On 9/27/2015 6:52 AM, Janet wrote:
> Gary wrote
>
>> Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>> interest in USA politics.
>
> Here's the explanation for parochial dunces;
>
> As the USA never tires of telling the world it's the richest and most
> powerful nation on earth.

And the Unfree Kingdom never tires of gnashing their collective yellow
teeth and remembering it was the USA that saved them from speaking German.

> Therefore it matters to the rest of the world what kind of idiots/
> crooks Americans elect to run the most powerful country on earth.

Because you _always_ need to have Team America Global Cop to save your
useless Euro bacon.

>> Maybe they should focus more on their own counties elections.
>
> Oh, we do. We just don't bother discussing them with parochial dunces.
>
> Janet UK

You servile serfs genuflect to a "royal" ****, like the cowed beefwits
we always know you to be.

EAT SHIT AND DIE BIOTCH!


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:03 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> In article >, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>>> interest in USA politics. Maybe they should focus more on their own
>>> counties elections.
>>
>> They take interest because we are no longer a reliable partner to their
>> well being. We're a joke. That international feeling has become
>> prevalent only since the start of the current administration.
>
> Whoa, NO. GWB was the US President who cooked your goose. (It beggars
> belief there are still Americans who don't understand that)
>
> Janet UK
>

You stupid servile Unfree ****!

You have NO ****ing clue what you;re babbling about, biotch.

**** OFF AND DROP DAMNED DEAD!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:08 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:34:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:32:03 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>>> Janet B wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:56:07 -0300, wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> Well oddly enough, I didn't despise his father, he had the good sense
>>>>> to know when to quit in Iraq. GWB though, confused by talk of WOMD
>>>>> and with oil people pushing him, made a grievous error and I put 9/10s
>>>>> of the blame for the current state of the mid-east at his door.
>>>>
>>>> absolutely.
>>>
>>> Do you know why Bush senior didn't invade Iraq then? His intentions
>>> were to kick them out of Kuwait and the allied countries agreed to
>>> that. If he had pushed right into Iraq, friendly countries would have
>>> turned on him. Personally, I think he should have kept going but he
>>> did the right thing then as far as maintaining relations with the
>>> other countries over there. He did what was approved and no more.
>>>
>>> I put 9/10s of the blame for the current state of the mid-east on all
>>> the nutcases in charge over there.
>>
>> Bush Jr may have handled things wrong, but if those Arabs had an ounce
>> of civilisation in them and weren't such religious fanatics, the
>> Middle East wouldn't be the mess it is now.
>
> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
> democracy, it's much better"
>


Thanks to the U-****ing-K!

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/hol...ourdeclare.htm

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made
public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The
Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United
Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:16 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-27 8:32 AM, Gary wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you know why Bush senior didn't invade Iraq then? His intentions
>> were to kick them out of Kuwait and the allied countries agreed to
>> that. If he had pushed right into Iraq, friendly countries would have
>> turned on him. Personally, I think he should have kept going but he
>> did the right thing then as far as maintaining relations with the
>> other countries over there. He did what was approved and no more.
>
> That reminds me of my first exposure to Fox news and that idiot O'Reilly
> when I was on vacation in Colorado in 2002. He was yammering about how
> George Bush (the older and smarter one) screwed up royally by not going
> right into Baghdad.

Factual and accurate, the UN quashed that necessary house-cleaning.

> The UN resolution was aimed at getting Iraqi forces
> out of Kuwait. They had succeeded and the remnants of the Iraqi forces
> were scurrying back home.

Where they could return to oppressing their OWN people as usual.

> Iraq took a beating on that one, but there were other hazards in the
> region. Iraq and Iran were still at odds and it would have been
> counterproductive to completely shatter Iraqi defences and leave them
> exposed to an antagonistic Iran.

Oh boo ****ing hoo!

And what did Canuckistan do, as usual...NOTHING!

You gutless pukes!

>> I put 9/10s of the blame for the current state of the mid-east on all
>> the nutcases in charge over there.
>
> Them and the people who live there.

And the GODDAMEND BRITS who made this whole mess!

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/hol...ourdeclare.htm

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made
public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The
Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United
Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:22 AM, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 11:03 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> In article >, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>>>> interest in USA politics. Maybe they should focus more on their own
>>>> counties elections.
>>>
>>> They take interest because we are no longer a reliable partner to their
>>> well being. We're a joke. That international feeling has become
>>> prevalent only since the start of the current administration.
>>
>> Whoa, NO. GWB was the US President who cooked your goose. (It beggars
>> belief there are still Americans who don't understand that)
>>
>> Janet UK
>>
> They refuse to understand what is obvious to the rest of the world.
>


I'd relish a chance to mash your ****ing face in!


http://history1900s.about.com/cs/hol...ourdeclare.htm


The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made
public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The
Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United
Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:24 AM, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 11:08 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:34:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:32:03 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janet B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:56:07 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well oddly enough, I didn't despise his father, he had the good sense
>>>>>> to know when to quit in Iraq. GWB though, confused by talk of WOMD
>>>>>> and with oil people pushing him, made a grievous error and I put
>>>>>> 9/10s
>>>>>> of the blame for the current state of the mid-east at his door.
>>>>>
>>>>> absolutely.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know why Bush senior didn't invade Iraq then? His intentions
>>>> were to kick them out of Kuwait and the allied countries agreed to
>>>> that. If he had pushed right into Iraq, friendly countries would have
>>>> turned on him. Personally, I think he should have kept going but he
>>>> did the right thing then as far as maintaining relations with the
>>>> other countries over there. He did what was approved and no more.
>>>>
>>>> I put 9/10s of the blame for the current state of the mid-east on all
>>>> the nutcases in charge over there.
>>>
>>> Bush Jr may have handled things wrong, but if those Arabs had an ounce
>>> of civilisation in them and weren't such religious fanatics, the
>>> Middle East wouldn't be the mess it is now.
>>
>> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>> democracy, it's much better"
>>
> Indeed. For some people, even the concept of democracy is alien. I fear
> that the US has not learnt from the sins of its past.
>

Have YOU servile serfs learned from YOUR sins?

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/hol...ourdeclare.htm

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made
public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The
Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United
Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:40 AM, Xeno wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 11:31 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:21:23 +1000, Xeno >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/09/2015 10:14 PM, Gary wrote:
>>>> "Jeßus" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:10:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>>>>>> interest in USA politics. Maybe they should focus more on their own
>>>>>> counties elections.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason for that, Gary, is that the U.S involves itself in every
>>>>> other country in the world (whether they want it or not), so that
>>>>> basically your government is also our government, to some degree.
>>>>> Hence the 'foreigners' interest.
>>>>
>>>> OK. I do agree with you there. It's a fact that the US does often try
>>>> to manipulate other countries. Like supporting rebels trying to
>>>
>>> Often? Try 'all the bloody time!'
>>>
>>>> overthrow a valid govt, etc. I don't think it's all about supporting
>>>> big business though (those evil greedy republicans). It's more about
>>>> maintaining the status quo. If our country depends on some others
>>>> resource (like oil), we don't want some other party yanking that away
>>>> and messing up our economy. That's just survival tactics.
>>>
>>> So, rather than working 'with' the people of that independent country,
>>> the US seeks to 'control' that country. Yeah, I can see how that's
>>> worked out for you. Afghanistan and Iraq come readily to mind.
>>>>
>>>> Remember - under GWB, we invaded Iraq and took out Hussein. We didn't
>>>> claim their oil for our own. We turned it all over to hopefully better
>>>> ownership and we will still buy from them, not steal from them.
>>>>
>>> Turned it over to 'friendly ownership'... Lot of detail you left out
>>> there!
>>
>> One couldn't say Iraqis are far happier today with 'democracy'
>>
> If the truth be known, the harshness of the Hussein regime was what they
> needed to keep the peace. Certainly, under their current 'democracy',
> they have neither peace nor stability.
>
Because WE forgot the lessons of the Marshall plan and our Muzzie in
Chief turned tail, ran, and created a power void!

You worthless *******!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Janet wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote
>>
>> > Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>> > interest in USA politics.
>>
>> Here's the explanation for parochial dunces;
>
> First clue to losing an argument...start up the name calling. Carry on
> BlueRibbonLady.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 9/27/2015 8:21 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:17:21 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> One couldn't say Iraqis are far happier today with 'democracy'
>>
>> The people in the middle east will never be happy. Always fighting,
>> just like RFC.
>
> History shows they were happy in their fashion as very disparate
> tribes. Sure sometimes scuffles broke out, but nothing along the
> scale of what is happening now.

Until...

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/hol...ourdeclare.htm

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made
public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The
Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United
Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

> Democracy, which we regard as being
> the aim has it's big failures too but it is pointless to take tribal
> societies and think they will be happy and peaceful with democracy
> imposed upon them. Think about it.

No one "imposed" a Goddamned thing on them, bitch!

Their own refugees and expats crafted a new Constitution for them and
THEY voted on it - several times!

You lying ****!

> Reverse it, would we like
> tribalism imposed on us?

You stupid Canucks are fining out now, eh?

Enjoy your muzzie usurpers.

> Though sometimes with current politics I
> begin to wonder.

**** your bleeding arse straight to HELL!


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 8:42 AM, graham wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 7:08 AM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:34:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:32:03 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Janet B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:56:07 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well oddly enough, I didn't despise his father, he had the good sense
>>>>>> to know when to quit in Iraq. GWB though, confused by talk of WOMD
>>>>>> and with oil people pushing him, made a grievous error and I put
>>>>>> 9/10s
>>>>>> of the blame for the current state of the mid-east at his door.
>>>>>
>>>>> absolutely.
>>>>
>>>> Do you know why Bush senior didn't invade Iraq then? His intentions
>>>> were to kick them out of Kuwait and the allied countries agreed to
>>>> that. If he had pushed right into Iraq, friendly countries would have
>>>> turned on him. Personally, I think he should have kept going but he
>>>> did the right thing then as far as maintaining relations with the
>>>> other countries over there. He did what was approved and no more.
>>>>
>>>> I put 9/10s of the blame for the current state of the mid-east on all
>>>> the nutcases in charge over there.
>>>
>>> Bush Jr may have handled things wrong, but if those Arabs had an ounce
>>> of civilisation in them and weren't such religious fanatics, the
>>> Middle East wouldn't be the mess it is now.
>>
>> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>> democracy, it's much better"
>>
> Have you read: "Lawrence In Arabia"? If not, I recommend it highly.
>
> Graham

Nice work, Brit WHORES!


http://history1900s.about.com/cs/hol...ourdeclare.htm

The Balfour Declaration was a November 2, 1917 letter from British
Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Lord Rothschild that made
public the British support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The
Balfour Declaration led the League of Nations to entrust the United
Kingdom with the Palestine Mandate in 1922.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 9:03 AM, Gary wrote:
> Janet wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote
>>
>>> Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>>> interest in USA politics.
>>
>> Here's the explanation for parochial dunces;
>
> First clue to losing an argument...start up the name calling. Carry on
> BlueRibbonLady.
>

**** that rancid Brit **** straight to HELL!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 27/09/2015 10:49 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 09:41:44 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 27/09/2015 9:13 AM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:42:46 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 27/09/2015 7:08 AM, wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 22:34:56 +1000, Bruce > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:32:03 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Janet B wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 20:56:07 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well oddly enough, I didn't despise his father, he had the good sense
>>>>>>>>> to know when to quit in Iraq. GWB though, confused by talk of WOMD
>>>>>>>>> and with oil people pushing him, made a grievous error and I put 9/10s
>>>>>>>>> of the blame for the current state of the mid-east at his door.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> absolutely.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you know why Bush senior didn't invade Iraq then? His intentions
>>>>>>> were to kick them out of Kuwait and the allied countries agreed to
>>>>>>> that. If he had pushed right into Iraq, friendly countries would have
>>>>>>> turned on him. Personally, I think he should have kept going but he
>>>>>>> did the right thing then as far as maintaining relations with the
>>>>>>> other countries over there. He did what was approved and no more.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I put 9/10s of the blame for the current state of the mid-east on all
>>>>>>> the nutcases in charge over there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bush Jr may have handled things wrong, but if those Arabs had an ounce
>>>>>> of civilisation in them and weren't such religious fanatics, the
>>>>>> Middle East wouldn't be the mess it is now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>>>>> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>>>>> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>>>>> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>>>>> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>>>>> democracy, it's much better"
>>>>>
>>>> Have you read: "Lawrence In Arabia"? If not, I recommend it highly.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>> The movie is my second all time favourite - David Lean knew how to
>>> film so beautifully, thinking of the scene where he danced in the
>>> moonlight on the sand.
>>>
>> I think that it is the best movie ever made.
>> Note the "In". It's a book by Scott Anderson and you may be able to
>> still pick up a remaindered copy at Indigo. It'll make you re-assess T.E.L.
>> Graham
>
> I will put it on my list to look for at gutenburg - probably can
> download for free from there. Have read a couple of books about him a
> few years back, definitely an odd bird
>
His oddness after WW1 was almost certainly due to PTSD.
Graham

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:

> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>
> WHO saved you bacon, missy?

Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.

Cindy Hamilton

On 2015-09-27 2:48 PM, wrote:

> You could be right, I hadn't looked at it that way - of course back
> then they did not diagnose it as such, one suffered in silence. My
> fathers ship was blown to smithereens and he and a couple of others
> survived. They gave him a weeks leave then sent him off to command
> another ship. As as kid I remember him screaming in the night and my
> mother trying to explain it away to us. In later years he never
> mentioned the war and it is only in the last few years after an author
> contacted me and did a wonderful web site about him that so many
> things he said and did drop into place.


I remember hearing my father screaming in the night. It was passed off
as nightmares. I was always under the impression that he served his time
overseas in a ground crew, servicing Spitfires and Hurricanes. It was
not until 1968. 25 years after an incident and the expiry of his oath of
secrecy that an author came looking for him to get his story. It turned
out that he re-mustered to air crew and was a flight engineer (co-pilot)
in the Pathfinder Force and that his plane had been shot down. The rest
of the crew perished but he managed to bail out and evaded capture,
making it to neutral Sweden and then back to the UK. They sent him home
for a month, then back overseas for a short time, and then back to
Canada. He was not allowed to fly operational flights because of his
previous contacts with the Danish Resistance.

He spent the rest of the war as a flight instructor. While it was a
heck of a lot safer than bombing missions over Europe, they had a lot of
losses at flight school.

On 2015-09-27 3:18 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>>
>> WHO saved you bacon, missy?
>
> Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.
>
>

Yes indeed. The Soviet Union did do a lot of the fighting and are
responsible for a lot more German casualties than the western Allies.
However, I would suggest that they were the authors of their own
misfortune. The Soviets and the Nazis had a mutual non aggression pact
that allowed them to split up Poland and have their respective areas of
influence. It is doubtful that Hitler would have dared to violate the
Munich Agreement and risk war by invading Poland had they not been
assured that the Soviets would allow it. Then Hitler violated yet
another agreement and invaded Russia.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>>
>> WHO saved you bacon, missy?
>
>Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

20 millions' worth.

On 9/27/2015 1:18 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>>
>> WHO saved you bacon, missy?
>
> Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

LOL!

Who then proceeded to enslave half of Yurop...

Maybe the Brits would have preferred eating Borscht to porridge...

Face facts, the USA won 2 world wars, rebuilt 2 nations, etc...

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 1:35 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-27 3:18 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor
>> wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>>>
>>> WHO saved you bacon, missy?
>>
>> Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.
>>
>>
>
> Yes indeed. The Soviet Union did do a lot of the fighting and are
> responsible for a lot more German casualties than the western Allies.

More typical canucktarded little brother revisionism.

Without US power the war would have been LOST, PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> However, I would suggest

Bugger off, bully.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 2:31 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 15:35:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-09-27 3:18 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor wrote:
>>>> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>>>>
>>>> WHO saved you bacon, missy?
>>>
>>> Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes indeed. The Soviet Union did do a lot of the fighting and are
>> responsible for a lot more German casualties than the western Allies.
>> However, I would suggest that they were the authors of their own
>> misfortune. The Soviets and the Nazis had a mutual non aggression pact
>> that allowed them to split up Poland and have their respective areas of
>> influence. It is doubtful that Hitler would have dared to violate the
>> Munich Agreement and risk war by invading Poland had they not been
>> assured that the Soviets would allow it. Then Hitler violated yet
>> another agreement and invaded Russia.
>
> That was his mistake, to start fighting on too many fronts. I did see
> the original idiot was saying Europe would have been toast without the
> US, watched too many Hollywood movies I guess.
>

YOU are a Goddamned lying bitch!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 2:56 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 12:28:01 PM UTC-4, truth and honor wrote:
>>> On 9/27/2015 3:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>> You'd have preferred to be speaking German?
>>>
>>> WHO saved you bacon, missy?
>>
>> Quite a bit of the heavy lifting was done by the Soviet Union.
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> 20 millions' worth.
>

Enough to enslave almost all of Eastern Yurop, dumbass.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:08:48 -0300, wrote:

>I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>democracy, it's much better"

The big irony of course is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was
the direct result of Britain and U.S's interference in Iraq... because
Iraq nationalised their oil industry. Can't have *that* in a country
with a democratically elected government! So a coup was engineered and
the Shah (puppet of the west, mainly the CIA) was installed in power.
By the 1970's, the CIA was starting to engineer tensions in the region
by covertly arming and supporting Kurdish rebels, which has a terrible
story all of it's own.

From there, things went downhill, as well all know...

Is it any wonder we have the problems we face now, and that there is
so much resentment towards the west?

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:14:13 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:10:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> >Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>> >interest in USA politics. Maybe they should focus more on their own
>> >counties elections.
>>
>> The reason for that, Gary, is that the U.S involves itself in every
>> other country in the world (whether they want it or not), so that
>> basically your government is also our government, to some degree.
>> Hence the 'foreigners' interest.
>
>OK. I do agree with you there. It's a fact that the US does often try
>to manipulate other countries. Like supporting rebels trying to
>overthrow a valid govt, etc. I don't think it's all about supporting
>big business though (those evil greedy republicans). It's more about
>maintaining the status quo. If our country depends on some others
>resource (like oil), we don't want some other party yanking that away
>and messing up our economy. That's just survival tactics.

It's a complex mix - geopolitical, corporate and internal interests at
play.

By and large, it's done *far* more harm that good - the rise of
Islamic fundamentalism can be traced directly to the west's (U.S and
U.K - mainly the U.S) interference in Iran and arranging a coup,
replacing Iran's democratically elected government with the Shah -
because Iran nationalised their oil reserves, which ****ed off western
corporate interests. Everything went bad from thereon.

>Remember - under GWB, we invaded Iraq and took out Hussein. We didn't
>claim their oil for our own.

Not directly, no. The world community wouldn't have tolerated it
anyway.

>We turned it all over to hopefully better
>ownership and we will still buy from them, not steal from them.

You need to look further deeper into that, and further back in
history. Hussein was yet another one installed by the U.S to begin
with as well.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:31:23 -0300, wrote:


>One couldn't say Iraqis are far happier today with 'democracy'

Whenever one country interferes with another in the name of
'democracy'... a big red flag right there.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:17:21 -0400, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> One couldn't say Iraqis are far happier today with 'democracy'
>
>The people in the middle east will never be happy. Always fighting,
>just like RFC.

True, only their killfiles are more effective and permanent...

On 2015-09-27 5:41 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:08:48 -0300, wrote:
>
>> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>> democracy, it's much better"
>
> The big irony of course is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was
> the direct result of Britain and U.S's interference in Iraq... because
> Iraq nationalised their oil industry. Can't have *that* in a country
> with a democratically elected government! So a coup was engineered and
> the Shah (puppet of the west, mainly the CIA) was installed in power.
> By the 1970's, the CIA was starting to engineer tensions in the region
> by covertly arming and supporting Kurdish rebels, which has a terrible
> story all of it's own.
>
> From there, things went downhill, as well all know...

That was the start of a situation in Iran, but Afghanistan was a
different matter. The Soviets went in to prop up a leftist regime and to
fight an Islamic threat to itself. In that case, the US actively
supported Islamic insurgents, not realizing that once the money dried up
the country would implode and become an Islamist hotbed.

>
> Is it any wonder we have the problems we face now, and that there is
> so much resentment towards the west?
>

Who would have expected that?

On 27/09/2015 1:29 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-09-27 2:48 PM, wrote:
>
>> You could be right, I hadn't looked at it that way - of course back
>> then they did not diagnose it as such, one suffered in silence. My
>> fathers ship was blown to smithereens and he and a couple of others
>> survived. They gave him a weeks leave then sent him off to command
>> another ship. As as kid I remember him screaming in the night and my
>> mother trying to explain it away to us. In later years he never
>> mentioned the war and it is only in the last few years after an author
>> contacted me and did a wonderful web site about him that so many
>> things he said and did drop into place.
>
>
> I remember hearing my father screaming in the night. It was passed off
> as nightmares. I was always under the impression that he served his time
> overseas in a ground crew, servicing Spitfires and Hurricanes. It was
> not until 1968. 25 years after an incident and the expiry of his oath of
> secrecy that an author came looking for him to get his story. It turned
> out that he re-mustered to air crew and was a flight engineer (co-pilot)
> in the Pathfinder Force and that his plane had been shot down. The rest
> of the crew perished but he managed to bail out and evaded capture,
> making it to neutral Sweden and then back to the UK. They sent him home
> for a month, then back overseas for a short time, and then back to
> Canada. He was not allowed to fly operational flights because of his
> previous contacts with the Danish Resistance.
>
> He spent the rest of the war as a flight instructor. While it was a
> heck of a lot safer than bombing missions over Europe, they had a lot of
> losses at flight school.
>
>
Guy Gibson, who led the Dam Busters, was only about 25yrs old when he
did that. Can you imagine anyone of that age doing something so
incredible these days?
Graham

On 2015-09-27 6:06 PM, graham wrote:
> On 27/09/2015 1:29 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-09-27 2:48 PM, wrote:
>>
>>> You could be right, I hadn't looked at it that way - of course back
>>> then they did not diagnose it as such, one suffered in silence. My
>>> fathers ship was blown to smithereens and he and a couple of others
>>> survived. They gave him a weeks leave then sent him off to command
>>> another ship. As as kid I remember him screaming in the night and my
>>> mother trying to explain it away to us. In later years he never
>>> mentioned the war and it is only in the last few years after an author
>>> contacted me and did a wonderful web site about him that so many
>>> things he said and did drop into place.
>>
>>
>> I remember hearing my father screaming in the night. It was passed off
>> as nightmares. I was always under the impression that he served his time
>> overseas in a ground crew, servicing Spitfires and Hurricanes. It was
>> not until 1968. 25 years after an incident and the expiry of his oath of
>> secrecy that an author came looking for him to get his story. It turned
>> out that he re-mustered to air crew and was a flight engineer (co-pilot)
>> in the Pathfinder Force and that his plane had been shot down. The rest
>> of the crew perished but he managed to bail out and evaded capture,
>> making it to neutral Sweden and then back to the UK. They sent him home
>> for a month, then back overseas for a short time, and then back to
>> Canada. He was not allowed to fly operational flights because of his
>> previous contacts with the Danish Resistance.
>>
>> He spent the rest of the war as a flight instructor. While it was a
>> heck of a lot safer than bombing missions over Europe, they had a lot of
>> losses at flight school.
>>
>>
> Guy Gibson, who led the Dam Busters, was only about 25yrs old when he
> did that. Can you imagine anyone of that age doing something so
> incredible these days?


My father knew Guy Gibson, and most of the rest of the dambusters.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:31:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>"Jeßus" wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>> >No matter who is our president here, I will always honor the office
>> >that he was elected to.
>
>You don't have to like the person but you should treat them with
>respect when duly elected to that office.

I would agree with that, if the office itself still had genuine
credibility. As far as I am concerned, the U.S hasn't had a
legitimately elected president since 1963.

>> That is just moronic. At least these days it is and has been for
>> the past 52 years.
>
>Math equates to.... you think Kennedy was a great president?

I think he was a genuinely elected president who at least had a mind
of his own and wasn't overly influenced or controlled by interests in
the background. It matters not in regards to this discussion whether
he was a great president or not.

>Oh man you are so clueless. Kennedy was a loose cannon.

Ahh, yes he was indeed... only I wouldn't describe him in those terms.

Funny how 'democracy' is such a flexible thing in the U.S.
A democratically elected president of the United States is a 'loose
cannon' (euphemism for we don't agree with him)... so let's take him
out. Democracy at work!

>I believe to this day that it was our own government that
>took him out. And his little brother too the next election.
>Messed up Ted's chance and even took out JK junior as he was
>heading for a potential run in the future.
>
>Think about it. 4 Kennedy kids...all potential candidates,
>all dead now. What are the odds of that happening normally?

Of course they were taken out. You described the perpetrators as 'the
government'. The government being those directly employed in
government or those who actually pull the strings?

You said: "I will always honour the office that he was elected to"

How does describing Kennedy as a 'loose cannon', that he wasn't a
great president justify removing him from office in such a manner?
Simply because you didn't like him?

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:08:48 -0300, wrote:
>
> >I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
> >Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
> >although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
> >going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
> >you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
> >democracy, it's much better"
>
> The big irony of course is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was
> the direct result of Britain and U.S's interference in Iraq... because
> Iraq nationalised their oil industry. Can't have *that* in a country
> with a democratically elected government! So a coup was engineered and
> the Shah (puppet of the west, mainly the CIA) was installed in power.
> By the 1970's, the CIA was starting to engineer tensions in the region
> by covertly arming and supporting Kurdish rebels, which has a terrible
> story all of it's own.
>
> From there, things went downhill, as well all know...
>
> Is it any wonder we have the problems we face now, and that there is
> so much resentment towards the west?

On 9/27/2015 3:41 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:08:48 -0300, wrote:
>
>> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>> democracy, it's much better"
>
> The big irony of course is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was
> the direct result of Britain and U.S's interference in Iraq...


NO!

It is the direct result of the Balfour Declaration itself - PERIOD!

You shitbag Auzzie turdlicker.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 3:53 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 08:14:13 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
>> "Jeßus" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 10:10:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Funny to me how it's the foreigners here in RFC that take so much
>>>> interest in USA politics. Maybe they should focus more on their own
>>>> counties elections.
>>>
>>> The reason for that, Gary, is that the U.S involves itself in every
>>> other country in the world (whether they want it or not), so that
>>> basically your government is also our government, to some degree.
>>> Hence the 'foreigners' interest.
>>
>> OK. I do agree with you there. It's a fact that the US does often try
>> to manipulate other countries. Like supporting rebels trying to
>> overthrow a valid govt, etc. I don't think it's all about supporting
>> big business though (those evil greedy republicans). It's more about
>> maintaining the status quo. If our country depends on some others
>> resource (like oil), we don't want some other party yanking that away
>> and messing up our economy. That's just survival tactics.
>
> It's a complex mix - geopolitical, corporate and internal interests at
> play.
>
> By and large, it's done *far* more harm that good - the rise of
> Islamic fundamentalism can be traced directly to the west's (U.S and
> U.K - mainly the U.S) interference

BULLSHIT LIE!

It is traced DIRECTLY to The Balfour Declaration, period!

>
>> Remember - under GWB, we invaded Iraq and took out Hussein. We didn't
>> claim their oil for our own.
>
> Not directly, no.

Not in ANY form, period!

> The world community wouldn't have tolerated it
> anyway.

**** the "world community"!

=
>> We turned it all over to hopefully better
>> ownership and we will still buy from them, not steal from them.
>
> You need to look further deeper into that,

You need to stop the Goddamned LYING!!!!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23578542/n...-huge-surplus/

WASHINGTON €” Iraq is not spending much of its own money, despite soaring
oil revenues that are pushing the country toward a massive budget
surplus, U.S. auditors told Congress on Tuesday.
The expected surplus comes as the U.S. continues to invest billions of
dollars in rebuilding Iraq and faces a financial squeeze domestically
because of record oil prices.
"The Iraqis have a budget surplus," said U.S. Comptroller General David
Walker. "We have a huge budget deficit. ... One of the questions is who
should be paying."
Walker and the other auditors did not give a figure for the likely
surplus. U.S. officials contend that Iraq's lack of spending is due
primarily to Baghdad's inability to determine where its money is needed
most and how to allocate it efficiently. Two senators have called for an
investigation into the matter.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 3:55 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:31:23 -0300, wrote:
>
>
>> One couldn't say Iraqis are far happier today with 'democracy'
>
> Whenever one country interferes with another in the name of
> 'democracy'... a big red flag right there.
>

BALFOUR DECLARATION!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 4:03 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> the US actively supported Islamic insurgents, not realizing that once
> the money dried up the country would implode and become an Islamist hotbed.

Who started the mess?

THE USSR!

Period, end of story.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:44:12 -0300, wrote:

>On Mon, 28 Sep 2015 07:41:28 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:08:48 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>>I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>>>Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>>>although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>>>going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>>>you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>>>democracy, it's much better"
>>
>>The big irony of course is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was
>>the direct result of Britain and U.S's interference in Iraq... because
>>Iraq nationalised their oil industry. Can't have *that* in a country
>>with a democratically elected government! So a coup was engineered and
>>the Shah (puppet of the west, mainly the CIA) was installed in power.
>>By the 1970's, the CIA was starting to engineer tensions in the region
>>by covertly arming and supporting Kurdish rebels, which has a terrible
>>story all of it's own.
>>
>>From there, things went downhill, as well all know...
>>
>>Is it any wonder we have the problems we face now, and that there is
>>so much resentment towards the west?
>>
>No surprise at all, I would feel the same were I one of them.

Most of us would. Yet most of us never really consider the other
side's perspective, to our own detriment.

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:03:43 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2015-09-27 5:41 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 10:08:48 -0300, wrote:
>>
>>> I have just finished reading a couple of books that pre-date Iraq and
>>> Iran, Israel. Nearly all the above territory was ruled by tribes and
>>> although occasionally they fought out some grievances, pretty steady
>>> going. Hopefully the western world now understands what happens when
>>> you take hold of basically tribal systems and say 'Now you will have
>>> democracy, it's much better"
>>
>> The big irony of course is that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was
>> the direct result of Britain and U.S's interference in Iraq... because
>> Iraq nationalised their oil industry. Can't have *that* in a country
>> with a democratically elected government! So a coup was engineered and
>> the Shah (puppet of the west, mainly the CIA) was installed in power.
>> By the 1970's, the CIA was starting to engineer tensions in the region
>> by covertly arming and supporting Kurdish rebels, which has a terrible
>> story all of it's own.
>>
>> From there, things went downhill, as well all know...
>
>That was the start of a situation in Iran, but Afghanistan was a
>different matter. The Soviets went in to prop up a leftist regime and to
>fight an Islamic threat to itself. In that case, the US actively
>supported Islamic insurgents, not realizing that once the money dried up
>the country would implode and become an Islamist hotbed.

Yep, true. What a mess we (the west) have made there. We seem to be
very good at doing that.

>> Is it any wonder we have the problems we face now, and that there is
>> so much resentment towards the west?
>>
>
>Who would have expected that?

Collective willful ignorance, or something like that.

> On 27/09/2015 11:31 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 23:21:23 +1000, Xeno >
>> wrote:

[snip]

>> One couldn't say Iraqis are far happier today with 'democracy'

It's not democracy that makes their world so terrible right now, it's
violent internecine feuding between Sunni and Shia, and the
participation in that process by ISIS and Al Queda. Arguably ISIS was
birthed by America's decision to disallow participation in the
government by the Baathists from Hussein's government, and it was US
monies that helped found Al Queda during Russia's occupation of
Afghanistan. Neither misstep was done with malevolent intent, but from
a perspective on what would be good for those people. So much for good
intentions.

> If the truth be known, the harshness of the Hussein regime was what
> they needed to keep the peace. Certainly, under their current
> 'democracy', they have neither peace nor stability.

With a continuation of Hussein's control they would have had stability.
But peace? They were at war with Iran and invaded Kuwait, and the
Saudi's were nervous and for good reasons. They also commited genocide
on the Kurds, had "rape rooms" run by the inner circle of the
president, lots of torture and brutality built into the governemnt. It
may have lasted another 100 years, or it could have gone the way of
Syria; a few boys put graffiti on a wall ending with millions dead or
displaced while a dictator attempts to provide "peace and stability".

On 2015-09-27 14:21:45 +0000, said:

> OReverse it, would we like tribalism imposed on us? Though sometimes
> with current politics I
> begin to wonder.

Tribalism isn't working out so great for American government, I can assure you.

On 2015-09-27 12:32:03 +0000, Gary said:

> Do you know why Bush senior didn't invade Iraq then? His intentions
> were to kick them out of Kuwait and the allied countries agreed to
> that. If he had pushed right into Iraq, friendly countries would have
> turned on him. Personally, I think he should have kept going but he
> did the right thing then as far as maintaining relations with the
> other countries over there.

Similarly Patton tendered to push past Berlin to Moscow. Makes you
wonder how the 20th century would have ended had that taken place.

On 9/27/2015 6:06 PM, Je�us wrote:
>> the US actively
>> >supported Islamic insurgents, not realizing that once the money dried up
>> >the country would implode and become an Islamist hotbed.
> Yep, true. What a mess we (the west) have made there.

The USSR is NOT "the west" you slime-eating Auzzie cur!

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 9/27/2015 7:26 PM, gtr wrote:
> It may have lasted another 100 years, or it could have gone the way of
> Syria; a few boys put graffiti on a wall ending with millions dead or
> displaced while a dictator attempts to provide "peace and stability".


You have NO clue how Syria went.

None.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---