Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 194
  1. #141  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I don't see how anyone could _not_ enjoy a good stout or porter.
    Porters are a bit too bitter for my taste... rather have a good ale or a nice 'brown' belgium beer...
    But that is the good thing about beer, so many flavours there is bound to be one that you like..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  2. #142  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    Porters are a bit too bitter for my taste... rather have a good ale or a nice 'brown' belgium beer...
    What porters have you tried? Other than Sierra Nevada (who never met an overhopped beer they didn't like), I don't recall having many other bitter ones. It's just not to style. Porters are supposed to lean towards the malt side. Oh, and they _are_ ales. Well, except for the Baltic porters, but those are closer to Imperial Stouts (which are generally ales as well, though) than most porters.
    But that is the good thing about beer, so many flavours there is bound to be one that you like..
    Much as I detest Budweiser...True...True.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #143  
    Originally posted by Toby
    What porters have you tried? Other than Sierra Nevada (who never met an overhopped beer they didn't like), I don't recall having many other bitter ones. It's just not to style. Porters are supposed to lean towards the malt side. Oh, and they _are_ ales. Well, except for the Baltic porters, but those are closer to Imperial Stouts (which are generally ales as well, though) than most porters
    I tried James Squire porter
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #144  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    I tried James Squire porter
    Interesting. They used a lager yeast and black roasted wheat. The black roasted wheat is probably where the bitterness is coming from (it's probably got a little astringency to it as well from that). I wonder if they export to the states.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #145  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Wow, does this mean that discussing your views and opinions can actually change how people think? We all have adjusted our views after hearing the others talk...
    Crazy, isn't it!

    (yes in some cases force is the only sollution, but IMHO it should be the last resort..)
    I think our current international debate is about the definition of "The Last Resort". (See attached if you please...)
    Attached Images Attached Images
  6.    #146  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    I think our current international debate is about the definition of "The Last Resort". (See attached if you please...)
    The UN should choose a date. France, Germany, the UK, Russia, the US, *everyone* should come up with a date. No ifs ands or buts. I just don't see that as happening. Until it does, the stance of countries urging "more time" is severely weakened. Because without an end-game scenerio, calls for "more time" are equivalent to "let's do nothing." Again, I'm not sure who is right in this whole situation. I just think that if Germany, France, et. al. truly are asking for more time they need to put their money where their mouths are. If they truly believe we should never invade Iraq, they should say that too. Whether or not you agree with the Bush stance (I'm not sure myself), at least it has the clarity required to move the situation forward.
  7. #147  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    The UN should choose a date. France, Germany, the UK, Russia, the US, *everyone* should come up with a date. No ifs ands or buts. I just don't see that as happening. Until it does, the stance of countries urging "more time" is severely weakened. Because without an end-game scenerio, calls for "more time" are equivalent to "let's do nothing." Again, I'm not sure who is right in this whole situation. I just think that if Germany, France, et. al. truly are asking for more time they need to put their money where their mouths are. If they truly believe we should never invade Iraq, they should say that too. Whether or not you agree with the Bush stance (I'm not sure myself), at least it has the clarity required to move the situation forward.
    Unfortunately it is not that simple..
    Just for arguments sake, lets say saddam doesnt have any illegal weapons. How on earth can you proof that you DON'T have anything?
    Even though I dislike Saddam just as much as you guys, he is still innocent till proven guilty.. just like you and me.. is the basics of justice...
    So if the only deadline you can really give is to give unlimited access to UN inspectors and Spy planes or whatever is neccesary to do the investigation.. You cant put a deadline on finding things that may or may not be there...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  8.    #148  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    Unfortunately it is not that simple..
    Just for arguments sake, lets say saddam doesnt have any illegal weapons. How on earth can you proof that you DON'T have anything?
    Even though I dislike Saddam just as much as you guys, he is still innocent till proven guilty.. just like you and me.. is the basics of justice...
    That is not true at all. There is no such stipulation in this case because we are not trying to prove the presence of weapons. We are awaiting evidence of their destruction. This problem is exactly the opposite. He is not innocent till proven guilty. He has been conclusively demonstrated as being guilty. He is now in the appeals stage with a conviction under his belt where the burden of proof is on him. Don't oversimplify things and apply one system of justice (initial criminal court proceedings) to another.
  9.    #149  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    You cant put a deadline on finding things that may or may not be there...
    You continue to miss the point. The inspections are not in place to find weapons. They are in place to confirm evidence of destruction. Clearly there is no such evidence.
  10. #150  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    You continue to miss the point. The inspections are not in place to find weapons. They are in place to confirm evidence of destruction. Clearly there is no such evidence.
    mmm now I am confused, UN weaponsinspectors who are send out to find 'weapons of mass destruction' (as Bush calls it)
    Are not there to find weapons??
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  11. #151  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT
    mmm now I am confused, UN weaponsinspectors who are send out to find 'weapons of mass destruction' (as Bush calls it)
    Are not there to find weapons??
    No, they're not. They're there to verify that Saddam destroyed the weapons he had in the past which the UN directed him to destroy. They _know_ he had the weapons. The question is where are they now. Are they simply hidden away or have they been destroyed as he was directed to do. Much like the agreements between Russia and the US to dispose of certain types of nuclear weapons, there must be some sort of proof that the parties are holding to the treaty/agreement/resolution. You think they were just going to trust that we destroyed them (and vice versa)?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12.    #152  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    mmm now I am confused, UN weaponsinspectors who are send out to find 'weapons of mass destruction' (as Bush calls it)
    Are not there to find weapons??
    No. They are not there to find weapons. They are there to confirm the destruction of weapons. As I said in my post.
  13. #153  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    They are in place to confirm evidence of destruction.
    This was the part that confused me...
    Thanx for the clarification..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  14.    #154  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    This was the part that confused me...
    Thanx for the clarification..
    Saddam had banned weapons. He claims not to have them now. The weapons inspectors are there to confirm evidence of their destruction.
  15. #155  
    Here is an idea. Why not let the inspectors decide how long they need? Whats the point of sending them there top begin with if they are going to be rished?

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    The UN should choose a date. France, Germany, the UK, Russia, the US, *everyone* should come up with a date. No ifs ands or buts. I just don't see that as happening. Until it does, the stance of countries urging "more time" is severely weakened. Because without an end-game scenerio, calls for "more time" are equivalent to "let's do nothing." Again, I'm not sure who is right in this whole situation. I just think that if Germany, France, et. al. truly are asking for more time they need to put their money where their mouths are. If they truly believe we should never invade Iraq, they should say that too. Whether or not you agree with the Bush stance (I'm not sure myself), at least it has the clarity required to move the situation forward.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  16. #156  
    Originally posted by yardie
    Here is an idea. Why not let the inspectors decide how long they need? Whats the point of sending them there top begin with if they are going to be rished?
    I do not necessarily disagree with this. As long was they don't say "...until the end of the world as we know it."
  17. #157  
    You see this is why I am suspicious of the U.S's actions. No one is asking the inspectors if they need more time. Adding to this, the U.S. is actively undermining the inspectors' woprk because they are not getting the response from them that they would like.

    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    I do not necessarily disagree with this. As long was they don't say "...until the end of the world as we know it."
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  18.    #158  
    Originally posted by yardie
    You see this is why I am suspicious of the U.S's actions. No one is asking the inspectors if they need more time. Adding to this, the U.S. is actively undermining the inspectors' woprk because they are not getting the response from them that they would like.

    So you think it should take 12 years to confirm the destruction of weapons?
  19. #159  
    Originally posted by yardie
    No one is asking the inspectors if they need more time.
    The inspectors are NOT there to find weapons... they are there to find EVIDENCE of their destruction.

    Time is not the issue. If Iraq has truly destroyed said weapons, and they can document it, why haven't they done so? Why the stall tactics? Does anyone really think that the Al Samoud 2 missles are the only weapons that the Iraqi's forgot to destroy?

    If the inspectors were there to ferret out prohibited weapons, then I'd agree that more time was warranted. However, after 12 years, time is no longer an option. It's time to come clean and prove (conclusively) that they don't exist.

    This in no way means that I want to see a war... I truly believe it can still be avoided, but that choice lies solely with the Iraqi leadership. The proverbial ball is in their court.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  20. #160  
    Were the inspectors there for 12 years? Why didn't they set a deadline for the inspectors BEFORE they send them in?

    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    So you think it should take 12 years to confirm the destruction of weapons?
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast

Posting Permissions