"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 29-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

Supplying arms to a billegerent is
not a 'neutral' act.

The administration was provoking the Nazis to get them to attack
a US ship or territory. The people did not want to enter the war
but the administration did. They didn't have the guts to force
the war on the people, so they hoped that Nazi action would
get the people in a belligerent mood. Once into the war, there
was popular dissent wrt the draft. The fact remains - the
US got dragged into the war kicking and screaming.
====================
The fact remains that morally and legally we were at war. Tap dance any
way you like...



We did that fool.

Eventually. The war started in 1939. The rest of us were there
from the start.
===================
The problem was you *weren't* there all through the 30s. Instead you played
and played, ignoring the violations of treaties until too late. Wait, that
almost sounds familiar.



Let's get to the point - those who were involved in the two world
wars from the start are getting tired of the American bull**** of
claiming that they saved the world by entering the wars. You yanks
drag that out every time you feel the world owes you something.
========================
Sounds like you have a guilty conscience or something. I don't remember
saying that, eh?


The problem is that the world is giving you a rough time about all
the **** your foreign policy entailed _since_ 1945. You don't
get that - you never will. With so many crackers keeping their
heads up their asses, the Americans will never understand what's
really going on in the world or why they are losing friends in
the world. Bush baby is coming to Canada tomorrow to try to
patch things up - he will be met by a lot of protestors telling
him to shut up and go home till he gets a clue. You won't get
that either.
=====================
Ah, feel the ahte of the uninformed losers....


Cheers,
Mike

On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

I don't remember
saying that, eh?

Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to
such a statement.

Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 30-Nov-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

I don't remember
saying that, eh?

Go back through the thread. You jumped in when I responded to
such a statement.
================
and I made the statement?

But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you
apparently found too hard to reply to, eh?



Mike

On 1-Dec-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

and I made the statement?

No, but I'm discussing the topic of the thread, not your
vitriol.

But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you
apparently found too hard to reply to, eh?

I'm still waiting for you, Tom and Larry to respond to lots of stuff
I posted but you guys didn't bother to address. Works both ways chum.

Cheers,
Mike

"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 1-Dec-2004, "rick etter" wrote:

and I made the statement?

No, but I'm discussing the topic of the thread, not your
vitriol.

But, I notice you dishonestly snipped out the rest of the post that you
apparently found too hard to reply to, eh?

I'm still waiting for you, Tom and Larry to respond to lots of stuff
I posted but you guys didn't bother to address. Works both ways chum.
===========================
Don't snip it out and maybe somebody would,,,, You get what you give,
fool.


Cheers,
Mike