> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> They don't want to provoke their only real threat with
a useless "defense system" that will be undeniably
a waste of money and only create tensions.

When the U.S. has perfected anti-missile technology
maybe, but the current technology simply isn't effective
enough against Russia.

i think the fact that its potential pressence is such a big deal to Russia, proves that the defense system isnt as useless and we have be led to beleive, or else Russia wouldnt give a damn where they put it.

> Alch wrote:

> well until 1931 we were still ruled by the british parliament and we weren't our own truly self-sufficient country until 1982 so does that mean that our accomplishments during WW1 and WW2 weren't our own but British ones?

back when you were still ruled by british parliament, i dont see how you could take credit for accomplishments, and im not familiar with the amount of power Canadians had between 1931-1982; but obviously when your region is ruled by 1 country, and you're following instruction from that country, you are working as part of the gears in the machinery of that country; the achievement is of that country, not your region. That is why during WWII the French cant take pride of pwning the British in certain battles when they were ruled by the Germans, but they can take pride in Pwning the Germans when they were ruled by the Germans, because their attacks on Germany, was their region's actions, not the actions of an arm of the German government, while the Pwning of British troops may of taken place in France, and in some isntances might of primarily consisted of French troops, but were the actions of the German government.

the thing said the only country to, Canada was part of Britain at the time, Britain was the country to do it. and claiming accomplishments for your country before your country existed is stupid; its like Americans bragging about the French Indian War and how we pwned Canada and France, when we were only a colony of Britain, and Canada was only a colony of France. Americans never bring up pwning the French in that war, despite our dislike for the french and that being the only time we had anything to do with them getting pwned, simply because we were part of Britain when we did it, we give them the credit.

as for whether they are funny, there was nothing clever and few attempts at being clever, but mere reciting of stereotypes from different nationalities.

they're slackers

> Justinian I wrote:

> > Kelivut wrote:

> the US was in Vietnam to keep it from becoming a communist state>

A fancy way to refer to the balance of power.

and keeping it from becoming a communist state would of increased their quality of life if they were successful.

"1: It expends resources of key air power that is currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan."

no, we have air and sea power that can bombard that is already within range to do so.

"2: Replacing lost missiles, lost aircraft, and hazard pay increases for wartime soldiers creates a short term financial burden on the US government."

in a country with the economy of the US, that financial burden for a bombardment is minimal. the financial burden to North Korea to being a victim of the bardment would be much more significant.

"3: An anti-war candidate lobbying for a preemptive war against North Korea would be extremely damaging politically."

not a preemptive war, a bombardment. no more damaging then Clinton bombing Iraq; which wasnt damaging at all.

"4: Best case scenario, there would be disruption of trade with a key trade partner, South Korea.  Worst case scenario, South Korea could be devastated in the conflict."

best case scenario, and most likely scenario, no disruption with South Korea. If North Korea did invade South Korea or attack them, because of an american bombardment, the US would have an international coalition against North Korea.

"5: Didn't Vietnam show you that air power is useless without ground support?  Unless you can take control of the weakened territory, structures can be rebuilt, borders can be fortified again, and supply lines can be redrawn."

in a war, absolutely its useless. but financially, its devastating to the country being bombed. you think that the costs of the bombardment id devastating for the US, with its huge economy, and not being the target of the bombardment, with North Korea's tiny economy, its 100 times worse for them. gonna have a hard time affording nuclear research when they're spending all their resources repairing the damage the bombardment has done.

"6: You can't secretly mobilize large-scale forces.  The US wouldn't be able to hide its military movements from the Press, let alone North Korea.  It's just impossible for us to say, "Oh, by the way, remember that aircraft carrier we said yesterday was parked in the Persian Gulf?  April fools!  It's actually just short of North Korea!  Just got there, and now we're gonna blow up the place!  GG, Kim!"

the US already has a carrier group in the region.... so you fail once again.

naval bomardment would be better imo. i bet North Korea has decent anti-aircraft, and naval bombardment would elimninate chance of POW's, which North Korea could use as bargaining chips.

its hard to rate her when you cant see her legs at all, her ass, her boobs, ect. her eyebrows are pretty badly done, her voice is kinda annoying, but she appears fairly tall.  based on that, i would probably rate her about a 5. 

if i could take into account how she talks, i'd rate her a 4. i could not stand having a long conversation with her. she's only doable if you dont need to have a conversation with her to do her.

also, Lulz for remember the exact number rating i gave someone over a year ago.

"Any time can't or don't are applied to creative expression it has been stifled.  However you ask for examples:"

im sorry, i shortened my question to make it not so repetitive, if you look at the context; i was asking for examples where censorship is being used as a tool to keep masses in line, by stifling creative expression, in a first world country.

"No, that people find my expression offensive doesn't not negate my right to that expression. "

sigh, so your country gives you the right of expression, so if you want to express yourself through murder, the state should support you? ofcoarse not; your state should protect its citizens from harm even if that means slightly limiting self expression, and many people would interpret being exposed to certain offensive material as harm.

the side-effects from oxy clean must of finally caught up with him

can you provide a link to one of these things? i dont think i've ever seen what you're talking about.

yeah, i was only born in 87 and dont really know what was the popular view of him before the first time he was accused of molesting a child.