Urgh, for your last reply, your still off base. No im not saying that those listed have never served or anything in that nature but, as for the liberal part-you know EXACTLY who the two individuals are that I am talking about and that im not talking about all of them who are members on this site. In fact, I have loads of respect for those who served-whether or not they agree with me-but don't you say that I sat back and did nothing when you dont even know me. Though it was not Military, it was still in Law Enforcement-and no-I am NOT talking about the time when I was a State Correctional Officer. Because I have respect for you, I will not go further on this-as I could very easily do.
Ok. Its only the facts. No heresay no stories just the actual document. Others can read it. Its not about to go away. Its history. Not revisionism.
Well, its not what I read in older books and such so??? Anyway, this isn't getting us anywhere. Cheers--C. PS, I do thank you for your efforts.
Actually it has got us there the treaty is from your own governmemt records. It disproves your bases for destroyers argument. And your implication that i was a revisionist. It wasnt personal carl. Well not on my part even with your implications.
Oh, so you choose to ignore facts when put in front of you because they clearly conflict with your preconceptions, that makes sense. That's a great attitude for a student of history! As for the cool aid keep it, it tastes horrible.
No stefan, I choose to ignore your beating-around-the-bush-games and as I have better things to do than to play along with y=that silliness-I will not give a credible reply. This one is also the last one for me with you in this thread. Cheerio.
Fair enough carl, but there have been no games, simply statements of fact. To paraphrase the saying if you can't stand the heat so probably best to stay out of the kitchen.