The Biden's Israel bashing thread
Ahavati said:
The purpose of this thread is to determine why the American president ( not any other country leader ), SupermanClark Kent Joe Biden, alone, isn't intervening in the genocide of Palestine ( let's call it what it what it really is ). Religion is DEEPLY rooted in the U.S. for reasons I've previously stated in this thread.
The Christian Savior was a Jew - that makes the Jewish faith very relevant in the scope of politics and any potential intervention against Israel. A litmus test would be to replace Jewish State with Arab State in regard to Israel and replace Arab State with Jewish State in regard to Palestine. The U.S. would not hesitate to intervene against the Arab state's genocide. Oil or no oil.
Two points A:
In relation to your first paragraph above, in what way exactly would you want Biden to intervene, even if it were possible for him to do so in any meaningful way?
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree. If we're playing the 'if game', if the Jewish state were hostile to the US, and the Arab state were friendly to the US, in the situation you imagine above I suggest the response of the US would be exactly the same as it is now. The only reason the US, and before the US Britain, is involved at all is because of the strategic importance of the area. (Suez/Oil). Everything else is very much of secondary importance.
(Just as an aside, and to illustrate the strategic importance of the area to the US, a massive 43 acre US embassy is currently under construction in the tiny country of the Lebanon, home of Hezbollah, to match its equally enormous one in Baghdad.)
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/photos-of-new-us-embassy-in-beirut-raise-eyebrows-in-lebanon-and-beyond-1.95625474
💐
The purpose of this thread is to determine why the American president ( not any other country leader ), Superman
The Christian Savior was a Jew - that makes the Jewish faith very relevant in the scope of politics and any potential intervention against Israel. A litmus test would be to replace Jewish State with Arab State in regard to Israel and replace Arab State with Jewish State in regard to Palestine. The U.S. would not hesitate to intervene against the Arab state's genocide. Oil or no oil.
Two points A:
In relation to your first paragraph above, in what way exactly would you want Biden to intervene, even if it were possible for him to do so in any meaningful way?
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree. If we're playing the 'if game', if the Jewish state were hostile to the US, and the Arab state were friendly to the US, in the situation you imagine above I suggest the response of the US would be exactly the same as it is now. The only reason the US, and before the US Britain, is involved at all is because of the strategic importance of the area. (Suez/Oil). Everything else is very much of secondary importance.
(Just as an aside, and to illustrate the strategic importance of the area to the US, a massive 43 acre US embassy is currently under construction in the tiny country of the Lebanon, home of Hezbollah, to match its equally enormous one in Baghdad.)
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/photos-of-new-us-embassy-in-beirut-raise-eyebrows-in-lebanon-and-beyond-1.95625474
💐
ajay said:
Two points A:
In relation to your first paragraph above, in what way exactly would you want Biden to intervene, even if it were possible for him to do so in any meaningful way?
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree. If we're playing the 'if game', if the Jewish state were hostile to the US, and the Arab state were friendly to the US, in the situation you imagine above I suggest the response of the US would be exactly the same as it is now. The only reason the US, and before the US Britain, is involved at all is because of the strategic importance of the area. (Suez/Oil). Everything else is very much of secondary importance.
(Just as an aside, and to illustrate the strategic importance of the area to the US, a massive 43 acre US embassy is currently under construction in the tiny country of the Lebanon, home of Hezbollah, to match its equally enormous one in Baghdad.)
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/photos-of-new-us-embassy-in-beirut-raise-eyebrows-in-lebanon-and-beyond-1.95625474
💐
Israel's influence goes far, wide and deep. I wouldn't say Israel "controls" America, but they have a helluva strong lobby -- as well as being powerful culture-shapers over many decades through Hollywood.
Then again, multi-national corporations, banks, the military, and maybe evangelical-right-wing-christians, also have strong lobby groups, each with their (sometimes overlapping) agendas.
Interesting link too Ajay, thanks. Josh.
Two points A:
In relation to your first paragraph above, in what way exactly would you want Biden to intervene, even if it were possible for him to do so in any meaningful way?
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree. If we're playing the 'if game', if the Jewish state were hostile to the US, and the Arab state were friendly to the US, in the situation you imagine above I suggest the response of the US would be exactly the same as it is now. The only reason the US, and before the US Britain, is involved at all is because of the strategic importance of the area. (Suez/Oil). Everything else is very much of secondary importance.
(Just as an aside, and to illustrate the strategic importance of the area to the US, a massive 43 acre US embassy is currently under construction in the tiny country of the Lebanon, home of Hezbollah, to match its equally enormous one in Baghdad.)
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/photos-of-new-us-embassy-in-beirut-raise-eyebrows-in-lebanon-and-beyond-1.95625474
💐
Israel's influence goes far, wide and deep. I wouldn't say Israel "controls" America, but they have a helluva strong lobby -- as well as being powerful culture-shapers over many decades through Hollywood.
Then again, multi-national corporations, banks, the military, and maybe evangelical-right-wing-christians, also have strong lobby groups, each with their (sometimes overlapping) agendas.
Interesting link too Ajay, thanks. Josh.
ajay said:
Two points A:
In relation to your first paragraph above, in what way exactly would you want Biden to intervene, even if it were possible for him to do so in any meaningful way?
Firstly, I hope you caught the sarcasm in my statement. Secondly, I would want him to sanction Irael for war crimes, of which there is proof. Providing weapons and/or aid so that a country to defend itself is one thing. Providing weapons and/or aid for a country to commit genocide is another. And providing aid to a country whose citizens are being exterminated is counter-productive when you support the exterminators.
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree. If we're playing the 'if game', if the Jewish state were hostile to the US, and the Arab state were friendly to the US, in the situation you imagine above I suggest the response of the US would be exactly the same as it is now. The only reason the US, and before the US Britain, is involved at all is because of the strategic importance of the area. (Suez/Oil). Everything else is very much of secondary importance.
But the litmus test I hypothesized was between Israel and Palestine ( Gaza ), and the subsequent intervention of the U.S. if the shoe was on the other foot. I'll elaborate: If Palestine were committing genocide in Israel, the U.S. would not sit back on its haunches merely calling for a ceasefire. It would intervene with military defense of Israel. It wouldn't evolve into a genocide against Palestinians; however, it would drive them out of Israel and maintain a military presence at the border.
I am certain that oil plays a part in all of this ( I admitted that a few posts back ); however, religion is equally important to the U.S.
Oil: Government
Religion & "Holy" Land: The people
(Just as an aside, and to illustrate the strategic importance of the area to the US, a massive 43 acre US embassy is currently under construction in the tiny country of the Lebanon, home of Hezbollah, to match its equally enormous one in Baghdad.)
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/photos-of-new-us-embassy-in-beirut-raise-eyebrows-in-lebanon-and-beyond-1.95625474
💐
I agree the U.S. is strategically positioning themselves in key areas that further their interest. They always have. But we aren't referring to just war here. We are referring to genocide. A completely different species of animal.
Two points A:
In relation to your first paragraph above, in what way exactly would you want Biden to intervene, even if it were possible for him to do so in any meaningful way?
Firstly, I hope you caught the sarcasm in my statement. Secondly, I would want him to sanction Irael for war crimes, of which there is proof. Providing weapons and/or aid so that a country to defend itself is one thing. Providing weapons and/or aid for a country to commit genocide is another. And providing aid to a country whose citizens are being exterminated is counter-productive when you support the exterminators.
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't agree. If we're playing the 'if game', if the Jewish state were hostile to the US, and the Arab state were friendly to the US, in the situation you imagine above I suggest the response of the US would be exactly the same as it is now. The only reason the US, and before the US Britain, is involved at all is because of the strategic importance of the area. (Suez/Oil). Everything else is very much of secondary importance.
But the litmus test I hypothesized was between Israel and Palestine ( Gaza ), and the subsequent intervention of the U.S. if the shoe was on the other foot. I'll elaborate: If Palestine were committing genocide in Israel, the U.S. would not sit back on its haunches merely calling for a ceasefire. It would intervene with military defense of Israel. It wouldn't evolve into a genocide against Palestinians; however, it would drive them out of Israel and maintain a military presence at the border.
I am certain that oil plays a part in all of this ( I admitted that a few posts back ); however, religion is equally important to the U.S.
Oil: Government
Religion & "Holy" Land: The people
(Just as an aside, and to illustrate the strategic importance of the area to the US, a massive 43 acre US embassy is currently under construction in the tiny country of the Lebanon, home of Hezbollah, to match its equally enormous one in Baghdad.)
https://gulfnews.com/world/mena/photos-of-new-us-embassy-in-beirut-raise-eyebrows-in-lebanon-and-beyond-1.95625474
💐
I agree the U.S. is strategically positioning themselves in key areas that further their interest. They always have. But we aren't referring to just war here. We are referring to genocide. A completely different species of animal.
Ha! I must confess that I missed the sarcasm in your first paragraph, A. Being the lowest form of wit, I would have assumed it was beneath you.🙃
Anyway ... .
With regard to the point you make in your first paragraph , in what possible way could the US sanction Israel for war crimes? Issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu? Make him write out 500 times 'I must not massacre Palestinians?' Cut off the arms' supply to Israel?
It's not going to happen, I'm afraid. If we translate it, what all of the heavily pro Israel rhetoric from the White House is saying is:
"Keep out of this Iran! If you intervene, we will blow you up!'
Any lessening of US support for Israel, especially if it were to cease arming it, and Israel would very quickly be subject to attack by Iran, among others, and the US would lose a valuable Middle Eastern ally.
What the US is most concerned about is to avoid any escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, hence the present strong support for Israel. The Arab Spring of a few years back showed how volatile the area is. Any escalation could very easily develop into something much greater altogether, particularly now China's influence in the region has increased.
I agree that the US providing humanitarian aid to a country whose attackers the US supports is hypocritical in the extreme.
With regard to your second paragraph, I apologise for misunderstanding your point first time around. If I've understood it correctly this time, I'd have to say that I agree with you. If Palestine were blasting the sh*t out of a defenceless Israel, of course the US would intervene on its behalf. It's an ally. If it were not, it wouldn't. However, the situation you hypothesize is unrealistic.
In conclusion, I'll say that the US allowing the devastation of Palestine by Israel is wholly in keeping with the foreign policy of the US in that general area in relation to strategic influence and the importance of ensuring the free flow of oil to the West. After all, did not the US do to Iraq (twice) exactly what Israel is doing now to Palestine? I could even argue that Israel has a greater justification. At least Hamas does (did) have a few rockets. The 'weapons of mass destruction' allegedly possessed by Iraq were wholly fictitious, and the whole world knew it. The US is not going to suddenly develop a moral conscience after committing that sort of atrocity, itself indeed being guilty of genocide/war crimes on an even greater scale than Israel.
I do enjoy a good political argument, A. 🙃
Much love 💐
Anyway ... .
With regard to the point you make in your first paragraph , in what possible way could the US sanction Israel for war crimes? Issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu? Make him write out 500 times 'I must not massacre Palestinians?' Cut off the arms' supply to Israel?
It's not going to happen, I'm afraid. If we translate it, what all of the heavily pro Israel rhetoric from the White House is saying is:
"Keep out of this Iran! If you intervene, we will blow you up!'
Any lessening of US support for Israel, especially if it were to cease arming it, and Israel would very quickly be subject to attack by Iran, among others, and the US would lose a valuable Middle Eastern ally.
What the US is most concerned about is to avoid any escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, hence the present strong support for Israel. The Arab Spring of a few years back showed how volatile the area is. Any escalation could very easily develop into something much greater altogether, particularly now China's influence in the region has increased.
I agree that the US providing humanitarian aid to a country whose attackers the US supports is hypocritical in the extreme.
With regard to your second paragraph, I apologise for misunderstanding your point first time around. If I've understood it correctly this time, I'd have to say that I agree with you. If Palestine were blasting the sh*t out of a defenceless Israel, of course the US would intervene on its behalf. It's an ally. If it were not, it wouldn't. However, the situation you hypothesize is unrealistic.
In conclusion, I'll say that the US allowing the devastation of Palestine by Israel is wholly in keeping with the foreign policy of the US in that general area in relation to strategic influence and the importance of ensuring the free flow of oil to the West. After all, did not the US do to Iraq (twice) exactly what Israel is doing now to Palestine? I could even argue that Israel has a greater justification. At least Hamas does (did) have a few rockets. The 'weapons of mass destruction' allegedly possessed by Iraq were wholly fictitious, and the whole world knew it. The US is not going to suddenly develop a moral conscience after committing that sort of atrocity, itself indeed being guilty of genocide/war crimes on an even greater scale than Israel.
I do enjoy a good political argument, A. 🙃
Much love 💐
ajay said:Ha! I must confess that I missed the sarcasm in your first paragraph, A. Being the lowest form of wit, I would have assumed it was beneath you.🙃
Welcome to my dark side, ajay!
Anyway ... .
With regard to the point you make in your first paragraph , in what possible way could the US sanction Israel for war crimes? Issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu? Make him write out 500 times 'I must not massacre Palestinians?' Cut off the arms' supply to Israel?
It's not going to happen, I'm afraid. If we translate it, what all of the heavily pro Israel rhetoric from the White House is saying is:
"Keep out of this Iran! If you intervene, we will blow you up!'
Any lessening of US support for Israel, especially if it were to cease arming it, and Israel would very quickly be subject to attack by Iran, among others, and the US would lose a valuable Middle Eastern ally.
I thought I had already expressed what sanctions we could impose, but obviously I didn't go a good enough job of communicating. No more aid or weapons to Israel until they stop the genocide. Period. If we continue aid to Israel in any form we are condoning genocide. Period.
And Biden has already warned Iran ( and anyone else ) who might take advantage of the conflict with one word. "Don't".
What the US is most concerned about is to avoid any escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, hence the present strong support for Israel. The Arab Spring of a few years back showed how volatile the area is. Any escalation could very easily develop into something much greater altogether, particularly now China's influence in the region has increased.
I agree that the US providing humanitarian aid to a country whose attackers the US supports is hypocritical in the extreme.
I understand that but it's no excuse to support genocide.
With regard to your second paragraph, I apologise for misunderstanding your point first time around. If I've understood it correctly this time, I'd have to say that I agree with you. If Palestine were blasting the sh*t out of a defenceless Israel, of course the US would intervene on its behalf. It's an ally. If it were not, it wouldn't. However, the situation you hypothesize is unrealistic.
That's why it's called a hypothesis. It's not necessarily the right answer, but one that can be tested not necessarily on truth ( experience ), but on knowledge, information, and observation.
In conclusion, I'll say that the US allowing the devastation of Palestine by Israel is wholly in keeping with the foreign policy of the US in that general area in relation to strategic influence and the importance of ensuring the free flow of oil to the West. After all, did not the US do to Iraq (twice) exactly what Israel is doing now to Palestine? I could even argue that Israel has a greater justification. At least Hamas does (did) have a few rockets. The 'weapons of mass destruction' allegedly possessed by Iraq were wholly fictitious, and the whole world knew it. The US is not going to suddenly develop a moral conscience after committing that sort of atrocity, itself indeed being guilty of genocide/war crimes on an even greater scale than Israel.
What former President Bush did in Iraq is inexcusable. Weapons of mass destruction my ass. That is something I did not support and condemned the administration for. What I did support was the Liberation of Kuwait, who were being exterminated by Iraqi forces in 1990. Kuwait didn't become an ally of the US until 2004. Yet we intervened against the genocide ( even if it was in the name of oil ). But we're getting way off topic now.
I do enjoy a good political argument, A. 🙃
Much love 💐
I prefer to call them discussions.
Welcome to my dark side, ajay!
Anyway ... .
With regard to the point you make in your first paragraph , in what possible way could the US sanction Israel for war crimes? Issue an arrest warrant for Netanyahu? Make him write out 500 times 'I must not massacre Palestinians?' Cut off the arms' supply to Israel?
It's not going to happen, I'm afraid. If we translate it, what all of the heavily pro Israel rhetoric from the White House is saying is:
"Keep out of this Iran! If you intervene, we will blow you up!'
Any lessening of US support for Israel, especially if it were to cease arming it, and Israel would very quickly be subject to attack by Iran, among others, and the US would lose a valuable Middle Eastern ally.
I thought I had already expressed what sanctions we could impose, but obviously I didn't go a good enough job of communicating. No more aid or weapons to Israel until they stop the genocide. Period. If we continue aid to Israel in any form we are condoning genocide. Period.
And Biden has already warned Iran ( and anyone else ) who might take advantage of the conflict with one word. "Don't".
What the US is most concerned about is to avoid any escalation of hostilities in the Middle East, hence the present strong support for Israel. The Arab Spring of a few years back showed how volatile the area is. Any escalation could very easily develop into something much greater altogether, particularly now China's influence in the region has increased.
I agree that the US providing humanitarian aid to a country whose attackers the US supports is hypocritical in the extreme.
I understand that but it's no excuse to support genocide.
With regard to your second paragraph, I apologise for misunderstanding your point first time around. If I've understood it correctly this time, I'd have to say that I agree with you. If Palestine were blasting the sh*t out of a defenceless Israel, of course the US would intervene on its behalf. It's an ally. If it were not, it wouldn't. However, the situation you hypothesize is unrealistic.
That's why it's called a hypothesis. It's not necessarily the right answer, but one that can be tested not necessarily on truth ( experience ), but on knowledge, information, and observation.
In conclusion, I'll say that the US allowing the devastation of Palestine by Israel is wholly in keeping with the foreign policy of the US in that general area in relation to strategic influence and the importance of ensuring the free flow of oil to the West. After all, did not the US do to Iraq (twice) exactly what Israel is doing now to Palestine? I could even argue that Israel has a greater justification. At least Hamas does (did) have a few rockets. The 'weapons of mass destruction' allegedly possessed by Iraq were wholly fictitious, and the whole world knew it. The US is not going to suddenly develop a moral conscience after committing that sort of atrocity, itself indeed being guilty of genocide/war crimes on an even greater scale than Israel.
What former President Bush did in Iraq is inexcusable. Weapons of mass destruction my ass. That is something I did not support and condemned the administration for. What I did support was the Liberation of Kuwait, who were being exterminated by Iraqi forces in 1990. Kuwait didn't become an ally of the US until 2004. Yet we intervened against the genocide ( even if it was in the name of oil ). But we're getting way off topic now.
I do enjoy a good political argument, A. 🙃
Much love 💐
I prefer to call them discussions.
Ahavati said:
Welcome to my dark side, ajay.
Ha! Perhaps you're a Pluto girl after all, A. 🙃
Ahavati said:
If we continue aid to Israel in any form we are condoning genocide. Period.
That's true. The US (and UK) boss class is f*cking ruthless. They're not nice people. Wake up and smell the coffee. Read the link in my comment immediately below 🙃
Ahavati said:
What I did support was the Liberation of Kuwait, who were being exterminated by Iraqi forces in 1990. Kuwait didn't become an ally of the US until 2004. Yet we intervened against the genocide ( even if it was in the name of oil ). But we're getting way off topic now.
'‘If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn’t give a damn.’ Lawrence Korb
https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/what-they-did-to-iraq-last-time/
The foreign policy remains the same, supporting my contention that US policy abroad is only very broadly determined by the president.
Ahavati said:
I prefer to call them discussions.
Hahahaha! Rock 'n' roll, A. 🙃
All I was saying originally was that the title of this thread is inaccurate. Before WW2 it was Britain's Israel; post WW2 it is the USA's Israel. To heap all the blame on poor old Joe Biden is most unfair.
PS I've no idea how this quotey thing works, so if all of the above appears a mess you'll know why 🙃
Much love 💐
Welcome to my dark side, ajay.
Ha! Perhaps you're a Pluto girl after all, A. 🙃
Ahavati said:
If we continue aid to Israel in any form we are condoning genocide. Period.
That's true. The US (and UK) boss class is f*cking ruthless. They're not nice people. Wake up and smell the coffee. Read the link in my comment immediately below 🙃
Ahavati said:
What I did support was the Liberation of Kuwait, who were being exterminated by Iraqi forces in 1990. Kuwait didn't become an ally of the US until 2004. Yet we intervened against the genocide ( even if it was in the name of oil ). But we're getting way off topic now.
'‘If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn’t give a damn.’ Lawrence Korb
https://socialistworker.co.uk/features/what-they-did-to-iraq-last-time/
The foreign policy remains the same, supporting my contention that US policy abroad is only very broadly determined by the president.
Ahavati said:
I prefer to call them discussions.
Hahahaha! Rock 'n' roll, A. 🙃
All I was saying originally was that the title of this thread is inaccurate. Before WW2 it was Britain's Israel; post WW2 it is the USA's Israel. To heap all the blame on poor old Joe Biden is most unfair.
PS I've no idea how this quotey thing works, so if all of the above appears a mess you'll know why 🙃
Much love 💐
ajay said:
Hahahaha! Rock 'n' roll, A. 🙃
All I was saying originally was that the title of this thread is inaccurate. Before WW2 it was Britain's Israel; post WW2 it is the USA's Israel. To heap all the blame on poor old Joe Biden is most unfair.
PS I've no idea how this quotey thing works, so if all of the above appears a mess you'll know why 🙃
Much love 💐
Yep. And I totally agreed with you on EVERYTHING. Except that ONE thingie about religion!
We're on the same page, ajay. My natal Mercury, the Prince of Communication, is out of bounds and in its detriment, so my interface lacks at times. I'll get there eventually.
Hahahaha! Rock 'n' roll, A. 🙃
All I was saying originally was that the title of this thread is inaccurate. Before WW2 it was Britain's Israel; post WW2 it is the USA's Israel. To heap all the blame on poor old Joe Biden is most unfair.
PS I've no idea how this quotey thing works, so if all of the above appears a mess you'll know why 🙃
Much love 💐
Yep. And I totally agreed with you on EVERYTHING. Except that ONE thingie about religion!
We're on the same page, ajay. My natal Mercury, the Prince of Communication, is out of bounds and in its detriment, so my interface lacks at times. I'll get there eventually. Ahavati said:
Yep. And I totally agreed with you on EVERYTHING. Except that ONE thingie about religion! We're on the same page, ajay. My natal Mercury, the Prince of Communication, is out of bounds and in its detriment, so my interface lacks at times. I'll get there eventually.
Ha! Steel and flint, A. Steel and flint 🔥🔥
🙃💐
Yep. And I totally agreed with you on EVERYTHING. Except that ONE thingie about religion!
We're on the same page, ajay. My natal Mercury, the Prince of Communication, is out of bounds and in its detriment, so my interface lacks at times. I'll get there eventually. Ha! Steel and flint, A. Steel and flint 🔥🔥
🙃💐
badmalthus said:Hello Josh, nice to be back with a few Nietzsche quotes haha. I am very well. How are you doing my friend?
Cheers...Harry
I spent 4 months this year recovering from a silly accident breaking/bruising bones in my ribcage - but am now fuly o.k again. I seem to have slowed down though -- maybe not a bad thing. But I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's comment about staying young/active as you get older "Don't let the old man in". However, my Mongolian daughter-in-law brought be a beautiful 100% cashmere cardigan back from Mongolia - trouble is, when I wear it I feel like an old man - especially when I sit in my favourite chair in the sitting-room ...
Cheers...Harry
I spent 4 months this year recovering from a silly accident breaking/bruising bones in my ribcage - but am now fuly o.k again. I seem to have slowed down though -- maybe not a bad thing. But I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's comment about staying young/active as you get older "Don't let the old man in". However, my Mongolian daughter-in-law brought be a beautiful 100% cashmere cardigan back from Mongolia - trouble is, when I wear it I feel like an old man - especially when I sit in my favourite chair in the sitting-room ...
Josh said:
I spent 4 months this year recovering from a silly accident breaking/bruising bones in my ribcage - but am now fuly o.k again. I seem to have slowed down though -- maybe not a bad thing. But I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's comment about staying young/active as you get older "Don't let the old man in". However, my Mongolian daughter-in-law brought be a beautiful 100% cashmere cardigan back from Mongolia - trouble is, when I wear it I feel like an old man - especially when I sit in my favourite chair in the sitting-room ...
Ribs are always painful Josh. Glad you are better now. 100% cashmere sounds good to me man lol. Yeah old age is a killer, what I use to do all night now takes me all night to do
Cheers...Harry
I spent 4 months this year recovering from a silly accident breaking/bruising bones in my ribcage - but am now fuly o.k again. I seem to have slowed down though -- maybe not a bad thing. But I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's comment about staying young/active as you get older "Don't let the old man in". However, my Mongolian daughter-in-law brought be a beautiful 100% cashmere cardigan back from Mongolia - trouble is, when I wear it I feel like an old man - especially when I sit in my favourite chair in the sitting-room ...
Ribs are always painful Josh. Glad you are better now. 100% cashmere sounds good to me man lol. Yeah old age is a killer, what I use to do all night now takes me all night to do
Cheers...Harry
Josh said:
I spent 4 months this year recovering from a silly accident breaking/bruising bones in my ribcage - but am now fuly o.k again. I seem to have slowed down though -- maybe not a bad thing. But I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's comment about staying young/active as you get older "Don't let the old man in". However, my Mongolian daughter-in-law brought be a beautiful 100% cashmere cardigan back from Mongolia - trouble is, when I wear it I feel like an old man - especially when I sit in my favourite chair in the sitting-room ...
Nice to know you're doing better and spending more time here, Josh!
badmalthus said:
Ribs are always painful Josh. Glad you are better now. 100% cashmere sounds good to me man lol. Yeah old age is a killer, what I use to do all night now takes me all night to do
Cheers...Harry
Harry! Welcome back!
I spent 4 months this year recovering from a silly accident breaking/bruising bones in my ribcage - but am now fuly o.k again. I seem to have slowed down though -- maybe not a bad thing. But I'm reminded of Clint Eastwood's comment about staying young/active as you get older "Don't let the old man in". However, my Mongolian daughter-in-law brought be a beautiful 100% cashmere cardigan back from Mongolia - trouble is, when I wear it I feel like an old man - especially when I sit in my favourite chair in the sitting-room ...
Nice to know you're doing better and spending more time here, Josh!
badmalthus said:
Ribs are always painful Josh. Glad you are better now. 100% cashmere sounds good to me man lol. Yeah old age is a killer, what I use to do all night now takes me all night to do
Cheers...Harry
Harry! Welcome back!
