Boon

If it turns out that they have it for the #1 contender's spot, it'd probably be a Smackdown guy getting the win, b/c I doubt HHH/Batista will end at Mania- and aren't we supposed to get Eddie V. Rey?

They didn't strike first in a nuclear war. WWII was not a nuclear war, it was a war that ended w/ an A-Bomb. There's a difference. In 2005, a nuclear war would mean that we've got nukes, they've got nukes, and everybody's using them. Sixty years ago, we had nukes, and that was it. We used them to end the war, we did not start a war where everyone had nukes. Was it "playing dirty?" That depends on your own opinion. I'm sure the folks in H&N don't think that it was reasonable for their families to die, just like the families of those stationed in Pearl Harbor, and every other single person that has lost somebody to a war. But that's the way it war is, like it or not. Yeah, war sucks, we all agree. But once you're there, you do what you have to do to stop it. Please-spare us. Nobody on the planet likes the idea of killing 100,000 people, saying that is just bullshit nonsense. Not that this is relevant to what we're talking about, but I'll go with you. It is a popular opinion that it is the hegemon's responsibility to step in with aid, financial and military, when there is a major problem with a country that cannot help itself, e.g. Iraq. Until someone else steps as the hegemon, there's not much the US can do other then take on the role that it has. W/o a hegemon, the world kinda falls apart. And I still don't see how America would launch nukes first. You haven't convinced me. The argument is that the best offense is a good defense, not the other way around. People will get pissed off at America for taking away their ability to hit back, not because we hit first. That's the essence of the shield- don't let them hit you back, not you hit them first. Again, from a military standpoint. I already said that nobody enjoys killing thousands of people. Yeah, it is the nature of war. I can see where you might argue that it "isn't fair" and that we're "playing dirty," but if it means the preservation of a good quality of life, the ends justify the means. When WWII ended, we all "came out clean," the world benefited. Sometimes you smell like shit before you smell like roses. Jesus Christ, this is a long post- sorry.

Umm, ask anybody that knows about Japan/WWII. They'll tell you. Yeah, you're right. I guess we just have different morals, b/c I'd try to save the 1 million, while you'd rather wait and see how many died before doing something about it. It's really basic military strategy. Taking out 300,000 of your enemy to save 1,000,000 of your own makes sense, I'm sorry. HAHA. If you're stupid enough to punch somebody who has a knife, you deserve to get cut. This isn't the movies, kid. Fighting with honor went out w/ the Old West, hate to break it to you.

Umm, no. See, you're wrong. Whether or not Japan struck first is relevant, because establishing a defense system like this has everything to do with first- and second-strike capability. You can't use H&N to back up your claim that the US would launch nukes first, b/c like i said before (which you ignored) the technology has changed drastically. Dropping an A-Bomb and dropping some of the nukes we have now are completely different. And seeing as how the shiled isn't in place, MAD is still very much a concern. I agree that it might not work properly or destory all nukes, hence, MAD is still an issue. Well, let's start with how much money the US contributes to the Int'l economy, including the majority of contributions to the World Bank. Then we can talk about the military contributions, the cultural contributions, poverty/disaster relief, diplomacy, etc. Must I go on? Your dislike for America blinds you from the facts. At the very core, experts agree, a defensive-shield like this is an offensive move as much as defensive. I can explain it to you again, if you'd like. The excuse for killing the thousands in H&N was to prevent the death of millions... I think that's a decent reason.

Yes. You are very a very self-righteous people. And, you know, you *did* drop 2 of them before and still feel justified in doing so. Sixty years ago the weapons were completely different then they are today. Everybody knows that, so citing H&N as evidence that we would strike FIRST is not only flawed in its very premise (b/c we dropped bombs after Japan had started our involvement w/ Pearl Harbor, we did not start that war), it's flawed b/c the weapons are so much more advanced that the reason we haven't had another massive war is because we all recognize the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction. BTW, you make it sound like Canada is so much more civil then America, when you don't even deal w/ the stuff that we, the hegemon, are responsible for. When Canada becomes the hegemon and deals with the same things America do, we can compare. Until then, it's really not a valid argument.

If they went that way, take out Christian, Eddie and Rey (they'll have their feud by then) and replace them with Show, Booker and Carlito, or someone who won't have a feud by then. Man- that match would blow.

I was just using China as an example to make my point, so no, I wasn't really implying that. But in the age of nuclear warfare, it really doesn't matter how big your artillery is, point in case being the DRNK. They're still a threat, and our arsenal far exceeds anything that they have. You really only need a few well-placed nukes to really, really fuck some shit up. Granted, the US could destroy the world a few times over w/ all our weapons, but after say maybe three or four nukes from China, we'd be pretty messed up. Such a pleasant conversation.

It's kind of hard to grasp, but a system like this is not solely a defensive move. Let me elaborate. Having a defense system like this (assuming it works the way it should) takes away second-strike capability. For example, if America has a defense system that works, it doesn't have to worry about a country like China retaliating if we struck first. It's an offensive move because, essentially, you've disabled your opponent's ability to hit you back.

I would've put a bullet in my brain a long time ago.

Yeah- I get that. I'm just saying he gets props for doing something he didn't even want to do. Just seems kinda weak, to me.

Well, that depends on how you measure it. For example, the youth of France is far better educated then the youth of America, but the top tiers of intellectual elites are basically the same.

My beef w/ Washington is that he didn't really want to be President, especially for as long as he was. I think he gets a wrap as a great President b/c he was the first and therefore the model for the next dozen or so Presidents, by default. Not to say that he didn't do good things, but I don't buy this notion that he was the best ever. A 2002 ranking from the Siena Research Institute ranks Washington as #4, behind F. Roosevelt #1, Lincoln #2 and T. Roosevelt #3.

After about thirty seconds on that board, I understood why I hate most wrestling fans.

Meltzer On Steroids That's a link to the website where you can find an audio version of Meltzer's interview with WEEI Sports Radio in Boston. Check under Dale Arnold- it's titled "February 17, 2005 - Dave Meltzer - Wrestling Observer" Interview is conducted by Dale Arnold and Jerry Trupiano (Sox fans mark out). Pretty interesting stuff, talking about steroids, Vince testing the wrestlers, etc. Edit: Title should be Meltzer Talking About 'Roids- Sorry.

God damnit!! They should've hit the conchairto.

Is anyone else marking out for E&C?

They did not just feed Benoit to Hassan and Davari.

Flair makes Raw enjoyable.

That's a damn good idea. Either HBK takes Teddy's Contract, or Orton will to face Undertaker.

Seems to me like it would make more sense if you released the juicy stuff to get people to buy the book rather then come out with shit and then say, "Don't worry, my book is better." People won't care about your book b/c you've already released a bunch of shit we all knew a long time ago. Now THAT would be interesting.

If you were only going to release 10% of the tapes, wouldn't you release the 10% that was the most incriminating?

This is getting worse then Hunter and Shawn.

Flair would have to remove his head from HHH's ass first.

Model UN. It's been a while since I've seen it.

If you think it's fluff, don't reply. No need to be a bitch about it.