Bush and his 'Bunch of Liars'

[Puke]

Dowding, come off it...I'm talking all knights, chivalric and non-chivalric alike.  So I use the term "knight."  I bet you I can look in the dictionary and find the word "knight" all alone and by itself.  I bet you I can even check out a book about knights and the adjective "chivalrous" doesn't precede "knight" 99% of the time.

Just like there were various types of knights, there were various types of cowboys too.  Some had great power and held large tracts of land and ran large ranching operations with many people working below him.  Ahhh, a land-owner...this sounds somewhat like a knight!  Some even belonged to the "ruling elite" for their region too!  Oh my, I think we do have a similarity here.  Some even upheld the laws of their nation and seeked out criminals and ruffians.  I still don't see the term Chivalric Cowboy being derogatory.  

Man, why do I get wrapped up into these stupid topics.  Someone wants to debate cowboys and knights.

[Martlet]

I must admit i was surprised you stuck with that argument for so long.

[Puke]

Terminology
The terms are often confused, and often needlessly distinguished. The term knighthood comes from the English word knight (from Old English cniht, boy, servant, cf. German Knecht) while chivalry comes from the French chevalerie, from chevalier or knight (Low Latin caballus for horse). In modern English, chivalry means the ideals, virtues, or characteristics of knights. The phrases "orders of chivalry" and "orders of knighthood" are essentially synonymous.

Martlet, 'cause I'm bored and cannot sleep tonight.  Maybe I'm really not making sense, it's 3:15 a.m. here.  

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Puke
Oh, and I do greatly respect all of you who can read/speak more than one language.  

Hungarian stopped in my family with my grandmother.

Her She and her sisters and brothers never taught my mother and their kids how to speak it because they felt it to be a better way for the kids to assimilate into this country.  

My mother is somewhat upset about it and as I get older I kinda wished wish (mixed tense) it had been passed down and I had some grasp of the language.  

My respects to you!

 


Sorry couldn't resist

[Toad]

[AKIron]

A cowboy could whip any knights bellybutton in a hurry. In fact, I bet most could whip 6 knights at once.

[blitz]

Originally posted by blitz
We can't just say Bush & crew are a 'Bunch of Liars' as they told already about a year ago that they will force a war with Iraq 'With the UN or without them' ......



They only tried to hide behind UN and abuse it after they decided long ago to go for their very own targets.

They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.

A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.

There's no UN resolution now or in the past to back that.

This is no defence war its an 'Angriffskrieg'!

Bush wants to get rid of an old buddy who was at least as bad  when supportet by the USA as he is now. He killed 125000 iranian soldiers with the WMDs, which components were sold by western countries such as Germany, USA, France.
US didn't care about his WMD use at that time.
Even more suspicious they blocked an UN resolution to condemn Irak at that time for WMD use.

This war is fought for other main reasons as freedom and democrazy of Iraq people.
If it wasn't only for propaganda reasons what  US government told us about the democratic future of Kuwait before the last gulf war they had forced the 'liberated' Kuwait to got rid of their repression regime within the last 10 years.
Same goes for the democratic regimes of Pakistan and Egypt, still your bigtime friends.

This war isn't fought because Iraq has anything to do with Al Queida because their isn't the slidest proof of that.

This war isn't fought mainly for oil, but oil is 1 of the reasons or do you really think USA would go there if they had only sandclocks to sell?

The main reasons for me is Paul Wolfowitz stategy paper out of the late 80ties.

Time has come to gain much more power in this world for the neoconservative falkons in the white house.

Will that be good or bad for the world? Nobody knows.
But history shows that absolute power corrupts pretty well.
It's always good to have a competition to have some balance.
After the end of the cold war there is a power vacuum and the Rumbsfelds and Wolfowitzs of the US government try to use it for their benefit.

The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them.
As i see it, the 3000 innocent victimes are abused by the very right political spectrum of the USA. American people are kept in fear and panic by an irresponsible government. Shame on them.

I hope Saddam Hussein leaves his country to avoid a war and  to save his miserable live.
If not i hope  this war is over very quick and there are only a few people  to die on both sides.

This war can be horrible for iraq people.

This war is a politicall desaster for the world.




........What we can say though is: ' Bush and his warmongers are a Bunch of Blackmailers'


Imho Blitz


There aren't 'Soft Targets' , it's people you are killing.

'Collateral Dammage' :which idiot invented that phrase? It's women, children and old men who will be teared apart.


America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

[Shuckins]

I find it somewhat amusing that European diplomats are giving us advice on how to avoid a conflict with Iraq.  Their track record in that regards hasn't exactly been crowned with success.

Bemused, Shuckins

[MotorOil]

Originally posted by sling322
Um...that would be the UN I believe.  I seem to recall that Stormin' Norman wanted to keep going and cut the head off the snake in Baghdad, but the UN wouldnt let him.  

My, my...its amazing how much people forget in 12 years.  Only when its convenient to them though.

Your recollection seems to be a little clouded.  Stormin Norman allowed a large portion of the Iraqi army to escape to prevent slaughtering them.  Whether this was a mistake or on purpose, makes no difference.  No political head gave any direction to Norm as he accepted the surrender.  He chose the terms.  It was a bad surrender deal for the UN and good for Sadam.  He would have given up his first born to stay in power however, that and a lot more were never asked for by Norm or the UN.  Kuwait was liberated, that was the primary objective.  Politically, it was seen as immoral to continue the slaughter to Baghdad.  Images of the highway of death were being broadcast and Bush didn't want to loose public opinion.  Sure Norm wanted to go all the way, his hands were tied and the fact remains it was he who accepted the surrender.

Funny how the facts remain through 12 years and they are there to conveniently look at.  

[blitz]

Originally posted by Shuckins
I find it somewhat amusing that European diplomats are giving us advice on how to avoid a conflict with Iraq.  Their track record in that regards hasn't exactly been crowned with success.

Bemused, Shuckins

Nobody asked ya to avoid a conflict with them, all we asked for was to avoid a bloody war.


Regards Blitz



America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain ridiculous

[Puke]

McGroin,  Yeah, yeah, you got me.  Normally, me do bester with my english when I'm not fightering insomnia at 3 a.m.

[Eaglecz]

Blitz is right about Shuckins


ohh well their propaganda is working well

[blitz]

Originally posted by blitz
We can't just say Bush & crew are a 'Bunch of Liars' as they told already about a year ago that they will force a war with Iraq 'With the UN or without them' ......



They only tried to hide behind UN and abuse it after they decided long ago to go for their very own targets.

They failed miserably politically and now they use their military force to reach very questionable political goals.

A sovereign country is attacked by a superpower to change their political regime by violence.

There's no UN resolution now or in the past to back that.

This is no defence war its an 'Angriffskrieg'!

Bush wants to get rid of an old buddy who was at least as bad  when supportet by the USA as he is now. He killed 125000 iranian soldiers with the WMDs, which components were sold by western countries such as Germany, USA, France.
US didn't care about his WMD use at that time.
Even more suspicious they blocked an UN resolution to condemn Irak at that time for WMD use.

This war is fought for other main reasons as freedom and democrazy of Iraq people.
If it wasn't only for propaganda reasons what  US government told us about the democratic future of Kuwait before the last gulf war they had forced the 'liberated' Kuwait to got rid of their repression regime within the last 10 years.
Same goes for the democratic regimes of Pakistan and Egypt, still your bigtime friends.

This war isn't fought because Iraq has anything to do with Al Queida because their isn't the slidest proof of that.

This war isn't fought mainly for oil, but oil is 1 of the reasons or do you really think USA would go there if they had only sandclocks to sell?

The main reasons for me is Paul Wolfowitz stategy paper out of the late 80ties.

Time has come to gain much more power in this world for the neoconservative falkons in the white house.

Will that be good or bad for the world? Nobody knows.
But history shows that ´power corrupts pretty well.
It's always good to have a competition to have some balance.
After the end of the cold war there is a power vacuum and the Rumbsfelds and Wolfowitzs of the US government try to use it for their benefit.

The criminal attack on the WTC just came in handy for them.
As i see it, the 3000 innocent victimes are abused by the very right political spectrum of the USA. American people are kept in fear and panic by an irresponsible government. Shame on them.

I hope Saddam Hussein leaves his country to avoid a war and  to save his miserable live.
If not i hope  this war is over very quick and there are only a few people  to die on both sides.

This war can be horrible for iraq people.

This war is a political desaster for the world.




........What we can say though is: ' Bush and his warmongers are a Bunch of Blackmailers'


Imho Blitz


There aren't 'Soft Targets' , it's people you are killing.

'Collateral Dammage' :which idiot invented that phrase? It's women, children and old men who will be teared apart.


America is threatened by Iraq in no way, it's just plain rediculous

Even more true. With embedded reprters,we got: Propagada ministry now



Regards Blitz



America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic  'Angriffskrieg'

[Hangtime]

Dowding, i'll certainly agree, Straffo has maintined a civility i havew been unable to achieve... but it's not frenchmen dying in iraq. Frankly, civil or not, Straffo has nothing to defend. frances position is indefensible.

Nobody asked ya to avoid a conflict with them, all we asked for was to avoid a bloody war.

Blitz, yer dripping p u s s y moans and wails are kinda pointless.. this 'war' is the most bloodless war in history. more folks died in car accidents today than war deaths in iraq this week. get a grip man.

[blitz]

Originally posted by Hangtime
Dowding, i'll certainly agree, Straffo has maintined a civility i havew been unable to achieve... but it's not frenchmen dying in iraq. Frankly, civil or not, Straffo has nothing to defend. frances position is indefensible.

 

Blitz, yer dripping p u s s y moans and wails are kinda pointless.. this 'war' is the most bloodless war in history. more folks died in car accidents today than war deaths in iraq this week. get a grip man.

Yeah, right now, but ya playin va banque ......

And: This war is illegal as ya know.

You guys are the agressor this time, not the russians...



Regards Blitz




America was threatened by Iraq in no way , it was just plain ridiculous, it's a classic  'Angriffskrieg'