atinymonkey

That space travel is cool, space pilots get all the girls and your bitter about it all?

Parts of Russia were hellish, yes. But the Somme is generally recognized as the worst place mans efforts have ever made in history. And it lasted for 7 years. At any one time 8 tonnes of steel was in the air, and for 2 months the average life expectancy was 3 days. Those are just statistics though, and do little to explain the horrific conditions. What really made it hell, however, was the gas. http://www.english.emory.edu/LostPoets/Dulce.html "If any question why we died, Tell them, because our fathers lied." -Kipling I did not know that. Interesting. But it's not really homeland America. No.

It's fairly clear. I used English, in sentences, with no ellipses. Denial is not rebuttal. Gosh, I am bowled over with those credentials. Seriously, that isn't the way you prove either knowledge or ability, demonstration is the way. Of course he was. He could hardly run Free France from Germany and not London. It was his contacts and relationships he built up during his time as a POW with English officers that pathed the way for the organisation of the Resistance. You called De Galle bitter because "U.S. and Brits had to liberate his country after Hitler crushed them". Since Dunkirk showed both the French and British forces failing to repel the attack it is a relevant point to make. I'll go further to point out that the American help in the liberation of France was abject disaster after disaster, starting with the troops storming the wrong beach and failing to set up a supply route and being massacred. De Galle would not really see that screw up as the machinations of a indomitable military machine. And I never said you did, but you did say "the great French empire was a piece of crap" and "talking about the French, has anyone googled "french military victories" then hit "I'm feeling lucky"??" also "anti french sentiment is confined to the French in France". If you don't want people to accuse you of labeling the French cowards, perhaps you ought to watch what you insinuate. The French army gave time for the withdrawal of British forces. Without that time, the British forces would have been lost. If the British forces had been lost, Britain would have fallen to Germany. If Britain had fallen to Germany, Russia would never have joined the Allies. With only one front to fight on, the Germans would have overrun Russia. America, in terms of comparitive size of forces, would have been easy defeated by the Axis (Italy, Spain, Germany, Poland and Japan). The situation really was that precarious. The French sacrifice enabled the Allies to resist the Germans. Without it, we all would have lost. Well, as you have said before, you do. Well, not being French I would not expect you to agree with the reasoning. However, it's a valid sentiment. I don't think belittling the loss of so many men in any way justifies your opinion. The war in the Pacific was as nothing compared with the Somme. The point, that you seem to have missed, is that you are deriding the French military because they got destroyed. As the American military would have been wiped out in the same situation, your reasoning is flawed. No, you just didn't agree with it. But it's halted your French bashing, which was the point. You can continue being nationalistic about other subjects now.

Like, for instance, Vann Harls? It probably has his name on it, and nobody would dream of using it to fool the finance system into giving out a credit card with no limit. Nobody.

That's probably true, I was making a point rather than making a statement. I don't really know what your saying here. French respect looks like a beach? I used to spend 12 weeks in France every year, not just in Normandy, and I'm still not quite sure what French respect looks like. Possibly you may mean French curiosity.

That. Makes. No. Sense. Unless your accusing followers of one random politician are all frauds, and the republicans are all like Jesus.

If that's true, then it's not a vote. It's just a collection of people wasting time by filling in slips. And you don't need to put peoples names in quotes. No, I was not.

It would have been useful for keeping track of you, with your mysterious and inexplicable disappearance from the intermaweb. O_o Hiding from space weasels, I presume. Never borrow money from them, I said.

In the news today, there have been calls for the British troops to come under American control. On the flip side, there have been increased calls for the British to withdraw. All this lead to the question on whom is best suited to occupation, and which method is the most responsible and effective solution? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3755940.stm The British forces are following a soft approach, while the Americans are reacting to insurgence with strict use of force. Which is better in the long term? Are the British troops not targeted as much as Americans because of the soft approch, or because the British have a higher reputation in Iraq? The SAS are known in Iraq, if only for the Iran embassy siege, and consequently conflicts with the British are avoided if a 'softer' target is available. Is it then correct for the Americans to attempt to instill the same level of respect through consistent show of force? Is it arrogant to think either side has a more effective approach, and we should just continue with any approach until the situation is stable?

I'm not sure which history books you read but the British sustained substantial losses while trying to support the same French troops that were 'crushed'. Dunkirk saw the remnants of the British Army being driven back across the channel. There was nothing more the British could have done at the time, and nothing more that DeGaulle expected from them or the French. DeGaulle fought in the same battles with the British before the defeat, and became a POW in Colditz with many English Officers that he fought beside. After W.W. I, the French were far from thinking they were a 'great French Empire'. They were beleaguered, tired, demoralized and still suffering from the after effects of W.W. I, that had turned France into the closest thing to Hell any place in history has ever become. It's all very easy to sit a thousand miles away and label the French cowards, but you have no conception of the horrors the country lived through in order to protect the freedom of the world. The worst the US suffered was Pearl Harbor and Midway, not a single foreign solder put one toe on American soil. Courage is easy when you are strong, try it when your army has been massacred, rebuilt and massacred again; all on the streets outside your home. Try it when you are the only country in the world still standing against Fascism and overwhelming odds. The reason the French don't like the Americans is because despite what they lived through, and the sacrifice of almost all French males between 16 and 40 twice in a century, the Americans still generally label them cowards. They hate the British because we have fought wars against each other for over 800 years. That animosity is separate to the World Wars. You can hate the French all you like, but to be frank, without the defence they put up you would be living in the Third Reich. That's the simple truth.

Yeah, I liked it. It took all the series to get over the crap puppets, but after that it got good. I was annoyed that they finished it like they did, I think it was a middle finger to the sci fi channel rather than an ending the fans needed.

It was very nice of him the clear that up, it makes sense now.

Bush won because he has a dick, not because he was the best debater. All he had to do was stand there, not fall over from the alcohol intake and pretend to be a good 'ol boy as opposed to a rich spoiled playboy. Nobody paints Bush as a skilled debater, he appeals to the lowest common denominator and that's it. He wouldn't last 2 min in the House of Commons debates.

Fixed.

Really? No Birth Certificates? No Social Security Number? No Drivers License? No passports? No Bank Account? No Registration to Vote? No Medical Records? No Insurance Policy's? No Electricity Bills? No Credit Cards? No Employer Records? No Vehicle Registration? No Land Deeds? No Police Records? No Dentists? No Post Office? No Gun Control? No Vaccination Records? No Schools? No Universities? Holy crap' date=' you must all live in a feudal society with mud for currency. Only if you are Batman.

I find the idea of ID card reassuring. Pretty much, any person living in a state can be tracked and traced very efficiently. The ID card just makes it simpler and therefore more cost efficient to do so. The introduction of fingerprint and photo recording at US airports is just the start of a long process to track people and reduce crime of all forms, the ID card is an extension of that. Eventually, you will be tracked everywhere you go. Your pulse and respiration will be monitored via implanted chip, linked into a medical records database. Paramedics or police will be called to your location depending which one is needed. Instant protection or assistance called before you even know you need it. I'm keeping track of progress with chips placed under the skin that act as cash cards, so your wallet is effectively part of you (no more carrying cash!). It's all a conjoined lump of technological society that should advance the world far beyond the current weak legal and medical system. People who find such monitoring unsettling are by and large either unaware of how they are currently monitored, or those with something to hide. I'm sure there will be backlash from technophbic luddites, and perhaps people are entitled to either join the system or opt for a simpler life.

The French suffered the worst military losses in the 1st and 2nd World Wars. Both wars they gave their best to fight a superior force suffering much worse atrocities than have a couple of buildings being knocked over by two planes. America was the country hiding behind it's mothers skirts while the war was being fought. The last minute decision to join W.W.II did not excuse the fact the US had been avoiding the fight for almost a decade. Before you start calling the French cowards, think carefully about what they called America when it refused to send help.

Somewhere, I have 50 odd GCSE science papers shrunk down to A5 size. They seemed easy at the time, but I suppose they could be usefull for comparison. At least I think I have them, but it's been years since I actually saw them.

The 'lump' looks like his spine, who's have guessed?

That has got to be the best quote I've seen for ages. It paint a great picture of a Mad Max style America. To be fair, the report doesn't actually say the attacks are not terrorism. They do point to the groups responsible, but I think the report was more to do with Americas involvement than the actual attacks. We have been involved in the Palestinian conflict since the second world war, so have an entirely divergent vocabulary to that used at the White House (which is trying to convince the US public that it need to be involved). I'll take your word on the misquotes, they probably picked context over content. Sometimes the BBC seems to slip it's standards, but I'm never quite sure why. Probably busy focused elsewhere.

Thanks for that, I was wondering.

Yeah, my facts may be a little old. It's referenced from 1997. Ok, looking at the main story on each site - the Bush Vs Kerry debate. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135384,00.html Where Fox argues against every point of Kerrys, and agrees with every point of Bush. A few links are provided to related Fox storys. (and ohsomany popups) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/13/factcheck/index.html CNN is more balanced, but leans towards Kerry by referencing his facts more. Gives the impression Bush presented no opinions, and alludes that Bush lied in the Debate. More links provided than Fox, CNN reated storys. (fewer popups, but still annoying) http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13234994,00.html Sky does not attempt to 'check' facts, relying more on storytelling. Despite being a subsidiary of Fox, the reporting is evenhanded. For Sky the debate is entertainment, and treats it as such. (no popups, but banner ad's present) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3739376.stm Again, the BBC does a farly even representation of events, this time backed up to opinion polls and referencing other news sources and storys. (no adverts or popups, the space is given to links to internal and external sources). Overall, I think the BBC coverage is the most impartial. It cites sources to cover it's statements, which is far more than the other news bodys manage. I'd like to see other peoples opinion though.