> wrote:

> In article >, (Geoff
> Miller) wrote:
>
> > *From:* (Geoff Miller)
> > *Date:* 1 Jun 2006 08:47:39 -0700
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark Nobles > writes:
> >
> > : Oh? What ignorance? What history are you alluding to? So what
> > : country was *ever* more dominant than America is now, then?
> > : Name one. One!
> >
> > > 1. The Achaemenid Empire
> >
> > Ghod, I hate spiders...
> >
> > > 2. Macedonia
> > > 3. Rome
> > > 4. Mongol Empire
> >
> >
> > None of those empires was more dominant than America is today.
> > I'm not talking about conquest and garrisoning of distant lands,
> > but of influence in all its forms. Just consider, for example,
> > all the whining about American "cultural imperialism" and "cul-
> > tural hegemony" from the Middle East to Latin America to Asia.
> > Even the people who profess to hate us love our Levi's and our
> > Coca-Cola.
>
> The Romans, at least, had a huge cultural influence beyond their
> immediate borders in their own time and indeed right down to our time.
> (Look at your own Supreme Court, or half the words in your paragraph!)
>
Exactly. The influence of all these great empires extended far beyond
their borders, and not just to the nearby nations that paid them
tribute to escape their military might.

And they all exhibited a degree of hubris that led to their downfall.

And Goeff, please learn to handle attributions properly. You have not
maintained a single line of attributions. Are you doing this on purpose
as part of your act? Nobody could mess it up as badly as you do by
accident.

"shawn" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:15:12 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk >
> wrote:
>
>>in article , Ken from Chicago
>>at
wrote on 6/1/06 8:15 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> "shawn" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 29 May 2006 14:09:30 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> in article , Ophelia
>>>>> at
>>>>> wrote on 5/29/06 1:38 PM:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "allan connochie" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> Like you I prefer fish and can safely say I've never tried a mars
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> LOL nor have I
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not even a Veronica Mars?
>>>>
>>>> She's too young.. Now Kristen Bell on the hand....
>>>
>>> Nice to see some people show restraint even with 18-year-olds.
>>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago (who doesn't think VM would do those FHMaxim mags)
>>>
>>>
>>If they were willing to pay her Stanford tuition? You bet she would.
>
>
> Is it wrong that I'm getting an image of Kristen Bell doing one of
> those "buffet of manliness" candy bar commercials?

What commercials are those? Are they worse than that FHMaxim mag photo
spread she did?

-- Ken from Chicago

Mark Nobles > writes:

> Exactly. The influence of all these great empires extended far beyond
> their borders, and not just to the nearby nations that paid them
> tribute to escape their military might.

But not as much as America has today. Like I said, they were influ-
ential in their day, but they couldn't hold a candle to us.


> And they all exhibited a degree of hubris that led to their downfall.

Therefore all empires will exhibit the same flaw?

Not that the U.S. is an empire, contrary to popular assertion. Leftists
love to play the "all empires fall, and America will, too" card. But it
doesn't apply to America.

Countries with empires seize and hold territory and integrate the terri-
tories' economies into that of the mother country. While we've done
occupations, we've gotten out of them as soon as doing so was practicable.
We've never held onto any more land in foreign countries than we've needed
to bury our dead. Having military strength and cultural reach isn't the
same as having an empire.


> And Goeff, please learn to handle attributions properly. You have not
> maintained a single line of attributions.

Bullshit. I've been attributing every post to which I've followed up.
For example, take a gander at the very first line of this post -- the
one which reads:

Mark Nobles > writes:

Now what is that, if not an attribution? And an accurate one, at that?


> Are you doing this on purpose as part of your act? Nobody could mess
> it up as badly as you do by accident.

What are you talking about? Are you so bereft of cogent arguments that
you're reduced to making stuff up out of thin air?



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:26:24 -0500, Pan Ohco >
wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 08:49:13 -0700, Hatunen wrote:
>
>
>>>Considering how we helped get Europe and Japan back on their feet after
>>>the last Big One -- which we had no part in starting, by the way --
>>
>>The war with Japan was a direct result of our oil embargo, which
>>some would consider a prelimary act of war. God knows the US has
>>gone to war to protect its oil supply.
>>
>And the embargo, could have not been, to stop the rape of China by the
>japanese?

And should it have been?


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Geoff Miller wrote:
> The Reid > writes:
>
> > Following up to Geoff Miller
>
> : I'm a moron for speaking the truth?
>
> > no, for writing things like this, taking the immediately
> > following paragraph:-
>
> : Maybe we have more in common than you realize. You leftists
> : like "speaking truth to power." For my part, I like speaking
> : truth to anti-American wankstains.
>
> So why does that make me a moron? In the absence of elaboration
> on your part, calling me a moron is just hollow namecalling.
>
>
> > things that point you up as a moron in that one paragraph would
> > be assuming "leftist" and using it as some sort of insult,
>
> Being a leftist *is* an insult in my book. And I note that you don't
> deny being one; you only cry foul at my (justified) assumption as a
> diversionary ploy. You leftists make such a fetish of obfuscation
> and disingenuousness...
>
>
> > and inability to maintain civility.
>
> This, coming from the guy who, without provocation, called me an
> idiot in his previous follow-up.
>
>
> > There are also many errors of fact in your posts.
>
> Which I note that you failed to enumerate and rebut.
>
>
> > Bye.
>
> It's so typical leftists, when they find themselves on the losing
> end of an argument, to cry foul at some point of order or feign
> offense at some innocuous turn of phrase, and then use that as a
> pretext for cutting and running...all the while declaring victory
> in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
>
> Say, is it true that Mickey Mouse wears a Tony Blair watch?
>
>
>
> Geoff-- another brainwashed-by-the-media dupe of the Bush ruling class.

On 1 Jun 2006 08:04:32 -0700, (Geoff Miller)
wrote:

>
>
>Dave Frightens Me > writes:
>
>: Being the Hyperpower means never having to say we're sorry.
>
>> The fact you spend time thinking about that just shows your true
>> colours.
>
>
>Where did you ever get this silly idea that and my countrymen
>should spend even the briefest of moments caring what you think
>of us?
>
>(The word is spelled -- not "spelt" -- "colors," by the way.)

*plonk*
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

(Geoff Miller) wrote in
:


>
>> Must *I* have to remind you of the numerous times in Afghanistan that
>> Australian SpecFor troops have pulled your guys out of the shit??
>
> You apparently must, because I don't recall ever having heard about
> them.
>

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...362429514.html

is one story, here's some more.......

http://tinyurl.com/qawdt


>
> That's where you're wrong, dingo-breath. Few up here paid your
> country and its population of convict-descendants any mind until Paul
> Hogan came along and Australia got its 15 minutes in the limelight.
> Until then, I'd almost forget your country existed until I happened to
> see the odd Quantus jet at SFO every now and again.


And yet we (Australians) consistantly keep dragging you (Yanks) out of
the shit.

But we don't sit around crowing about it telling everyone that our shit
doesn't stink. That would make us look like dickheads.........

Opps!! Sorry........ didn't mean to offend you.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia

'Enjoy today, it was paid for by a veteran'

Geoff Miller > wrote:

> Mark Nobles > writes:
>
....
> > And they all exhibited a degree of hubris that led to their downfall.
>
> Therefore all empires will exhibit the same flaw?

History has never produced a single counterexample. Every great nation
has been reduced eventually. While past performance is not a guarantee
of future performance, it is a pretty good indicator.
>
> Not that the U.S. is an empire, contrary to popular assertion. Leftists
> love to play the "all empires fall, and America will, too" card. But it
> doesn't apply to America.
>
> Countries with empires seize and hold territory and integrate the terri-
> tories' economies into that of the mother country. While we've done
> occupations, we've gotten out of them as soon as doing so was practicable.


Gosh, I wonder if the Cherokee and Seminole and Iroquois Nations would
agree with that assertion?

> We've never held onto any more land in foreign countries than we've needed
> to bury our dead. Having military strength and cultural reach isn't the
> same as having an empire.

Yes, you got something right. But US power doesn't rest on military or
cultural strength, it is economic strength. The weakness of empire is
that nations become dependent on wealth being imported from the
colonies to the motherland. The US has been different in that we have
produced enough wealth internally that we have not become dependent,
and have, in fact, been sharing the wealth.

But another weakness of successful nations is military. In growing,
succeeding periods, the military is a high-status calling for the best
and the brightest of the society, and a path into a better life for the
lower classes. As a nation becomes rich and successful, the military
loses its appeal to the upper classes. Since it remains a path to
improvement for the lower classes, the military comes to be dominated
by them. This, in turn, leads to a drastic turnover in who has the
power and the leadership of the country. Another word for turnover is
revolution. Look at our military today. Do you see it being led by
Kennedys or Bushs or McCains? Instead, we have a Powell. What does that
mean for the future?
>
>
> > And Goeff, please learn to handle attributions properly. You have not
> > maintained a single line of attributions.
>
> Bullshit. I've been attributing every post to which I've followed up.
> For example, take a gander at the very first line of this post -- the
> one which reads:
>
> Mark Nobles > writes:
>
> Now what is that, if not an attribution? And an accurate one, at that?

Yes, you managed to do it right on this one post. Hurray for you!
>
>
> > Are you doing this on purpose as part of your act? Nobody could mess
> > it up as badly as you do by accident.
>
> What are you talking about? Are you so bereft of cogent arguments that
> you're reduced to making stuff up out of thin air?

Go back and examine all your previous posts.

Hatunen > wrote:

> Pan Ohco wrote:
> >Hatunen wrote:
> >>
> >>The war with Japan was a direct result of our oil embargo, which
> >>some would consider a prelimary act of war. God knows the US has
> >>gone to war to protect its oil supply.
> >>
> >And the embargo, could have not been, to stop the rape of China by the
> >japanese?
>
> And should it have been?

Yes. And an embargo is not an act of war but of diplomacy.

"shawn" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:15:12 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk >
(snip)
>
> Is it wrong that I'm getting an image of Kristen Bell doing one of
> those "buffet of manliness" candy bar commercials?
Those commercials creep me out. Talking to your food is fine, but having it
talk to you, and then you bite its head off, is just wrong, somehow.

aem sends...

"shawn" > wrote in message
news
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 13:52:31 -0500, "Ken from Chicago"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"shawn" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 10:15:12 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>
>>> Is it wrong that I'm getting an image of Kristen Bell doing one of
>>> those "buffet of manliness" candy bar commercials?
>>
>>What commercials are those? Are they worse than that FHMaxim mag photo
>>spread she did?
>>
>
> You've missed those commercials for the Milky Way candy bar? (Should
> have been a Mars bar.)
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHV9_tAr1o
>

Eeeew! He bit her head off! Gross.

-- Ken from Chicago

In article >, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

> *From:* (Geoff Miller)
> *Date:* 1 Jun 2006 12:23:12 -0700
>
>
>
> Mark Nobles > writes:
>
> > Exactly. The influence of all these great empires extended far beyond
> > their borders, and not just to the nearby nations that paid them
> > tribute to escape their military might.
>
> But not as much as America has today. Like I said, they were influ-
> ential in their day, but they couldn't hold a candle to us.

The British doubtless said that about the Romans, and the Romans about the
Achaemenids, and so ad infinitum - at any given time the current holder of
the 'most powerful nation to date' title is likely to have many apparent
advantages (in particular, better technology) over its predecessors.

But why do you suppose that in another 200 or 300 years there won't be
another empire - I won't hazard a guess as to where it will originate from
- saying "the Americans were influential in their day, but they couldn't
hold a candle to us"?

----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as .

graham > writes:

> You poor fellow! Your knuckles must be really sore from
> dragging them on the ground all the time.


But my fingers sure smell good from being up your mother.

Care for a sniff?




Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

~* Magda ~* <> writes:

> Not only you took your sweet time to come to "help" Europe,

So let the other shoe drop: When do you think we should've gotten
involved, and why? Germany declared war on the U.S. the day after
Pearl Harbor was bombed, and that strikes me as a reasonable time
for American involvement in the European war to have begun.

Of course, we'd been supplying munitions to Britain for some time
before that. Didn't know that, did you? In fact, a U.S. Coast
Guard cutter on convoy escort duty even rammed and sank a U-boat
during that period.

You know, it's funny: these days we get raked over the coals pretty
mercilessly for intervention. But here you are, saying that we
didn't get involved soon enough. You encapsulate the incoherent,
contradictory, and fundamentally irrational attitude of much of
the world toward the U.S.

We just can't win for losing, can we? Personally, I think we should
tell the Europeons [sic] to go **** themselves the next time they
find themselves in trouble, but that's just me.


> but in 60+ years you have never missed an opportunity to tell
> the world that you "helped". So much for cultural maturity...

Cultural maturity, or the lack of same, has nought to do with it.
Such reminders wouldn't have been necessary if Europe hadn't
descended into whiny, irrational anti-Americanism.

'Course, _European_ culture is so mature that it managed to get us
all into two world wars...



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

> writes:

> The Romans, at least, had a huge cultural influence beyond their
> immediate borders in their own time and indeed right down to our time.
> (Look at your own Supreme Court, or half the words in your paragraph!)


I never claimed that the Romans didn't have a huge cultural influence.
My point is that America has a *greater* cultural influence even than
Rome did. Think about that the next time you eat at a McDonald's in
Tokyo or Beijing or Moscow.



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

Pan Ohco > wrote:

>> A nd the embargo, could have not been, to stop the rape
>> of China by the japanese?


Hatunen > responds:

> And should it have been?


Thanks for showing your true colors. You're so determined
to find fault with America that you imply the rape of China
by Japan would've been preferable to any American efforts
to try and stop it. You're a beautiful human being, Dave;
a real Mother Theresa at heart.

Why do you hate your country so?



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

Dave Frightens Me > writes:

: Where did you ever get this silly idea that and my countrymen
: should spend even the briefest of moments caring what you think
: of us?

: (The word is spelled -- not "spelt" -- "colors," by the way.)

> *plonk*


Hee hee! It's the mating call of the sore loser!



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

> writes:

: But not as much as America has today. Like I said, they were influ-
: ential in their day, but they couldn't hold a candle to us.

> The British doubtless said that about the Romans, and the Romans about
> the Achaemenids, and so ad infinitum - at any given time the current
> holder of the 'most powerful nation to date' title is likely to have
> many apparent advantages (in particular, better technology) over its
> predecessors.

Well, sure. But contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, the
fact that others have said something before doesn't _ipso facto_ mean
that those who are saying it now are wrong.


> But why do you suppose that in another 200 or 300 years there won't
> be another empire - I won't hazard a guess as to where it will orig-
> inate from - saying "the Americans were influential in their day, but
> they couldn't hold a candle to us"?

There probably will be. Then again, how do you figure that refutes my
point about America relative to the Romans, the Mongols et al.?

In any case, I don't know how we got off onto a tangent about empires
and comparisons between America and those earlier civilizations.
America has enormous influence in the world today, but as I've pointed
out in previous posts, it isn't an empire. We have no colonies or
vassal states, and when we defeat an adversary, the only land we ask
for is what's necessary for burying our dead.



Geoff

--
"Yep, ain't it a shame? Here we stand, with our Cokes, our
Beavis-n-Buttheads and our carrier battlegroups. We rule.
You suck." -- Ken Strayhorn

In article >, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

> *From:* (Geoff Miller)
> *Date:* 2 Jun 2006 07:06:28 -0700
>
>
>
> > writes:
>
> > The Romans, at least, had a huge cultural influence beyond their
> > immediate borders in their own time and indeed right down to our
> > time. (Look at your own Supreme Court, or half the words in your
> > paragraph!)
>
>
> I never claimed that the Romans didn't have a huge cultural influence.
> My point is that America has a *greater* cultural influence even than
> Rome did. Think about that the next time you eat at a McDonald's in
> Tokyo or Beijing or Moscow.

In terms of geographical spread, I probably agree. In terms of /depth/ of
influence, I'm not so sure - partly because a lot of American cultural
influence is in fact a recycling, a re-exporting if you like, of other
cultures (and naturally so, given the country's comparative newness and
history of massive immigration - I'm not suggesting this is a problem).

Of course, Rome reflected other cultures back at themselves too, but I
would suggest not to such a great extent - I would suggest for example
that there was less of Gaul absorbed into Roman culture and then
re-exported to Gaul than there is of English culture absorbed into the
American and then reflected back at Britain.

This then becomes a discussion about what is echt-American, of
course...how long before someone mentions deep-dish pizza?!

----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as .

In article >, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

> *From:* (Geoff Miller)
> *Date:* 2 Jun 2006 07:51:12 -0700
>
>
>
> > writes:
>
> : But not as much as America has today. Like I said, they were influ-
> : ential in their day, but they couldn't hold a candle to us.
>
> > The British doubtless said that about the Romans, and the Romans about
> > the Achaemenids, and so ad infinitum - at any given time the current
> > holder of the 'most powerful nation to date' title is likely to have
> > many apparent advantages (in particular, better technology) over its
> > predecessors.
>
> Well, sure. But contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, the
> fact that others have said something before doesn't _ipso facto_ mean
> that those who are saying it now are wrong.

Quite true - although I'd suggest that in most respects history is more
likely to (broadly) repeat itself than otherwise.

> > But why do you suppose that in another 200 or 300 years there won't
> > be another empire - I won't hazard a guess as to where it will orig-
> > inate from - saying "the Americans were influential in their day, but
> > they couldn't hold a candle to us"?
>
> There probably will be. Then again, how do you figure that refutes my
> point about America relative to the Romans, the Mongols et al.?

It doesn't. What it does is address your point that "We're the most
dominant nation in the history of the planet" - not by saying it's untrue,
but by suggesting it's not really all that important an achievement in the
long term, and certainly doesn't imply American exceptionalism.

> In any case, I don't know how we got off onto a tangent about empires
> and comparisons between America and those earlier civilizations.
> America has enormous influence in the world today, but as I've pointed
> out in previous posts, it isn't an empire.

But you have also granted in previous posts that it has many of the
economic and cultural attributes of an empire. (Not necessarily a bad
thing, not necessarily a good one either.)

----------------------------------------------
The poster formerly known as .

On 2 Jun 2006 07:26:11 -0700, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

>Pan Ohco > wrote:
>
>>> A nd the embargo, could have not been, to stop the rape
>>> of China by the japanese?
>
>Hatunen > responds:
>
>> And should it have been?
>
>Thanks for showing your true colors. You're so determined
>to find fault with America that you imply the rape of China
>by Japan would've been preferable to any American efforts
>to try and stop it. You're a beautiful human being, Dave;
>a real Mother Theresa at heart.
>
>Why do you hate your country so?

I enlisted in the US Army when I was 23; what was your military
duty?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen > writes:

: Why do you hate your country so?

> I enlisted in the US Army when I was 23; what was your military
> duty?


Do you always answer a question with a question?

What does your (or my) military duty have to do with the question
I asked?



Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

On 2 Jun 2006 09:05:10 -0700, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

>
>
>Hatunen > writes:
>
>: Why do you hate your country so?
>
>> I enlisted in the US Army when I was 23; what was your military
>> duty?
>
>
>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>
>What does your (or my) military duty have to do with the question
>I asked?

You asked why I hated nmy country so; obviously, I don't.

Do you love your coutnry? What have you done for it?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The > Mike Reid
>> Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this
>> site
>> Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all,
>> it's a spamtrap
>
> chiascurro - perfect!
> Loved them all!
> Dee Dee

Those are nice. Landscape pictures rock.

-- Ken from Chicago

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 20:09:14 +0100, Dave Frightens Me
> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:17:32 -0700, Hatunen > wrote:
>
>>On 2 Jun 2006 09:05:10 -0700, (Geoff
>>Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hatunen > writes:
>>>
>>>: Why do you hate your country so?
>>>
>>>> I enlisted in the US Army when I was 23; what was your military
>>>> duty?
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>>>
>>>What does your (or my) military duty have to do with the question
>>>I asked?
>>
>>You asked why I hated nmy country so; obviously, I don't.
>>
>>Do you love your coutnry? What have you done for it?
>
>Disregarding the troll, why should you have to do something for your
>country to feel proud?

Itt's not a question of pride; it's a question of his right to
impugn me.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message ...
>
> Pan Ohco > wrote:
>
> >> A nd the embargo, could have not been, to stop the rape
> >> of China by the japanese?
>
>
> Hatunen > responds:
>
> > And should it have been?
>
>
> Thanks for showing your true colors. You're so determined
> to find fault with America that you imply the rape of China
> by Japan would've been preferable to any American efforts
> to try and stop it. You're a beautiful human being, Dave;
> a real Mother Theresa at heart.
>
> Why do you hate your country so?

You should address that question to the current Republican
leadership in D.C., who for the last six years have been busy
selling America down the river to the Chinese:
http://www2.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec03/195898.asp

Hatunen > writes:

: What does your (or my) military duty have to do with the
: question I asked?

> You asked why I hated nmy country so; obviously, I don't.

No, it isn't obvious at all. You could've joined the Army for
any number of reasons, among them the education benefits, bore-
dom, or just not knowing what else to do with your life at the
time. Lots of people join the military for those reasons and
others, none of them necessarily having anything to do with a
love of their country.


> Do you love your coutnry? What have you done for it?

Nice attempt at diversion. My patriotism isn't at issue; yours
is.

Getting back to the matter at hand, why are you so determined to
cast your country in a bad light that you fault it for instituting
an oil embargo in order to stop the rape of China by the Japanese?
In the absence of anything to the contrary, I can only conclude
that it's because you despise America. Your evasiveness supports
that interpretation. So does the fact that leftists, many of whom
hate America, often tend to be evasive and disingenuous about their
motives (e.g., Michael Moore saying that he didn't care about pol-
itical statements, but just wanted to make movies.)

(I served over five years in the Coast Guard, by the way -- which
is probably longer than you served in the Army.)



Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

Jack F. Twist wrote:
> "Geoff Miller" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > Pan Ohco > wrote:
> >
> > >> A nd the embargo, could have not been, to stop the rape
> > >> of China by the japanese?
> >
> >
> > Hatunen > responds:
> >
> > > And should it have been?
> >
> >
> > Thanks for showing your true colors. You're so determined
> > to find fault with America that you imply the rape of China
> > by Japan would've been preferable to any American efforts
> > to try and stop it. You're a beautiful human being, Dave;
> > a real Mother Theresa at heart.
> >
> > Why do you hate your country so?
>
> You should address that question to the current Republican
> leadership in D.C., who for the last six years have been busy
> selling America down the river to the Chinese:
> http://www2.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec03/195898.asp

or the Saudis

On 01 Jun 2006 23:42:58 GMT, PeterL wrote:

(Geoff Miller) wrote in
:
>
>
>>
>>> Must *I* have to remind you of the numerous times in Afghanistan that
>>> Australian SpecFor troops have pulled your guys out of the shit??
>>
>> You apparently must, because I don't recall ever having heard about
>> them.
>>
>
>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/...362429514.html

This shows a metal award to a true australian hero, but where on this
page is the part about him pulling the americans out of shit?
> is one story, here's some more.......
>
>http://tinyurl.com/qawdt

More stories of Australian heros, I am sure that there are many.
But where are the stories of them pulling the Americans out of shit.
Being allied nations, there will always be time where one nation will
save the bacon of other nations soldiers. But true hero don't mention
it.
>

>And yet we (Australians) consistantly keep dragging you (Yanks) out of
>the shit.
>
>But we don't sit around crowing about it telling everyone that our shit
>doesn't stink. That would make us look like dickheads.........

And the above statements aren't you "crowing"?

>Opps!! Sorry........ didn't mean to offend you.

I hope you didn't offend your self.

Oh and by the way U.S.Navy 1958 to1962.
All though this doesn't make me a hero.
--
Pan Ohco
I would like to see the bottom of my monitor, but I have cats.

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:17:32 -0700, Hatunen > wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2006 09:05:10 -0700, (Geoff
>Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Hatunen > writes:
>>
>>: Why do you hate your country so?
>>
>>> I enlisted in the US Army when I was 23; what was your military
>>> duty?
>>
>>
>>Do you always answer a question with a question?
>>
>>What does your (or my) military duty have to do with the question
>>I asked?
>
>You asked why I hated nmy country so; obviously, I don't.
>
>Do you love your coutnry? What have you done for it?

Disregarding the troll, why should you have to do something for your
country to feel proud?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Hatunen > writes:

> Itt's not a question of pride; it's a question of his right to
> impugn me.


I have every right to impugn you. Having that right doesn't
hinge on my also having served in the military, either -- since
as we've seen, serving in the military isn't, in itself, proof
of patriotism.

Besides, as of this writing you've said nothing that's dissuaded
me from believe that you despise your own country. All you've
offered by way of a response is a weak diversionary ploy.



Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

Jack F. Twist > writes:

: Why do you hate your country so?

> You should address that question to the current Republican
> leadership in D.C., who for the last six years have been busy
> selling America down the river to the Chinese:
> http://www2.jsonline.com/bym/news/dec03/195898.asp


"B-but...*they* do it, too!"

What does that have to do with Dave Hatunen's apparent hatred
of the U.S.?

(Why do leftists have so much trouble staying on topic? You
people are incoherent, all over the friggin' map. I've seen
this time and again. I'd say it's the result of the same
intellectual slovenliness that caused you to become leftists
in the first place.)



Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

On 2 Jun 2006 12:16:33 -0700, (Geoff
Miller) wrote:

>
>
>Hatunen > writes:
>
>> Itt's not a question of pride; it's a question of his right to
>> impugn me.
>
>
>I have every right to impugn you. Having that right doesn't
>hinge on my also having served in the military, either -- since
>as we've seen, serving in the military isn't, in itself, proof
>of patriotism.

Nor is challenging people you don't even know.

>Besides, as of this writing you've said nothing that's dissuaded
>me from believe that you despise your own country. All you've
>offered by way of a response is a weak diversionary ploy.

*plonk*

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:15:50 +0100, Dave Frightens Me
> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:38:57 -0700, Hatunen > wrote:
>
>>On 2 Jun 2006 12:16:33 -0700, (Geoff
>>Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Hatunen > writes:
>>>
>>>> Itt's not a question of pride; it's a question of his right to
>>>> impugn me.
>>>
>>>
>>>I have every right to impugn you. Having that right doesn't
>>>hinge on my also having served in the military, either -- since
>>>as we've seen, serving in the military isn't, in itself, proof
>>>of patriotism.
>>
>>Nor is challenging people you don't even know.
>>
>>>Besides, as of this writing you've said nothing that's dissuaded
>>>me from believe that you despise your own country. All you've
>>>offered by way of a response is a weak diversionary ploy.
>>
>>*plonk*
>
>Dave, I know you don't like to interact in this stuff, but does it
>really bother you when this shit comes out?

Stupidity always bothers me.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

[posted and mailed]


Hatunen > writes:

: I have every right to impugn you. Having that right doesn't
: hinge on my also having served in the military, either -- since
: as we've seen, serving in the military isn't, in itself, proof
: of patriotism.

> Nor is challenging people you don't even know.

Then again, I never claimed that it was, now did I?

If you don't want to be challenged, then Usenet is a rather odd
place to find you, I daresay.

And if you believe it's wrong to challenge people you don't
even know, then why did you challenge _me_, you hypocrite?


: Besides, as of this writing you've said nothing that's dissuaded
: me from believing that you despise your own country. All you've
: offered by way of a response is a weak diversionary ploy.

> *plonk*

Again, we're treated to the mating call of the sore loser.

You know, Dave, you never did deny that you despise your country.
The words just wouldn't come, would they? What I don't understand
is why, if you feel so justified in this, that you're reluctant to
admit to it. If it's such a principled position to take, then why
can't you be honest and up-front about it?

Okay, folks, move along. There's nothing to see here.



Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

"Geoff Miller" > wrote in message ...
>
> limey > sniffs:
>
> [my ENTIRE POST quoted]
>
> > And here, ladies and gentlemen, you see a prime example of
> > the "Ugly American", known and loved the world over.
>
>
> That's the beauty of it: the world doesn't _have_ to like us.
> It only has to fear us.
>
> Being the Hyperpower means never having to say we're sorry.

Hyperpower? More delusional rhetoric from last century.

America leads the world in only four things these days: murder
rates, prison population rates, capital punishment rates and
military adventurism. Even in GDP per capita we're currently
sixth in the world:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2004rank.html

Jack F. Twist > writes:

> Hyperpower? More delusional rhetoric from last century.

Oh? Do you know who cointed the term and applied it to the
U.S.? French President Blacque Jacque Chirac. And do you
know when he did so? In _this_ century.


> America leads the world in only four things these days: murder
> rates, prison population rates, capital punishment rates and
> military adventurism. Even in GDP per capita we're currently
> sixth in the world:
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/.../2004rank.html

We lead the world in cultural influence and military might. Compared
to those things, everything else pales into insignificance.

Why do you hate your country, Jack?




Geoff

--
"They shouldn't get any new nuclear weapons until
they've used the ones they've got." -- Murff

Jack F. Twist wrote:

> America leads the world in only four things these days: murder
> rates,

Iraq and Chechnya beat us cleanly-I suspect Russia does too


> prison population rates,

Which could be cured by higher.......

> capital punishment rates and


> military adventurism.

Hey-W is bored-what else can he do?

We have the best Mexican food!

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:38:57 -0700, Hatunen > wrote:

>On 2 Jun 2006 12:16:33 -0700, (Geoff
>Miller) wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Hatunen > writes:
>>
>>> Itt's not a question of pride; it's a question of his right to
>>> impugn me.
>>
>>
>>I have every right to impugn you. Having that right doesn't
>>hinge on my also having served in the military, either -- since
>>as we've seen, serving in the military isn't, in itself, proof
>>of patriotism.
>
>Nor is challenging people you don't even know.
>
>>Besides, as of this writing you've said nothing that's dissuaded
>>me from believe that you despise your own country. All you've
>>offered by way of a response is a weak diversionary ploy.
>
>*plonk*

Dave, I know you don't like to interact in this stuff, but does it
really bother you when this shit comes out?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:15:48 -0700, Hatunen > wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:15:50 +0100, Dave Frightens Me
> wrote:
>

>>Dave, I know you don't like to interact in this stuff, but does it
>>really bother you when this shit comes out?
>
>Stupidity always bothers me.

But you visit HERE! ;o)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--