PDA

View Full Version : GOP Candidate Ron Paul: "We’re Under Great Threat Because We Occupy So Many Countries



Wei Wu Wei
09-16-2011, 11:26 AM
I'll start off by saying I know that most people here won't be voting from Ron Paul, but that doesn't prevent us from discussing what he has to say. Even if you have problems with him, I think everyone can agree that, at least on some topics, he can be a real straight shooter and speak common sense truth.

I don't agree with him on many issues, he's on a far different side of the ideological spectrum from me and I'd never vote for him, but I can still listen and think about what he says.

Okay so on the topic of why terrorists attack us and hate us:

I understand that most people here believe it is because they hate our freedom, they hate our culture, or because they are driven by their religion to destroy anything that isn't an Islamic State.

I'm not going to try to argue about our freedom, or about what Islam is about here.



I simply want to look at a few facts: We occupy countries all over the world. We've been engaged in military or military-related actions in the middle east for 30 years now. We've been active in trying to shape the political and economic landscape in middle eastern countries for decades. These are facts, they are not opinions or interpretations. These are records of history.

Do you believe that these facts have absolutely no bearing on how they view us? Do you believe that these facts never enter the minds of the people there?

If our country was occupied by a foreign power, say Saudi Arabia or China, they dropped bombs, had soldiers on the ground and checkpoints everywhere, what would you do? Be honest.

Starbuck
09-16-2011, 11:57 AM
I believe the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike against threatening sites is the correct position. I could not care less what other countries think of us.

When Rice assumed the position of Secretary of State, the Bush doctrine faded. North Korea was placated to no avail and our position in the middle east was weakened to the point that Syria began building a nuclear reactor. Cheney wanted to strike (bless his heart), Bush said, "no", and the Israeli's did it.

I believe we should harden our positions in the middle east and remain within striking distance of whatever threats we can identify. I would have been just as happy if the original Bin Laden compound of Tora Bora had been bombed out of existence, but that's not how they did it.

America is, as they say, "Too big to fail". Providing a full 25% of the world's economy, a very great portion of the world's food, a very great portion of the world's medical assistance, a very great portion of the world's technological advances, a very great portion of the world's disaster assistance, and a very great portion of the world's market for things not produced in America, the world will go as America goes. It is our responsibility to the world to insure that we do not fail.

Most countries have sense enough to leave us alone and run their own country. There are a few who choose to attempt to disrupt the economy here. They act like drug dealers who are outraged when the cops burst through the door without being invited. The fact is, countries have nothing to fear from America if they stay within their own borders, do not sponsor terrorists, and DO NOT JACK WITH US.

Sonnabend
09-25-2011, 07:56 PM
Islamic terrorism has existed for far longer than 30 years, imbecile, Munich was in 1972, Entebbe in 1976, with bombings and attacks galore. Bang goes that meme.


a very great portion of the world's medical assistance, a very great portion of the world's technological advances, a very great portion of the world's disaster assistance, and a very great portion of the world's market for things not produced in America.Horseshit.

For the woefully uneducated, like Truckerme up there, who bought the revisionist meme that the US invented it all, and went to the school class marked "America is the only nation in the world"....the next time you sit down to watch a TV, thank a Scotsman, John Logie Baird. The next time you use a washing machine, thank an Australian, the next time you watch a TV news network, thank the BBC, the next time you use a hypodermic syringe, thank an Australian, the next time you use google, thank an Australian.......the list goes on and on and on....

The next time you read about Thalidomide, remember that it was an Australian who made the connection and saved so many lives, the next time you read about the space program, remember to thank Tsiolkovsky,a RUSSIAN, who pioneered a lot of rocketry well before the US did.

God, your education system SUCKS........

If you like, I am happy to sit down and compile a huge list of all the things invented by people who are NOT American. Forgive me for this but the sheer arrogance of that statement prompted this reply.

Novaheart
09-25-2011, 08:21 PM
.............



God, your education system SUCKS........

Few major inventions were invented in one country by one man on a given day. Thankfully, this fact has given birth to pissing contests and trivia challenges which keep drunks amused.

Typical example:

Who invented the car?

Define "car".

Sonnabend
09-25-2011, 11:15 PM
Who invented the car?

Karl Benz, a German.

Bailey
09-26-2011, 07:23 AM
Islamic terrorism has existed for far longer than 30 years, imbecile, Munich was in 1972, Entebbe in 1976, with bombings and attacks galore. Bang goes that meme.

Horseshit.

For the woefully uneducated, like Truckerme up there, who bought the revisionist meme that the US invented it all, and went to the school class marked "America is the only nation in the world"....the next time you sit down to watch a TV, thank a Scotsman, John Logie Baird. The next time you use a washing machine, thank an Australian, the next time you watch a TV news network, thank the BBC, the next time you use a hypodermic syringe, thank an Australian, the next time you use google, thank an Australian.......the list goes on and on and on....

The next time you read about Thalidomide, remember that it was an Australian who made the connection and saved so many lives, the next time you read about the space program, remember to thank Tsiolkovsky,a RUSSIAN, who pioneered a lot of rocketry well before the US did.

God, your education system SUCKS........

If you like, I am happy to sit down and compile a huge list of all the things invented by people who are NOT American. Forgive me for this but the sheer arrogance of that statement prompted this reply.



And I'm sure I could do the same for Americans disproportionate to our population size to the rest of the world. Look up the Russian rocket advances and see ifthere were any Germans behind it (like the US). But in the end we beat them in the space. (I eagerly await your bile laced reply!)

malloc
09-26-2011, 07:43 AM
I'll start off by saying I know that most people here won't be voting from Ron Paul, but that doesn't prevent us from discussing what he has to say.

Okay so on the topic of why terrorists attack us and hate us:

I understand that most people here believe it is because they hate our freedom, they hate our culture, or because they are driven by their religion to destroy anything that isn't an Islamic State.

I'm not going to try to argue about our freedom, or about what Islam is about here.


It's pretty obvious why they feel to overwhelming need to attack us, and lose their very own lives in the process. Anyone who honestly believes we Americans are innocent bystanders, caught in the crossfire of this conflict, needs to dodge out now. That isn't the case, and history, as well as the very words our enemies use to describe us prove that. All radical Islamic terrorism has a political angle.



I simply want to look at a few facts: We occupy countries all over the world. We've been engaged in military or military-related actions in the middle east for 30 years now. We've been active in trying to shape the political and economic landscape in middle eastern countries for decades. These are facts, they are not opinions or interpretations. These are records of history.

Do you believe that these facts have absolutely no bearing on how they view us? Do you believe that these facts never enter the minds of the people there?

If our country was occupied by a foreign power, say Saudi Arabia or China, they dropped bombs, had soldiers on the ground and checkpoints everywhere, what would you do? Be honest.

The problem I have with what you are saying isn't that you agree with Dr. Paul on the diagnosis. Hell, I agree with Dr. Paul on the diagnosis, because it's correct and the facts of American history support it. The Islamists want to hurt us because we have hurt them. That's pretty obvious. The problem I have is that you agree with Dr. Paul's treatment. Yes, America's involvement with Middle Eastern countries might have, from their point of view, earned some of our enemies some indignation points. However, Dr. Paul's prescription to get us out of these dangerous situations is to "drop the subject", and that's not correct. If the U.S. were to leave these dictatorial enemies alone, and withdraw as advised, that would just be another reason for provocation. If we did that, we would be discussing another 9/11, or worse, years from now. Yes, the U.S. has made enemies overseas, and what you aren't realizing is that these enemies aren't going to go away no matter what steps we take to placate them. These ideological nutjobs rose to power on the tide of their hatred of the U.S., and they will cling to power on those same coattails. The greatest State this world has ever known has backed itself into a corner on this one. There's no way to placate these enemies without these enemies losing power themselves. There's no way these guys will give up the power the "Hate America" trend has given them, so, as long as they remain breathing they will continue to focus violence toward America.

In any event, no matter how you break down American involvement in the middle east as the prime motivating factor of Ilsamic terrorism, the cure is not for America to stand aside, else we will be victimized for generations. Those who bought their power through a hatred of America will not cast aside that power if we give up and go home. America's only course of action is to get bolder in it's efforts to put down radicals, while at the same time offering a myriad of alternative opportunity.

malloc
09-26-2011, 08:08 AM
For the woefully uneducated, like Truckerme up there, who bought the revisionist meme that the US invented it all, and went to the school class marked "America is the only nation in the world"....the next time you sit down to watch a TV, thank a Scotsman, John Logie Baird. The next time you use a washing machine, thank an Australian, the next time you watch a TV news network, thank the BBC, the next time you use a hypodermic syringe, thank an Australian, the next time you use google, thank an Australian.......the list goes on and on and on....

The next time you read about Thalidomide, remember that it was an Australian who made the connection and saved so many lives, the next time you read about the space program, remember to thank Tsiolkovsky,a RUSSIAN, who pioneered a lot of rocketry well before the US did.

God, your education system SUCKS........

If you like, I am happy to sit down and compile a huge list of all the things invented by people who are NOT American. Forgive me for this but the sheer arrogance of that statement prompted this reply.

Calm down big guy. When people call the "American University System" the "envy" of the world, I didn't expect it to get so literal. America is a land of tops. It has the top economic output, the top cultural output, the top military output, and the top scientific output. There's no arguing around this, these are hard measurable facts. I don't know how this thread turned into a discussion on American Exceptionlism, but it's black and white, for all the world to see:

Inventions aren't really a measure of groundbreaking science, though America has had more than it's fair share of invention once averaged for population. The real science in breakthrough is described by citation. Anyone can write a paper drawn from the measured and recorded facts of others. Those recorded facts and experiment data analyses are what are hard to come by, and what lead to breakthrough. By any measure, by any educational analysis, America leads by a whopping margin. In peer reviewed scientific documents, America leads in citations by over 50% compared to the rest of the world. That means that per person, American citizens account for 17 times more citable facts than the U.K. and 3 times more than China. Broken down for population, that means that America, with five percent of the world's population, provide, over one half of the world's, adjusted for population, scientific facts. That's nearly mind blowing, but not so much when considering the amount of economic output centered on scientific discovery. In any event, the importance of each finding is not considered, because that is very subjective, but America does, in measurable, incontrovertible, numbers wields the most amount of scientific discovery on the planet.

I know you are a patriot of Australia and all, and I certainly don't think they've slacked off when it comes to global scientific knowledge, but there just isn't a country which even remotely compares to American numbers when it comes to raw, scientific breakthroughs. From drugs, to marketing, to media, to mechanics, to electronics, trace every product of Taiwan, Japan, China and Korea back to an American scholar. From the iPhone to Android, to multiplenar, dual intake aluminum engine blocks, it all came from America. All the way out to GPS technology which every country leases, to software advancements like Android and every compression library, down to the quartz crystal circuit in your wristwatch, Americans came up with these things to ultimately satisfy their self interest.

Satisfying one's self interest isn't a bad thing, but showing the amount of output a small percentage of the population is capable of producing while doing so is paramount to demonstrating the argument that a free society is a prosperous and beneficial society for anyone to have around.

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 08:29 AM
Accept Ron Paul's statement as true for a moment. We are under threat because we occupy so many countires and so many muslim countries.

How many countries does Bali occupy? Spain? India? Germany? Israel! Israel is under constant attack because the country it occupies is itself!

The muslim proverb ends with "all of us against the infidel". That's the reason for the attacks across the western world. Everything else is an excuse.

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 08:54 AM
What countries do we occupy exactly?

ETA: Dr. Nuts is using a very dishonest use of the term "occupy". In his crazy thinking that includes Germany...Japan...South Korea...Belgium...any place the U.S. has a military base.

The Cult LEader would bring all soldiers home from the strategic bases we have scattered across the world irrgardless of commitments we've made through NATO and joint basing agreements and jsut give a big middle finger to our allies.

Which explains why Wee Wee is posting this tripe.

malloc
09-26-2011, 09:27 AM
What countries do we occupy exactly?

ETA: Dr. Nuts is using a very dishonest use of the term "occupy". In his crazy thinking that includes Germany...Japan...South Korea...Belgium...any place the U.S. has a military base.


What do you call it when a nation has a military base on your sovereign soil? What nation has a military installation, which is capable of projecting military might on the United States? What you discard to dishonesty is actually quite truthful. There is just a single nation on the face of the planet which has a single, permanent, military installation housed on soil outside it's sovereign possession. That only other nation is Great Britain, which has a tourist trap disguised as a naval base in India.

This entire argument, based around the concept that a military installation is not an occupation, falls apart when faced with the fact that America is the only nation on the globe that has this kind of international military installation. Why don't other countries have military installations, which they own and operate, and which, by treaty are treated as sovereign land, in Candada, Mexico, Panama Central America, and the Pacific Rim?

There's no easy answer to that question, and that's because it's not an easy question. America, unlike any other country in the world, is capable of putting force where it needs to go when it needs to go. The only problem with this situation is trusting the political party running the executive office to understand where and when to apply force. This whole situation is a blight on representative democracy and federalism in general and needs to be rectified. Admitting that this is true doesn't make one less of a free market capitalist, patriot, or American.

Like I said earlier, the problem with America's occupation and potential for use of force isn't even in argument. It's incontrovertible, fact. The problem lies in the sorts of schemes proposed to remedy the situation, and extricate America from it's position as global meddler.

txradioguy
09-26-2011, 09:39 AM
What do you call it when a nation has a military base on your sovereign soil?

Were we asked there? Was it during a time of war and when that conflict was over we packed up and went home (i.e. Iraq?)


What nation has a military installation, which is capable of projecting military might on the United States?

No one. And that's the way it should be. Hence the reason so many nations depend on us as a partner in their defense and the defense of an eniter frickin continent besides our own.

This is a bad thing to you?


What you discard to dishonesty is actually quite truthful.

No not really. It's only truthful to you because you're of the same isolationist bent that Dr. Nuts is.



There is just a single nation on the face of the planet which has a single, permanent, military installation housed on soil outside it's sovereign possession. That only other nation is Great Britain, which has a tourist trap disguised as a naval base in India.

How many bases outside of Russia do they maintain? China?

And there is a reason we are referred to as a Superpower. I'm still at a loss to understand why you think this is a bad thing?


This entire argument, based around the concept that a military installation is not an occupation, falls apart when faced with the fact that America is the only nation on the glob that has this kind of international military installation. Why don't other countries have military installations, which they own and operate, and which, by treaty are treated as sovereign land, in Candada, Mexico, Panama Central America, and the Pacific Rim?

Again I'm failing to grasp any reason why this is a bad thing. Other than you're defending the Cult Leader because you agree with him. Other countries can't/don't do this because they don't ahve the resources we have and they don't have the ability or the will to help other nations when asked that we do.

The only ones I've seen lately that think this is bad are Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

They seem to think we should lead from the back and not be great.

And you seem to agree with them.


There's no easy answer to that question, and that's because it's not an easy question. America, unlike any other country in the world, is capable of putting force where it needs to go when it needs to go. The only problem with this situation is trusting the political party running the executive office to understand where and when to apply force.

And yet it's seemed to have worked out quite well for everyone concerned for almost 70 years.


This whole situation is a blight on representative democracy and federalism in general and needs to be rectified. Admitting that this is true doesn't make one less of a free market capitalist, patriot, or American.

So just screw our allies? Is that how you want to do it? Give a big fuck you to those nations we've promised to help just so you the Democrat Party and a handful of isolationist nuts can feel better about yourself?

That would do more hamr to this country than you care to think about or just plain care about for that matter.

And what of the economic disaster that would be for the countries that give us basing rights? The thousands of DoD civilians..AMericans that suddenly find themselves without a job?

Really good thinking in the shitty economy we already have to add more to the unemployment lines.


Like I said earlier, the problem with America's occupation and potential for use of force isn't even in argument. It's incontrovertible, fact. The problem lies in the sorts of schemes proposed to remedy the situation, and extricate America from it's position as global meddler.

And yet as we come to the end of your rant you've yet to identify ONE country that we "occupy".

Nice Ron Paul-esque diatribe there...but you didn't answer the question.

Why is that?

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 11:20 AM
What do you call it when a nation has a military base on your sovereign soil? What nation has a military installation, which is capable of projecting military might on the United States? What you discard to dishonesty is actually quite truthful. There is just a single nation on the face of the planet which has a single, permanent, military installation housed on soil outside it's sovereign possession. That only other nation is Great Britain, which has a tourist trap disguised as a naval base in India.

This entire argument, based around the concept that a military installation is not an occupation, falls apart when faced with the fact that America is the only nation on the globe that has this kind of international military installation. Why don't other countries have military installations, which they own and operate, and which, by treaty are treated as sovereign land, in Candada, Mexico, Panama Central America, and the Pacific Rim?

There's no easy answer to that question, and that's because it's not an easy question. America, unlike any other country in the world, is capable of putting force where it needs to go when it needs to go. The only problem with this situation is trusting the political party running the executive office to understand where and when to apply force. This whole situation is a blight on representative democracy and federalism in general and needs to be rectified. Admitting that this is true doesn't make one less of a free market capitalist, patriot, or American.

Like I said earlier, the problem with America's occupation and potential for use of force isn't even in argument. It's incontrovertible, fact. The problem lies in the sorts of schemes proposed to remedy the situation, and extricate America from it's position as global meddler.

Where it falls apart is in understanding what an occupation is. American bases in foreign countries are there by invitation. America does not rule these countries, we do not govern these countries. That is a requirement of occupation. Perhaps Ron Paul has no idea what the term occupation really means!

Molon Labe
09-26-2011, 11:36 AM
I've alway wonder why so many conservatives have a problem with this analysis that terrorism has been a result of our governements foreign policy and intervention.

The 9-11 commission report concluded this in it's report

Our CIA parrots this in the consequences of their missions in their After action reviews.


yet it is treated as surprising and completely false. :confused:

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 12:04 PM
Probably because terrorism is used against countries with vastly different foreign policies and no intervention at all.

Why don't liberals believe muslims when they say Islam is not here to co-exist but to dominate. And then bomb a hotel in Mumbai just to prove it?

To coorelation of what terrorists say and what liberals say can't be denied. Where did it come from? In his heyday, Osama Bin Laden could have been a spokesman for the DNC! Every time a democrat gave a speech explaining what the motivations of terrorists were (at least according to the democrat party line) Osama would release another statement saying the very same thing.

I expect our national leaders to have foreign policy and positions of intervention that benefit the United States and only the United States. Anyone who objects, gets stepped on and squashed like a bug. That's the purpose of the a very powerful military.

Molon Labe
09-26-2011, 01:29 PM
To coorelation of what terrorists say and what liberals say can't be denied. Where did it come from? In his heyday, Osama Bin Laden could have been a spokesman for the DNC! Every time a democrat gave a speech explaining what the motivations of terrorists were (at least according to the democrat party line) Osama would release another statement saying the very same thing.

.

I get that the left and right have very different talking points...but I'm talking about what our CIA says is the cause. The man who was head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit studying and tracking Bin Laden before and after 9-11 says this:

Go to 9:04

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQviZPyeXk&feature=related

Chuck58
09-26-2011, 03:58 PM
Yeah, we 'occupy' a host of countries around the world. Just like we 'occupied' the Philippines - until they asked to to vacate Subic Bay in 1991.

We're in all these countries only because those countries and the rest allow us to be there. IF South Korea, Germany, Japan and the rest didn't want us there, we'd be gone.

The word occupy implies that we're using military force. That's nonsense. This is one point with which I agree with Colin Powell's comment. I don't agree with him on much. I think this was in response to a question in England.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Wei Wu Wei
09-26-2011, 04:09 PM
Were we asked there? Was it during a time of war and when that conflict was over we packed up and went home (i.e. Iraq?)



No one. And that's the way it should be. Hence the reason so many nations depend on us as a partner in their defense and the defense of an eniter frickin continent besides our own.

This is a bad thing to you?


And there is a reason we are referred to as a Superpower. I'm still at a loss to understand why you think this is a bad thing?



Again I'm failing to grasp any reason why this is a bad thing.

This is the wrong question. This isn't about what's objectively good or bad, right or wrong, it's simply a matter of perspective. Every action and policy has unintended consequences and if we fail to acknowledge those we will keep chasing our tails forever.

Roughly translated, Sun Tzu wrote:

" So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself. "

A crucial part of knowing yourself is being willing and able to take a critical look at yourself, without falling into the trap of thinking any criticism is tantamount to treason.

It's important, and necessary, to take a critical look at US policy if we want to be the best country we can be. The argument that any criticism means you are a traitor is a thought-terminating exercise, nothing more.

Part of knowing your enemy is knowing their motivations, their perspectives, including how they perceive our actions.

This is crucial to maintaining security, it's foolish to rush in armed only with jingoism and bullets.

Rather than asking "is our foreign policy, which includes military bases in sovereign countries all over the world, and active interference in the internal affairs of other countries good or bad?" we should be asking what unintended consequences might these have, and does this play any part in the rationale of our enemies?

The terrorists themselves cite these reasons, the 9/11 report cites these reasons, CIA and other intelligence professionals cite these reasons, it's foolish to pretend none of this exists.


It's too easy to just say "they are a broken insane country and there's no need to think about it we just need to kill them". That's ignorant. A few decades ago, Afghanistan, which is usually cited as a primary source of middle eastern Islamic fundamentalism, was a bastion of secular progressivism. It was one of the most liberal, secular nations in the middle east. They had universities, they had better women's rights, they had active secular political parties.

AFghanistan then and now:

http://i.imgur.com/4wR0c.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Brp71.jpg


So what happened in those few decades? It cannot be that Islam was suddenly invented, because that's simply not true. instead, Afghanistan got caught up in the crossfire of global politics.

The Soviet Union made the stupid mistake of imperialism, and tried to invade the nation. Then the US decided to get involved.

The west decided that Muslim Fundamentalists were better allies than Secular Leftists, and actively armed radical fighting forces.

As both superpowers sunk their teeth into that nation, it's own internal progression fell apart, and in the power vaccuum that came afterwards, Islamic fundamentalists were able to take power. After decades of war and religious nutjobs taking over the country, we have what is today modern-day Afghanistan.


This is something we must learn from.






Other than you're defending the Cult Leader because you agree with him. Other countries can't/don't do this because they don't ahve the resources we have and they don't have the ability or the will to help other nations when asked that we do.

So just screw our allies? Is that how you want to do it? Give a big fuck you to those nations we've promised to help just so you the Democrat Party and a handful of isolationist nuts can feel better about yourself?

You make a good point, just like we can't look at this purely from one side, we also cannot look at it purely from the other side. There are concerns about national security, and it's true that whether they say it publically or not, many other countries who "play it soft" in their own military policy are under the tacit awareness that when push comes to shove, the United States can be relied on to use it's incredible military might to protect them.

This is something that needs to be considered, but it should be weighed along side the consequences, not viewed in isolation.




People usually prefer easy answers and a sense of false confidence over critical analysis and tough questions that often lead to gray areas, however that critical analysis is necessary to know thyself and thy enemy.

Wei Wu Wei
09-26-2011, 04:10 PM
Yeah, we 'occupy' a host of countries around the world. Just like we 'occupied' the Philippines - until they asked to to vacate Subic Bay in 1991.

We're in all these countries only because those countries and the rest allow us to be there. IF South Korea, Germany, Japan and the rest didn't want us there, we'd be gone.

The word occupy implies that we're using military force. That's nonsense. This is one point with which I agree with Colin Powell's comment. I don't agree with him on much. I think this was in response to a question in England.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

Germany and South Korea may appreciate and welcome our presence there, but that isn't true with middle eastern nations. What works for Germany may not work for Afghanistan.

Chuck58
09-26-2011, 05:28 PM
Germany and South Korea may appreciate and welcome our presence there, but that isn't true with middle eastern nations. What works for Germany may not work for Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is one single little nation, and we don't occupy it. It has a, more or less, government in place. We're working with the Afghan military in hopes that eventually, sooner rather than later, they can take over and we can leave.

Tipsycatlover
09-26-2011, 05:45 PM
There is no American governor of Afghanistan.

Novaheart
09-26-2011, 05:46 PM
Germany and South Korea may appreciate and welcome our presence there, but that isn't true with middle eastern nations. What works for Germany may not work for Afghanistan.

To the best of my knowledge, Guantanamo is the only base outside a war zone which might be described as being held in adverse possession, and even then civilized nations expect successor governments to honor prior contracts.

Some countries appear to be upset by US bases in neighboring countries, and the Islamic Jihad seems to be upset by US bases in all Moslem countries regardless of whether we're at war or there under agreement. I don't know how much we should care what the Islamic Jihad and their sympathizers thing. Or Amy Goodman for that matter.

Sonnabend
09-26-2011, 05:57 PM
Beat them into space? What was the name of the first satellite? Sputnik. Who was the first man in space? Yurt Gagarin. What was the name of the first dog in space? Laika. The Moon was nearly fifty years ago, as it is the US has fallen far behind the rest of the world in many areas of scientific R and D . The space station currently in orbit was an international effort, and now that the shuttles have been scrapped, other nations have taken over.

Hate to burst that bubble, but the US is not the centre of the world and did not invent everything . Look at the current private space systems in progress .... Branson ain't an American.

My point simply is that the arrogance, and dismissal of the very real and very major accomplishments of other nations is incredibly galling, not to mention a flat out lie.

It's the truth, plain and simple.


Deal with it.

Sonnabend
09-26-2011, 06:28 PM
The US and it's people are wonderful, generous, caring, brave. But in that must come the acknowledgment and recognition of other nations , and their notable and massive achievements, to accept the fact that the US does not, and never has, stood alone in all things .

All that has been accomplished has been with the willing help of others, and to accept that fact takes nothing away from those achievements. To acknowledge this is to recognize others and their work , to ignore them and claim it all as American only, is to rewrite the past, and serves only to insult others and what they have done.

fettpett
09-26-2011, 10:32 PM
Beat them into space? What was the name of the first satellite? Sputnik. Who was the first man in space? Yurt Gagarin. What was the name of the first dog in space? Laika. The Moon was nearly fifty years ago, as it is the US has fallen far behind the rest of the world in many areas of scientific R and D . The space station currently in orbit was an international effort, and now that the shuttles have been scrapped, other nations have taken over.

Hate to burst that bubble, but the US is not the centre of the world and did not invent everything . Look at the current private space systems in progress .... Branson ain't an American.

My point simply is that the arrogance, and dismissal of the very real and very major accomplishments of other nations is incredibly galling, not to mention a flat out lie.

It's the truth, plain and simple.


Deal with it.

He didn't say we beat them TO space, but AT space, totally different. Besides, what other country has a PRIVATE company, let alone 2 that are spending Spaceships into space within the next year, and not just low orbit, but to the ISS?

Rockntractor
09-26-2011, 10:36 PM
He didn't say we beat them TO space, but AT space, totally different. Besides, what other country has a PRIVATE company, let alone 2 that are spending Spaceships into space within the next year, and not just low orbit, but to the ISS?

I wonder where they'll spend them next?:confused:

txradioguy
09-27-2011, 04:01 AM
Yeah, we 'occupy' a host of countries around the world. Just like we 'occupied' the Philippines - until they asked to to vacate Subic Bay in 1991.

We're in all these countries only because those countries and the rest allow us to be there. IF South Korea, Germany, Japan and the rest didn't want us there, we'd be gone.

The word occupy implies that we're using military force. That's nonsense. This is one point with which I agree with Colin Powell's comment. I don't agree with him on much. I think this was in response to a question in England.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."


QFT.

txradioguy
09-27-2011, 04:04 AM
I've alway wonder why so many conservatives have a problem with this analysis that terrorism has been a result of our governements foreign policy and intervention.

Might be because they continue to come after us when we elect people to high office that pull back our efforts to fight terrorism.

We could end all anti-terrorist operations tomorrow...stop hunting for al-Qaeda and hell...for that matter stop our support of Israel and they would STILL try to kill us bomb us and terrorize us.

What about that don't you get.


The 9-11 commission report concluded this in it's report

Where?


Our CIA parrots this in the consequences of their missions in their After action reviews.

Link?


yet it is treated as surprising and completely false. :confused:

Because it is.

NJCardFan
09-27-2011, 05:28 AM
Beat them into space? What was the name of the first satellite? Sputnik. Who was the first man in space? Yurt Gagarin. What was the name of the first dog in space? Laika. The Moon was nearly fifty years ago, as it is the US has fallen far behind the rest of the world in many areas of scientific R and D . The space station currently in orbit was an international effort, and now that the shuttles have been scrapped, other nations have taken over.

Hate to burst that bubble, but the US is not the centre of the world and did not invent everything . Look at the current private space systems in progress .... Branson ain't an American.

My point simply is that the arrogance, and dismissal of the very real and very major accomplishments of other nations is incredibly galling, not to mention a flat out lie.

It's the truth, plain and simple.


Deal with it.
I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He didn't say beat them into space. He said we beat them IN space meaning that even though they had many firsts, we still accomplished a heck of a lot more. We're still the only country that's been to the moon and our shuttle program is still unmatched. If we're so far behind the rest of the world, why did other nations hitch a ride with us on our shuttles? Hate on us all you want but talk to me the next time someone from a foreign country wants to come to your country for a specialized operation. Most technological breakthroughs happened here. Telephone? Be it Mellucci or Bell, is was here. Airplane? Here. And the list will go on. Some things might have been invented elsewhere but they were perfected here. Boy jealousy sometimes...

Molon Labe
09-27-2011, 08:53 AM
Afghanistan is one single little nation, and we don't occupy it. It has a, more or less, government in place. We're working with the Afghan military in hopes that eventually, sooner rather than later, they can take over and we can leave.

lol. do you know anything about Afghanistan?

Terms like "Government" ---- "Afghan military" -------"nation" when used in reference to Afghanistan are mutually exclusive.

I'll sooner grow wings than any of those things come true. It's an bass ackward little crappy place and it ain't stabalizing anytime too soon.

Tipsycatlover
09-27-2011, 09:02 AM
Afghanistan is tribal. The people have not progressed to the point where they can feel national loyalty or a necessity to maintain a country.

Molon Labe
09-27-2011, 09:04 AM
Afghanistan is tribal. The people have not progressed to the point where they can feel national loyalty or a necessity to maintain a country.

+1 for someone who gets it.

Not to mention that India and Pakistan have it in there vested interest to make sure the place stays unstable to keep the balance of power intact.

Tipsycatlover
09-27-2011, 09:17 AM
Much of Pakistan is tribal. The government doesn't reach to the northern provinces.

Islamic countries can't function in a democracy. They must have a dictator and a very strong one. One willing to wantonly slaughter whoever disagrees with them. It isn't that these people don't deserve a democratic government with citizen participation. They do. They are just incapable of maintaining such a government. Freedom to these people means something entirely different than it means to us.

fettpett
09-27-2011, 09:30 AM
I wonder where they'll spend them next?:confused:

Moon, Mars, Asteroids? who knows...still the point is that Lockheed-Martin and Space X are the only private companies in the world that are prepared to launch spaceships into space and they are both American

Molon Labe
09-27-2011, 11:42 AM
Where?

Link?


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

Novaheart
09-27-2011, 11:58 AM
Hate to burst that bubble, but the US is not the centre of the world and did not invent everything . Look at the current private space systems in progress .... Branson ain't an American.

My point simply is that the arrogance, and dismissal of the very real and very major accomplishments of other nations is incredibly galling, not to mention a flat out lie.

It's the truth, plain and simple.

This belief that Americans invent nearly everything of value isn't without foundation, as we are as entitled to claim many inventions as anyone else. It gets silly after awhile, rather like a small town whose claim to fame is being the third largest producer of shoe lace tips in the world. But as I said, few things were actually and inarguably invented by one man on one day in one place. You simply can't point to too many significant inventions and say, "That was invented by Elias Hambone on April 12, 1863." when the concept was conceived by Angus McFarland in a Welsh mining company fifty years earlier, the essential framus was invented by an Italian thanks to French improvements in steel making, and an earlier version of the concept was the inspiration for Elias in the first place."

By the way, I think that the Brazilians claim to be "first in flight". And that's another thing, the wording. Once again, if we are going to decide who invented the car, then we have to define the car. I personally don't consider a buckboard with a steam engine to be a car; I consider it to be an ancestor to the car.

Your TV guy invented something like a television, but I wouldn't classify him as the inventor of television.

Damn, I wandered and forgot my point. You are correct about the attitude though, and it's employed largely by American right wingers who inexplicably oppose Single Payer Health care. They claim that only if we allow private corporations to skim billions of dollars from our health care system each year will we "continue to have the finest health care system in the world." They also claim that this system is the only one which produces advances in pharma and tech. Of course, those of us who do our homework know that this is not true. We read and learn that most significant advances in our own system come from government labs or government funded/subsidized labs, and that lots of stuff comes from the UK, France, Scandinavia, Israel, Japan, and occasionally some place where they have lots of non-litigious peasants to experiment on.

Sonnabend
09-28-2011, 04:57 AM
I think you need reading comprehension lessons. He didn't say beat them into space. He said we beat them IN space meaning that even though they had many firsts, we still accomplished a heck of a lot moreYou did, then you stopped dead. The Moon was almost fifty years ago, and at this stage the US needs to get its ass into gear before someone else does what the US should have done

I WANT the US to get there first, I WANT the heady days of Apollo back, My God, man as a seven year old I stood with jaw dropped, as Armstrong descended from the lander.

When the hell are you going to Mars?


We're still the only country that's been to the moon and our shuttle program is still unmatched.The program is dead now. And I might add that the Moon was a JOINT operation, as other nations stepped in and worked their asses off to make it work for you. Parkes, Jodrell Bank for example ring a bell? The ones who sat and watched and worked and monitored your astronaut's vitals and systems when you passed the plane of the ecliptic?

Does any of your history record that? Or do you not even know WHO they were? Credit where it is due. To ALL who were part of a manned mission to the Moon for ALL Mankind, not just Americans.


If we're so far behind the rest of the world, why did other nations hitch a ride with us on our shuttlesBecause they were in service. Others are taking up that slack now, and if you lot dont get a move on, you will be left behind.


Hate on us all you want Funny, never said that, all i did was to call attention to this ridiculous meme that the US did it alone. I hate to burst that bubble, mate, but all that has been achieved has been with the help of many, and quite frankly I do not see it as unreasonable or unwarranted to remind you of that fact and to ask that you remember them as well, and thank them, and acknowledge that without many others, it would never have happened.


but talk to me the next time someone from a foreign country wants to come to your country for a specialized operation.


Do you seriously think that the US is the only country where this happens???

We do it all the time, especially in recent times, for bad burns cases, where we have recently invented a brand new form of liquid skin for massive burns trauma. Every single day, we have taken refugees and people from all over the world who have come here because WE provide care others cannot, Aust is the leading mind in paediatrics and neonatology, burns, trauma care....we train YOUR troops in desert and jungle warfare.

Our hospitals are the cutting edge in neonatology and infant care.

We do that every single day, people fly here, and come here, for care only we can provide. Oh and I almost forgot, who was it who discovered Thalidomide's effects and stopped a major disaster??

What was his name again?


Most technological breakthroughs happened here. Telephone? Be it Mellucci or Bell, is was hereHere is a list of SOME of what we have invented , and what you use, every day

The stump-jump plough
Permaculture
pneumatic broadacre air seeder
Box Kites
The Sarich Engine (used in your shuttles)
The 'Diff' (differential gears)
The 'Ute' (you call them pickup trucks. Came from here.)
Black Box Flight Recorder
The Inflatable Aircraft Escape Slide & Raft
Hyshot Scramjet Engine
The Electric Drill
salt water chlorination of domestic swimming pools
Xerox Photocopying
Refrigeration
Electronic Pacemaker
The Bionic Ear
aspirin
The Humidicrib
Spray-on-skin
vaccine to prevent cervical cancer
Internet WiFi or Wireless LAN IEEE 802.11
Google Maps
X-ray crystallography
The Bionic Eye
surf skis
coupe cars
zinc cream
solar hot water systems
plastic spectacle lenses
wave piercing catamaran
baby safety capsules
scramjets
penicillin
ultrasound technology
nanotechnology
lawn mowers
Hep B Vaccines
IVF
latex gloves
disposable syringes
research into ovarian cancers
gene shears

"Might"? Take a good long look at that list, mate.

I will say this again. I don't hate America or Americans, never, have never will. That overweening arrogance, coupled with a lack of care of anyone, or anything, outside your borders is what pisses me, and a lot of others off.

Think it over.

txradioguy
09-28-2011, 08:27 AM
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch4.pdf

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB28/

I'm not doing your work for you. You made the claims.

Show me the specific parts of the report and that wonderl "Secrets of the CIA" trip you linked to that back up your assertions that:


Originally Posted by Molon Labe
I've alway wonder why so many conservatives have a problem with this analysis that terrorism has been a result of our governements foreign policy and intervention.


The 9-11 commission report concluded this in it's report

and:


Our CIA parrots this in the consequences of their missions in their After action reviews.

You made the claim...now show me where it says that. I don't have 6 weeks to read through all that mess and I'm sure you have what you think backs up your claims dog-eared and highlighted.

Molon Labe
09-28-2011, 11:30 AM
I'm not doing your work for you. You made the claims.

Show me the specific parts of the report and that wonderl "Secrets of the CIA" trip you linked to that back up your assertions that:

You made the claim...now show me where it says that. I don't have 6 weeks to read through all that mess and I'm sure you have what you think backs up your claims dog-eared and highlighted.


Lol. Me... do the work for you? Learn to read buddy.
I read this stuff nearly 8 years ago. That's where it's at. Learning is hard work.

Typical horseshit excuses for those that really don't want their world view challenged.

Sonnabend
09-28-2011, 05:12 PM
By the way NJ, that last statement of yours is even more fucking ludicrous when you bear in mind that YOU send your doctors HERE for us to train THEM, your soldiers and pilots too.

Sheesh.....

Articulate_Ape
09-28-2011, 06:35 PM
By the way NJ, that last statement of yours is even more fucking ludicrous when you bear in mind that YOU send your doctors HERE for us to train THEM, your soldiers and pilots too.

Sheesh.....

I think a little supporting documentation is required when making such a claim, don't you?

Articulate_Ape
09-28-2011, 06:48 PM
You did, then you stopped dead. The Moon was almost fifty years ago, and at this stage the US needs to get its ass into gear before someone else does what the US should have done

I WANT the US to get there first, I WANT the heady days of Apollo back, My God, man as a seven year old I stood with jaw dropped, as Armstrong descended from the lander.

When the hell are you going to Mars?

The program is dead now. And I might add that the Moon was a JOINT operation, as other nations stepped in and worked their asses off to make it work for you. Parkes, Jodrell Bank for example ring a bell? The ones who sat and watched and worked and monitored your astronaut's vitals and systems when you passed the plane of the ecliptic?

Does any of your history record that? Or do you not even know WHO they were? Credit where it is due. To ALL who were part of a manned mission to the Moon for ALL Mankind, not just Americans.

Because they were in service. Others are taking up that slack now, and if you lot dont get a move on, you will be left behind.

Funny, never said that, all i did was to call attention to this ridiculous meme that the US did it alone. I hate to burst that bubble, mate, but all that has been achieved has been with the help of many, and quite frankly I do not see it as unreasonable or unwarranted to remind you of that fact and to ask that you remember them as well, and thank them, and acknowledge that without many others, it would never have happened.




Do you seriously think that the US is the only country where this happens???

We do it all the time, especially in recent times, for bad burns cases, where we have recently invented a brand new form of liquid skin for massive burns trauma. Every single day, we have taken refugees and people from all over the world who have come here because WE provide care others cannot, Aust is the leading mind in paediatrics and neonatology, burns, trauma care....we train YOUR troops in desert and jungle warfare.

Our hospitals are the cutting edge in neonatology and infant care.

We do that every single day, people fly here, and come here, for care only we can provide. Oh and I almost forgot, who was it who discovered Thalidomide's effects and stopped a major disaster??

What was his name again?

Here is a list of SOME of what we have invented , and what you use, every day

The stump-jump plough
Permaculture
pneumatic broadacre air seeder
Box Kites
The Sarich Engine (used in your shuttles)
The 'Diff' (differential gears)
The 'Ute' (you call them pickup trucks. Came from here.)
Black Box Flight Recorder
The Inflatable Aircraft Escape Slide & Raft
Hyshot Scramjet Engine
The Electric Drill
salt water chlorination of domestic swimming pools
Xerox Photocopying
Refrigeration
Electronic Pacemaker
The Bionic Ear
aspirin
The Humidicrib
Spray-on-skin
vaccine to prevent cervical cancer
Internet WiFi or Wireless LAN IEEE 802.11
Google Maps
X-ray crystallography
The Bionic Eye
surf skis
coupe cars
zinc cream
solar hot water systems
plastic spectacle lenses
wave piercing catamaran
baby safety capsules
scramjets
penicillin
ultrasound technology
nanotechnology
lawn mowers
Hep B Vaccines
IVF
latex gloves
disposable syringes
research into ovarian cancers
gene shears

"Might"? Take a good long look at that list, mate.

I will say this again. I don't hate America or Americans, never, have never will. That overweening arrogance, coupled with a lack of care of anyone, or anything, outside your borders is what pisses me, and a lot of others off.

Think it over.

I thought it over and it is indeed an impressive, albeit hyperbolic, list. However, speaking for myself and just for the record, I have not used a stump-jump plow, permaculture, a pneumatic broadacre air seeder, box kite, a Scramjet, an electronic pacemaker, a bionic ear, a Humidicrib, Spray-on-skin, X-ray crystallography, The Bionic Eye, surf skis, a wave piercing catamaran, baby safety capsules, or gene shears today.

Maybe it was a slow day.

djones520
09-29-2011, 03:44 AM
By the way NJ, that last statement of yours is even more fucking ludicrous when you bear in mind that YOU send your doctors HERE for us to train THEM, your soldiers and pilots too.

Sheesh.....

Ummm... Sonna, we invite the RAAF to come train at Redflag every year. I remember a couple times I was in Japan that we'd send some F-16's to Australia to teach the RAAF how to conduct SEAD operations.

Your assertation is false. At best our forces come to Australia to train WITH you, not to be trained by you. The usual situation has us providing your forces with the training that they generally don't get.

Rockntractor
09-29-2011, 04:00 AM
I think a little supporting documentation is required when making such a claim, don't you?

Cheap Aussie labor.

Sonnabend
09-29-2011, 05:17 AM
Ummm... Sonna, we invite the RAAF to come train at Redflag every year. I remember a couple times I was in Japan that we'd send some F-16's to Australia to teach the RAAF how to conduct SEAD operations.

Your assertation is false.

I beg to differ.

And your US pilots come here and train with RAAF units, it's a reciprocal arrangement. Your soldiers come here and are trained in many areas including jungle and desert warfare.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/08/1089000258227.html?from=moreStories
t.
Three major defence training bases will be upgraded under plans to allow US forces greater access to Australian training facilities, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced today.
Speaking at a media conference following the annual Australia-United States ministerial talks (AUSMIN) in Washington, Senator Hill said work would need to be carried out at bases in Queensland and the Northern Territory.


"That will mean us enhancing a number of our ranges, in particular the Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland, the Delamere air range in the Northern Territory and also the new Bradshaw range in the Northern Territory," he said.


The Australian Democrats today accused the government of allowing the United States to use Queensland and the Northern Territory as a massive gun storage and firing range.


Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett said a government potentially in its dying days should not be signing Australia up to long term military agreements with the US or anyone else.


"They are letting the Americans use the Northern Territory and Queensland as a massive guns shed and firing range," he said in a statement


That's from 2004, a lot of the US/ Aust military protocols aren't public knowledge for a lot of reasons.


At best our forces come to Australia to train WITH you, not to be trained by you. The usual situation has us providing your forces with the training that they generally don't get.

And vice versa. Yes Nevada is a desert training ground, agreed, but US troops are also given a taste of Australian deserts. Our soldiers, especially the SAS, are experts in jungle warfare. We each have much to teach the other, which I guess is what I really meant.


I thought it over and it is indeed an impressive, albeit hyperbolic, list.

And all 100% accurate. You left that part out.


However, speaking for myself and just for the record, I have not used a stump-jump plow, permaculture, a pneumatic broadacre air seeder, box kite, a Scramjet, an electronic pacemaker, a bionic ear, a Humidicrib, Spray-on-skin, X-ray crystallography, The Bionic Eye, surf skis, a wave piercing catamaran, baby safety capsules, or gene shears today.

By you, as you know, being hyperbolic yourself, not to mention, I refer to Americans. All of the above is used in the US, all of the above was invented here. Next time your doctor uses a disposable syringe to give you an injection, next time you see a baby strapped into a baby capsule, you know who to thank.

Not every single thing was invented in the US
To claim that the US is "the be all and end all" of technology is false
The US has accomplished much, but never done it alone.

Credit where it is due.

Sonnabend
09-29-2011, 05:18 AM
Cheap Aussie labor.

And a thriving trade in pork products.

txradioguy
09-29-2011, 05:59 AM
Sonna mate...you're reading on that is completely wrong. You aren't teaching us anything where the military is concerned.

It's a partnership agreement where we train in a joint environment for future operations.

This isn't a case of "The U.S. military is being sent to us to learn a thing or two".

FWIW you guys can't even maintain your two LST's much less train our guys in anything right now.

So be real careful when you start tossing off like that. Get back to me when you don't have to do a lease agreement with the Kiwi's to "borrow" their LSTin the event you need naval logistical support or are not having to buy mothballed ships from the Brits because one of your ships is so completely rusted it was in danger of sinking at the pier.

Lay off the late nite piss and read a little closer.

noonwitch
09-29-2011, 10:12 AM
Where it falls apart is in understanding what an occupation is. American bases in foreign countries are there by invitation. America does not rule these countries, we do not govern these countries. That is a requirement of occupation. Perhaps Ron Paul has no idea what the term occupation really means!


There's how we define occupation and how the muslims in the middle east define it. Bin Laden wasn't just pissed at the US for having a base in Saudia Arabia, on soil he considered sacred to his religion. He was also pissed at the House of Saud for allowing it, for corrupting the faith, and whatever else he took offense at. Of course, the US military is in Saudia Arabia by invitation of the King. Bin Laden's/al Queda's claim is that the King/House of Saud has soiled the sacred land of Muhammed by doing so, and has proven himself to be false to Islam.


As far as Israel is concerned, the palestinean people view Israel as an occupying presence. After two generations, you would think they would accept it, but many do not and are as willing to kill for their beliefs as the Israelis are.

I'm not justifying either of these positions, but pretending that there are no reasons for middle eastern muslims to feel like they are being occupied by western powers is total denial of reality. Their methods of fighting it may be deplorable, but there are real reasons for the anger that feeds the violence.

txradioguy
09-29-2011, 10:24 AM
Originally Posted by Tipsycatlover
Where it falls apart is in understanding what an occupation is. American bases in foreign countries are there by invitation. America does not rule these countries, we do not govern these countries. That is a requirement of occupation. Perhaps Ron Paul has no idea what the term occupation really means!

QFT

djones520
09-29-2011, 10:26 AM
There's how we define occupation and how the muslims in the middle east define it. Bin Laden wasn't just pissed at the US for having a base in Saudia Arabia, on soil he considered sacred to his religion. He was also pissed at the House of Saud for allowing it, for corrupting the faith, and whatever else he took offense at. Of course, the US military is in Saudia Arabia by invitation of the King. Bin Laden's/al Queda's claim is that the King/House of Saud has soiled the sacred land of Muhammed by doing so, and has proven himself to be false to Islam.


As far as Israel is concerned, the palestinean people view Israel as an occupying presence. After two generations, you would think they would accept it, but many do not and are as willing to kill for their beliefs as the Israelis are.

I'm not justifying either of these positions, but pretending that there are no reasons for middle eastern muslims to feel like they are being occupied by western powers is total denial of reality. Their methods of fighting it may be deplorable, but there are real reasons for the anger that feeds the violence.

Yes, but Ron Paul is none of those folks. Simple ignorance with the unwashed "serfs" in those countries that we are fighting in, is what is causing the problem. Ron Paul's issue is that he's a fucking idiot. He has all the knowledge in the world at his fingertips, and he'd rather stick his fingers in his ears and scream shrilly.

Rockntractor
09-29-2011, 11:09 PM
And a thriving trade in pork products.

:eek: