Does Capt America have two (2) things dropping down from his groin on either leg? Oh dear.
They're meant to me muscles, not equipment. Come on, that's thicker than a forearm
.
Arrogant Americans
- Thread starter wonderrman
- Start date
They're meant to me muscles, not equipment. Come on, that's thicker than a forearm
.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,397
- Reactions
- 11,787
Looks like two babies arms with apples in the fist to me.They're meant to me muscles, not equipment. Come on, that's thicker than a forearm
websman
Illogical Vulcan
- Joined
- 1 December 2005
- Posts
- 366
- Reactions
- 0
I really cant be bothered adding anything to this little thread, yet to say, please keep winding Websman up. Nothing like a great laugh on a coolish Thursday afternoon.
Glad to help Mate.
websman
Illogical Vulcan
- Joined
- 1 December 2005
- Posts
- 366
- Reactions
- 0
ATTENTION...Due to budget cuts, The U.S. invasion of Australia has been delayed. President Obama is considering the possibility of borrowing more money from China, to finance the operation. Looks like the Aborigines will have to wait a day or two. I will keep the board informed of any updates.
...
You are saying that the US trying to deliberately target Iraqi leadership with car bomb type tactics (rare) is comparable to a suicide bomber deliberately targetiing civilians (the norm)? eeeek
kennas, not at all
what i was seeking to show was that as a weapon used to kill, it would appear that the us was the first to employ
whilst i made the comment 'let alone al-queda', the 2 examples i used were cia paramilitaries amd military special operations groups using car bombs against iraqi leadership targets followed by an iraqi soldier using a car bomb against a us military target (checkpoint manned by us soldiers of which 4 died) - both of are which acceptable targets under the laws of war
further, the us military's public response to the iraqi car bomb as terrorism does not reconcile with their own use of that weapon (bearing in mind they were both legitimate targets, yet one is termed terrorism)
it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the iraqis were inspired to use the car bomb (or in response to) by the us first use of, and further that 'terrorists' in iraq subsequently used car bombs having seen the iraqi military use of it
did the us let the genie out of the bottle (in this particular conflict - obviously it has been used in other confilcts prior to the 2003 invasion of iraq, by a disparate collection of individuals, robert baer, in his 2-part doco on the car bomb makes the point that he was taught how to make car bombs when he was in the cia)
i don't have an answer for how to defeat al-queda beyond co-operative international law enforcement
who/what is al-queda, is al-queda (osama) aligned with al-queda in iraq, with al-queda in indonesia, such that you have an identifiable command/control structure, or are they just geographically separated sympathetic violent movements
as for the taliban i suspect this will eventually play itself out in a negotiated settlement, for the following reasons
the 'no end in sight' nature of the confict;
the taliban have shown a willingness to negotiate, both domestically and internationally;
the us has negotiated with the taliban through back channels in the past (and may be doing it now, it would at least have the capabilities in place to do so);
as i mentioned in an earlier post, both the us and taliban have released new rules for the ongoing fighting in afghanistan, including seeking to reduce civilian casualties (the timelines for these are fascinating - it has recently [this month] been reported that the taliban released their new rules in may, the us then released theirs in june, and in july the western forces in afghanistan [nato and us commanders] have been ridiculing mullah omar's edict) - the taliban rules have several goals (beyond potentially a realistic effort at taliban laws of war), winning hearts and minds (rather than other body parts), eliminating foreign fighters from their ranks (who aren't prepared to abide by the rules), assisting in travelling down the path to credibility (as a party to be negotiated with publicly);
negotiations will become more and more likely as the taliban travel down the western credibility path, as follows (excuse the simplicity)
current style taliban credibility - they are a force to be reckoned with in various regions of afgahnistan and are our enemy;
then hamas style credibility - won a democratic election (in an environment where the palestinians wanted a govt who would fight back) that the west refuses to recognise, but begrudgingly recognises that possibly one way or another they will need to be included (indeed discussions are carried out with hamas through intermediary govts);
then fatah style credibility - preferred by the west to the point of being funded, armed and trained by the west and seen as a negotiating partner which the us meets publicly with;
then ira political wing style credibility - disarmament and peaceful co-existence (it is at this point the us special envoy steps forward to collect the nobel peace prize)
not saying it will play out like the above, becoming govt through elections, but showing that given time, etc that sides initially disparate can move toward each other enough to make negotiated settlement possible
the taliban's recent rules of armed conflict if generally adhered to are potentially a significant step forward (albeit with a lot more steps required)
cheers
another quality post brought to you by happytown
- Joined
- 14 March 2006
- Posts
- 3,630
- Reactions
- 5
Damn it!
Don't those arrogant Americans make you just want to chuck!
Chuck Feeney gives Qld $102m donation
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/27/2637717.htm
The Queensland and federal governments have welcomed what they say is the largest ever medical donation in Australia's history.
American philanthropist Chuck Feeney has given $102 million to three Queensland medical projects.
A total of $50 million will go to a research institute and Brisbane's Princess Alexandra Hospital, $27.5 million to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR) and $25 million to the Queensland University of Technology.
QIMR director, Professor Michael Good, says it is the institute's largest ever philanthropic gift.
Professor Good says the money will enable the institute to begin constructing a new state of the art research facility at Herston, in Brisbane's inner north, worth $179 million.
The expansion will increase research capacity in areas including tropical diseases, vaccine development, cancer and genetics.
"It will also result in the introduction of a mental health research division and provide for the introduction of brain neuro-imaging facilities," he said.
"This is a new direction for QIMR and is aimed at improving our understanding of serious mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, mood disorders and neurodegenerative diseases."
He says the donation will also go towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, with room for an additional 20 scientists researching cancer, asthma, rheumatic heart disease, dementia, maternal and child health.
"We are grateful and delighted with the continued support of The Atlantic Philanthropies, but the size of this support is almost overwhelming," Professor Good said.
Chuck Feeney is The Atlantic Philanthropies' founder.
The $27.5 million donation brings to $57 million Mr Feeney's total commitment to QIMR over the last 10 years.
The donation to QUT will go towards a new science and technology precinct at the university's Gardens Point campus in Brisbane.
QUT vice-chancellor Professor Peter Coaldrake says the donation underscores Mr Feeney's personal commitment to giving.
"The contribution of Chuck Feeney to QUT and the state of Queensland has been nothing short of remarkable," he said.
The greatest philanthropist in Australian history.
An American by the name of Chuck Feeney.
Check him out on the 7:30 report. July 31, 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
with apologies to kennas,
as per my original post, some 2 years ago, not surprised to see the united states publicly admitting this week, for the first time, that they are indeed in talks with the taliban
there have of course been back channel discussions with the taliban over the years, just not publicly admitted
whether these talks will lead to an eventual negotiated settlement, only time will tell
cheers
Similar threads
