of the comments in this thread are based on experiential evidence,

Which explains your " Off your meds again? " and " You need medical
care." comments.

Oh? My previous comment about the "meds" referred to meds for psychological/psychotic behavious that you seemed to be exhibiting by your
commentary. Thus the additional commentary about "medical care". AFAIK, gonorrhea requires a totally different type of "meds" - specific
anti-biotics as well as a different type of medical care. Both conditions can be treated at the same time if you need such treatments
concurrently.