ScottSA

Every Friday......but sometimes thr Butter Chicken is calling, hmm, or maybe the Roti place next door smells wonderful of jerk pork.....decisions ...decisions, What would we do without these wonderful people? Not worry about being alternately blown up or mugged?

1. What do they know about them? 2. How do you know they know? 3. Do they know what 332-2 means? 4. What proof do you have to support your contention? +++++++++++++++++++++++++ ANYWAY, the point remains that the abandoned box itself may easily have gone unnoticed for quite a long time. You're just being silly. I worked there. My IQ is over 10. Ergo I know exactly what the sticker says, what it means, and why I shouldn't open it. I assume that they also fullfill those criteria, even being Liberals, so they ought also know it. What "proof" do you require?

France had over 400,000 military and civilian dead in WW2 and that doesn't include Jews deported to extermination camps. Germany's population was 69.6 million at the time. France's was 41.7 million. Wonder why they were underdogs? The French did finally throw the British out of France by force. Napoleon won quite a few battles. Certainly more than he lost and those he lost to allied armies. During the Revolutionary wars the French were fighting most of the rest of Europe's monarchies all at once. In spite of that and in spite of some defeats, France is still a republic. It's easy to be critical when your nearest enemy is on the other side of an ocean, not the other side of a field. I'm still waiting to hear about a war the French actually won without help. I'm sure those Frenchmen are snortingly mean hombres, and it's good I'm sure that they are over there and not here, but really...there must be one war they fought since 1066 that they won without someone trotting along to help them?

Because I like being a slave to the Star Chamber of the United Council of Jew Bankers and assorted Elders of Zion? It's fun, and you get to learn the neato secret handshakes!

Indeed.

You simply coming along and SAYING it was clear won't change the facts. The label was yellow printed with black lettering. A scrawl on it in black marker indicated nothing but a short string of numbers in the destination area. It takes a fantastical or notably biased imagination to construe that as 'clear'. Anyone who has ever worked on the hill knows all about those labels, since they show up after every election everywhere through the halls. Anyone who doesn't know what they mean is too stupid to be there.

Why?

What a ridiculous thread. So chock full of euphemisms, political correctness and people falling all over themselves to prove either their victimhood or pious "openmindedness" that it makes me want to puke. If "racism" isn't an inate element of the human condition, it's as close to it as damn is to swearing. Any first year course in psychology will make clear that people like people who are like themselves, and any salesperson worth their salt will agree. It's not an "ideology" or a failing on anyone's part, and anyone who claims they are not in some way racist is a baldfaced liar. It's ridiculous to try to "root it out" or warp human beings into some idiotic form of slavish conformity, and it's hardly astonishing when an east indian is searched at an airport, because he may well be a Pakistani Muslim, and Muslims blow things up. That's why we have Chinatowns and Little Pakistans and "Afro-Canadian" ghettos. That's why people don't integrate when the numerical threshold of a given racial population is attained. That's why Canada is destined, because of floodgate immigration, to become a Balkanized series of racially seperate enclaves. It's well on its way there now, and all the nice sounding platitudes about "multiculturalism", "vibrancy" and "diversity" won't change a thing.

Perhaps we should revive some of the old ways. I'm all for driving herds of buffalo over cliffs so I can cull a few yummy buffalo livers. I suppose the evil white man will put me in jail if I start a forest fire so I can grow corn, or enslave Andrew so he can chase tonight's dinner for me, but man, I'm sure looking forward to a life expectancy of a couple decades or so less than I am now, unless I inhaled too much sweetgrass smoke during the last sweathovel or whatever they call those things where everyone goes in a cramped room and stinks for a while with hot stones for company. Hot and cold running water? Electricity? Beer? Who needs it? Oh, wait, beer? Oh well. Give me a traditional 50 cal so I can hunt, throw nets so I can fish, and a stone scalping knife so I can...well pare a bit of pate for decorative purposes on the doorway of my hide hovel. Ah, the good old days when we knew how to take care of nature. No hospitals to fill landfills with bloody bandages, no sewage systems to pump filth into treatment plants, no corporations so treaty wergeld can be paid. Over population? No problem...just depopulate the next village. Bad harvest? No problem, just starve.

It will be worth it for the wonderful curry and naan. Lovely avoidance.

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking... Go to google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky". In fact, try it on google itself too, just to be perfectly clear. ......the halting of German troops moving on Paris comes to mind...inmspite of google bombs I'm still trying to think of "a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066".

"We" refers to the collective of the allied forces. Canada was a member of the allies in both the Pacific and the European theatres. And I don't think America has admitted to owning you. I know I wouldn't. I will say anything I damned well want to Woody.

It's nice that they feel proud of abject routes, but it would be nicer still if they could feel proud about actually winning some of those battles. I'm not sure there's a lot to be proud of about staring over the walls of Paris at Prussian Hussars surrounding the city, or giving the Nazi salute to the Vichy government. I'm trying to think of a French victory obtained all by themselves since 1066...hmmmm...still thinking... Go to google and type in "French military victories", then hit "I'm feeling lucky". In fact, try it on google itself too, just to be perfectly clear.

The US still does as far as I know. We are talking about the US, right? Or is Canada worrying about an exit strategy in Iraq too?

And women in the western world were only given the right to vote only about 6 decades ago. There is still a mentality in many western cultures that the MAN is the MAN, and women are secondary. So if you think that Islam needs growing up, so does the rest of the world in order to help with the growing. It takes a long time for change in a society. Unless some outside force decides to say what is what. And well history shows us how that plays out. So, the moral equivalency meme is stooping to these depths? Western civilization is no different from a civilization which bags it's female chattel and stones them to death for being raped because generations ago women didn't have the vote in the west? Are you serious?

I don't suppose anyone remembers the "exit strategy" for Japan and Germany either, eh? Why, come to think of it, we're still there, or were until very recently. Why isn't the same angst being emoted over that particular lack of an "exit strategy"? I guess the Werewolves got tired of blowing things up after they realized that the allies weren't going anywhere.

He might have also told Israel that they might fight a war and not actually gain their soldiers freedom and in the end might have to trade prisoners. This is something they are routinely have had to do. I don't think anyone claimed Harper was the Oracle of Delphi. Besides, I think Israel did it for the comedic value of presenting to the world the vision of a beturbaned Islamic redneck declaring victory from atop a pile of rubble formerly known as Hezbollah Headquarters.

Future book by Dion: "Liberals are no Laughing Matter, Really: How I Singlehandedly Evolved a National Party into a National Laughingstock", or "Afghans Ahoy for Global Warming and Equality"

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear. Did you claim that blockades are not an act of war? You're wrong, surprise surprise. Blockades are an act of war always and everywhere. That is a fact not up for interpretive claptrap by lefties who don't know what they are talking about. It is enshrined in Intl Law under both the Treaty of Paris and the Declaration of London. "Casus belli" is obviously used as a subjective by you, because blockades, as a legally recognized act of war, are always a casus belli. Just because someone doesn't start firing guns at a blockading force doesn't mean it's not an act of war on the part of the blockading force. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade Figleaf is on of those who argue that Israel started the six day war by launching an unwarranted preemptive attack. Figleaf argues that the only grounds for war is being overrun by your enemies and driven into the sea....well, at least for the jews.....other nations may have more leeway. Yeah, he is no doubt among those who thought the recent war against Hezbollah was "disproportionate" because the Jews didn't fire a shot and then sit back and wait for a return volley like a game of badminton.

Obviously, you cannot be refering to me, because when you and I discussed the act of war question of blockades, YOUR OWN SOURCES showed that blockades were not rated as casus belli at the relevant time. If you don't recall that, I urge you to review the relevant thread, wherein it was abundantly clear. Did you claim that blockades are not an act of war? You're wrong, surprise surprise. Blockades are an act of war always and everywhere. That is a fact not up for interpretive claptrap by lefties who don't know what they are talking about. It is enshrined in Intl Law under both the Treaty of Paris and the Declaration of London. "Casus belli" is obviously used as a subjective by you, because blockades, as a legally recognized act of war, are always a casus belli. Just because someone doesn't start firing guns at a blockading force doesn't mean it's not an act of war on the part of the blockading force. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015678/blockade

So Woody, you're in favor of pulling out and leaving the Iraqis to their own murderous devices? That's fine, but let's not hear any more sobbing about the plight of the poor Iraqis. Obviously you don't care. The best thing that could happen to them would be to be colonized all over again to see whether teaching them table manners sticks the second time around.

What solution do you propose to cases where one person's conduct costs another person their resources, health, comfort, or opportunities? Do what about it? Beat him up? Do you really think people should be allowed to defame eachother without consequence? Why did I know you'd be the one to defend tattling lawsuits?

And this is the typical lame argument we get when kumquats try to argue but find that they can't remember their name much less respond with a point.

Israel had a much better armed and trained force, attacking with the advantage of surprise. Winning under those conditions was the expectation, not a great triumph. Nonsense. It was quite close at times. It's fun being an armchair general in hindsight, isn't it?

My culture believes we should pluck the eyeballs out of moral relativists. Is this cultural moray ok with you? When can you visit for your introduction to comparitive culture? Utter hogwash. What other way should we find to "deal" with it? How about getting off the fence and saying that killing civilians is wrong, period. Who cares what their "culture" says about it? It's wrong. They are wrong. Who is civilian and who is the military, that is the bigger question. The military could be that innocent kid who is walking by a check-pint with a basket of fruits or vegetables, but when this child gets close enough they detonate a bomb that is contained in the basket, the purpose of which is to kill as many people as possible. The civilians/soldiers look like everyone else. Because they do not dress in military garb does not mean that they are not enemy soldiers. This is not a conventional war where you can tell who is who by the uniforms they wear, so unfortunately many declared civilian casualties are in reality combatants. I agree with you. I should have said "intentionally" killing civilians is wrong.