Mike111

"spay"? soz. A person such as him probably not only not cares for the cat or for anyone else, probably excrept from himself.

can't you ever give us pommies a break???? (sigh)

Sure, for food, IMHO and to earn a living it is fully acceptable to kill animals. It is an essential part of ou survival. But this dude who did this, well seems a bit unbalacned, just my oppinion though.

15.99 for Dan poynter's book, 19.99 for Breakaway/. Really helpful material.

U.S. could wind up helping Iraq turn into a second Iran August 26, 2005 HAGE0826 Having failed to find weapons of mass destruction or a link to 9/11, the Bush administration now justifies the war in Iraq with a narrative that goes something like this: We must help Iraqis stamp out a terrorist insurgency and build a stable, Western-style democracy. "Once Iraq is safely in the hands of the Iraqi people, with a government they elected under a new constitution, our troops will be able to come home," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in early August. But even that distorts the reality of Iraq today, according to Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. diplomat, an expert on Saddam Hussein, and a professor at the National War College in Washington, D.C. Writing in the New York Review of Books, Galbraith says the violence in Iraq is not a fringe insurgency but an incipient civil war waged by three large and determined ethnic factions. The result, he says, will be either sustained bloodshed or the establishment of an authoritarian Islamic religious state. "There is, in fact, no Iraqi insurgency," Galbraith writes. "There is a Sunni Arab insurgency. Sunni fundamentalists consider the (majority) Shiites as apostates, and possibly a more dangerous enemy than even the Americans. The insurgent goal is to provoke a sectarian war, and they seem to be succeeding." The Sunnis cannot win this civil war, Galbraith says, but neither can the Shiites fully prevail. Sunni Arabs and ethnic Kurds together represent about 40 percent of Iraq's population -- and neither is willing to submit to Shiite rule. This helps explain why Iraq's leaders have struggled so hard to reach consensus on a new national constitution. But even if the Shiites defeat the Sunni resistance, Americans won't like the result, Galbraith says. That's because leading Shiites want to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state much like the one in neighboring Iran, now America's arch-enemy. Iraq's most influential politician, Ali al-Sistani, is himself an Iranian by birth and has close ties to Iran's fundamentalist leaders. Southern Iraq already is controlled by fundamentalist Islamic parties that have imposed an Iranian-style religious code and are busy making diplomatic overtures to Iran. "It may be the ultimate irony that the United States, which, among other reasons, invaded Iraq to help bring liberal democracy to the Middle East, will play a decisive role in establishing its second Shiite Islamic state," Galbraith concludes.

Lol well we city folk like to make things complicated ( i think thats th phrase.)

Hey, Hope you heal up fast, and hope you cvan get back into the air soon dude.

Hi, thanks for the info, what ive done, ive set aside like this jar (jamjar like thing) where i put all skydiving money in so i don't go overbaord and blow it all at once. Its tight though, but doable

Hey, Cheers dude, im still working on the fretting part lol , not just in that area btu in all really. Like not panicking when things go unplanned (bad Aff level 5) but thanks ill get there eventually.

Well, this is completely irrelevant, and this guy isnn't probably one, but i read that psychos used to torture animals , and then went on to kill humans. Point being here, if he can get into a rage and do that to a cat, then what is to stop him assualting a human if he gets in a rage - just because he would lose his cool and do that to a cat doesn;t mean he couldn;t do it again in another circumstance. Course animals are killed, who are defencelss to eat them, but this is completely different. So i don't call it nonsence , this wasn;t humane there is a difference. Animal shelters do mercy killings which benefit the animals, not stabbing with a knife because he got angry with it. Thats not normal, killing mercily or for food is. Edited to add - you say you dont mind killing the animal if its not wanted, what would you do if you were that animal? Accept being killed because you weren't wanted? Moreover, there are charities which do look after them so killing isnt necessarily the right method . Animal cruelty is really unnacceptable in my books, because they are defenceless. And by cruelty i do not include mercy killing or for food or testing medicine and drugs on them, even if they might experience pain because they are necessary. and harsh sentences should be used ( i don't mean life in jail - but community service or very very short sentence in jail - 3 days , i dunno) because it is a barbaric , on a very small scale, crime. Fine doesn't do shit in most cases unfortunately. Although it would be fair to say, i didn;t explain myself very clearly previousely - 1 line isn;t a goo dargument!

Should be imprisoned. If he can harm a defencless cat, implying he has no shame or care, then he easily could do it to a human

Wouldn;t the bush govt have more to lose by lying and then getting found out than by telling the truth? 9,000 dead is a bti excessive.

Welcome!

student.

Intelligence isn't necessarily a good thing, character and personality is far more important and worthy.

does jones have a name?

quit cold turkey. the odd cigar everynow and again certainly is pleasant!

hold it in. Its rude, and smeel bad when in a tight place.

You ask the wrong question, you should be asking why those who supported it from the start have not now changed their minds given all we know about "bad intel" (aka lies), piss poor planning for the aftermath of the invasion, no exit strategy, increase insurgency, escalating US troop deaths, etc., etc. Quote it all depends where you draw the line at acceptable. Some people, and some who do, view the terrible loss which is happening as acceptable given the circumstances and do not belivee we should pull out. Others say the complete opposite. Im not gonna say what i think but it does depend which way you look at it. Thats nto disagreeing with you, just making a neutral observation of both sides of the camp

But, i dont; think i was referring to that "eye to eye", but judges do weigh that up - they say well how much was the victim damaged. Same with assalt really- how bad you hurt them influences the length of sentence. If that makes sense, ( i never explain things well) - you probably noticed!)

But they haven't ended a life, so in some ways why should we take their lives fully away? The victim still has a chance to recover. they deserve veyr harsh sentences, but maybe not life as in forever.

The Ladykillers. Those magnificent men in those flying machines. Unbeatable comedy.

i think the paroll idea is a really good one, as they are under constant pressure to behave. Although, i think all murder cases should be given life it was a cold and ruthless crime, with no paroll. Unfortunately our country is too soft: Last year, a man ni watford was assualted by a drunk who punched himin the head - this caused him to strike a wall and then the pave ment which killed him. The offender got 4 year 3 months. Ridiculous really.

ive already put an order through paragear.com, but thanks for the help though. Much appreciated.

Ok i pose a question, i think you mentioned before that you opposed it right from the start. If less casulaties had been sustainmed, would you have changed your view, or would you still be against it?