Free Republic

Oh, and by the way, Canberra will in the end support whatever the US does, just as it would have done if Kim Beazley were PM and not Howard.

This guy knows his politics.... LOL

One of the least likely outcomes is some anti-U.S. coalition organized to oppose us. I can't imagine any Western governments actually acting to resist us over Iraq.

I wasn't talking about any kind of anti-U.S. coalition organised to support Iraq in the upcoming war. I was talking about after the war and i'm not talking months after the war but years and decades. I think its quite possible that many nations will form alliances and pacts (formal and informal) to contain the U.S. History shows that weaker nations form pacts to counter the stronger nations (U.S. this time round). The question is who will be with who?

link?

The resistance of these countries has been much noticed by our media, in a pathetic attempt to undermine domestic support for the president. What seems to be going unnoticed, however, is the tremendous stick the U.S. wields. U.S. unilateral action would be a disaster for the S.C. Such flagrant contempt for the U.N., deliberately displayed while all the world was watching, would be a crushing blow to what little prestige the body retains. Furthermore, were America to become so exasperated as to leave the S.C. behind the U.N. would forfeit any prospect of influencing our future activities. This possibility must seem especially alarming to the U.N.

The U.N coming crashing down if the U.S. acts unilaterally wtih perhaps Britain, Australia and Canada? Interesting. But have you thought of the flip side? What if every other nation becomes so tired and threatened of U.S. unilateralism and their "big stick" that they decide to form alliances and the like to counter the U.S?

Anyway, its gonna be interesting watching all the manouvering (sp) of the major players in the next couple of days/weeks.

This was sent to me in an email. I found it very entertaining.

(Start email) These are from a book called Disorder in the Court. These are things people actually said in court, word for word,taken down and now published by court reporters - who had the torment of staying calm while these exchanges were actually taking place. Some of these are excellent - don't miss the last one.

Q: What is your date of birth?
A: July fifteenth.
Q: What year?
A: Every year.

Q: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
A: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.

Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget. Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?

Q: How old is your son, the one living with you?
A: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
Q: How long has he lived with you?
A: Forty-five years.

Q: What was the first thing your husband said to you when he woke up that morning?
A: He said, "Where am I, Cathy?"
Q: And why did that upset you?
A: My name is Susan.

Q: Do you know if your daughter has ever been involved in voodoo or the occult?
A: We both do.
Q: Voodoo?
A: We do.
Q: You do?
A: Yes, voodoo.

Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?

Q. The youngest son, the twenty-year old, how old is he?

Q: Were you present when your picture was taken?

Q: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?

Q: She had three children, right?
A: Yes.
Q: How many were boys?
A: None.
Q: Were there any girls?

Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?

Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male, or a female?

Q. Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
A: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.

Q: Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A: All my autopsies are performed on dead people.

Q: All your responses must be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
A: Oral.

Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.

Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, never the less?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere. (end email)

LOL!!!! Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

LAW: "Screech"-ing your tires can be punished by imprisonment.

If you think this is bad or strange, in Australia (Melbourne and Sydney) you can have your car permanently confiscated if you are caught two or three times (not sure which) "Screeching" your wheels from a standstill...

hopefully they'll kill each other.

The Cyrillic alphabet devised by St. Cyril in the 10th century for the Slavs

It was the 9th century actually.

If you have a problem with that,then i wish we could meet face to face 'mate'.

Hehe..... Well said mate.

As for the stupid "gun control" we have here, I'd really like to know how many registered gun owners actually shoot/threaten other people. Criminals don't register their guns and they do the crimes so whats the point of having "gun control" for law abiding citizens? Stupidity!!!

If you place your faith in the "saving graces of Western materialism", you're prone to all sorts of errors in judgment.

Such as not realizing that perhaps a deal is too good to be true.

Agreed.

But is everything else I said what the article is attempting to state or did i read it wrong?

refering to the article you have linked to. I want to clarify some things.

Russia is actually strong but is feining weakness, correct?
The bombing of Kosovo was setup by Moscow, correct?
The war in Chechnya is staged, correct?

And by the West ignoring/missing these things, the West is full of idiots.

Is that what the piece is stating?

Overall aid far exceeds $20 billion, BUT over two decades not in one year. As A.Pole said, you can't consider loans as aid. It has to be repaid.

Oops... I stuffed this. Here it is again.

Overall aid far exceeds $20 billion, BUT over two decades not in one year. As A.Pole said, you can't consider loans as aid. It has to be repaid. Thus, it isn't even $20 billion.

http://www.afpc.org/faa/faa20.htm

Controversial figures. The Clinton administration has reported to Congress that the aid funds obligated to Russia total about $4 billion. However, administration figures fail to take into account the planned $12 billion cash buyout of Russian fissile material over the next two decades, and the exposure of U.S. tax dollars totaling the country's share of support for multilateral lending through the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and other organizations (some Russian leaders are doubtful the money will ever be repaid). Overall, U.S. aid commitments far exceed $20 billion.

Overall aid far exceeds $20 billion, BUT over two decades not in one year. As A.Pole said, you can't consider loans as aid. It has to be repaid.

In any case I always thought Israel recieved the greatest amount of aid from the U.S and as far as i know that was around $2 Billion (could be wrong with the figure though). So I don't see how Russia could be getting $25 billion.

Ping

Do you have some info on the amount of US aid to Russia?

I'd say 25 billion from 1992-Now might be realistic (not sure though), and that is accounting for all types of "reform".

The Iraqis took equipment that was crap!

Ahh yes..... I believe they did recieve the monkey models. But I was refering to South Korea not Iraq. If as you imply they are stupid enough to take equipment that is crap, then a logical assumption is that the equipment they have from the U.S is also crap. The fact remains that the T-80 tanks they are recieving (unless these are monkey models also) are better than the tanks they currently field.

BTW, what is and isn't substandard is relative.

First off, the article doesn't tell us much about which variant of the T-80 they are recieving. So its hard to make a properly informed judgement.

Why would you want to buy/take in exchange arms which are clearly substandard?

Because they are better than the ones they already have. They currently field the M-48 (which rolled into service in the U.S in 1953!!) although it is upgraded, and the K1 (indigenous)whos competitors are the T-72 and Germany's Mark 3, they are developing a K1A1 but they have yet to start serial production of them and they are also having difficulty with the 120mm gun as opposed to the K1's 105 mm gun.

I've read that they already have T-80's but i'm unsure if this is true and in what quantity. Either way, the T-80 is more capable than any of their tanks they currently field. So while it is sub standard compared to the new stuff it is still capable.

As for the other equipment, I couldn't say. Still, they're aren't stupid and wouldn't take the equipment if it was crap.

Ask NATO! NATO Detains 19 in Kosovo Amid Macedonia Warnings/NATO Troops Detain 'Armed Extremists' in Kosovo

They'll probably be let go after a few days. Smugglers or Terrorists would be a better question.

You did NOT refute the article, ergo, one could rightly or wrongly assume that you agreed with it; entirely. This is especially true, due to the nature of your statement that this was an interesting article.

Ahhhh... Finally!!!! That's all I was looking for. I just wanted to see your reasoning for assuming this. Since I didn't know about this whole refute the article business (BTW, not everyone here does it), I was shocked when people were making assumptions based on something I hadn't said. I'll know for next time. As for finding it interesting, I guess i should have clarified that further.

Being called a " sleeper ", is in no way an insult !

Alright. I felt insulted as I interpeted this to mean I was a liberal greenie trying to infiltrate this site (the term "sleeper cell" kept poping into my head). I hate Liberals/Greenies. I hope you can understand this. And yes I've seen the other insults being thrown around.

As for the amount I've read on FR. I've been lurking for quite some time before I signed up. Many people do not clearly state their position. Thus, I didn't think I had to. Oh well. I see your points. I just wish you said that in the first place.

some statesz allow Muslim women to have only their eyes showing, for drivers' and ID shots?

WTF???? Who made that idiotic decision? And which states are these?

BTW nopardons. I'm happily posting away......