Shop Prices? Possible visit to NEPAL!

Status
Not open for further replies.
....uh, I think 'we' did kill off some English loyalists.

Andy, are you listening to me? I did not say that Castro is not a bad guy, I said he did not start out murdering the people he needed to support his popular revolution.


munk
 
....uh, I think 'we' did kill off some English loyalists.

Andy, are you listening to me? I did not say that Castro is not a bad guy, I said he did not start out murdering the people he needed to support his popular revolution.


munk
 
Triple post, cool.

We're not going to have a beer pub debate, England vs US, are we?
Hope not.


munk
 
As bloody as the English were, I think they were the best world power we'd had up to that point. They didn't do anything everyone else wasn't doing.
That's the sad truth.


munk
 
spiraltwista said:
Many people are still not free, I fear.Spiral
Click to expand...

Very true, bro. Definitely not wanting an Eng. Vs US debate. Britain is our truest and most valuable ally without question. Just trying to clarify I wasn't questioning British courage.
 
You underlined "The British didnt have the balls for it" Approy.

That was why I responded.

Yes indeed you fought us & we cleared off so you won!

Generations of my family have fought. The English can fight.

Munk, I figure kings are kings. Whether Nepal or England. I was merly trying to provoke though. At one time Americans were the rebels in British eyes.

Many terroists/freedom fighters go on to be democratic rulers. some are good some are bad.

Its feudalistic. I am more post-modern.

I am not a monarchist.

People deserve a few human rights I think.

Citizen sounds better than subject to me.

I thinkwe only gave people freedom when English solders had had enough fighting after ww2 & the hypocrisy of us fighting for freedom in ww2 while still bieng colonials hit home.

Not to mention the Natiolists had good decent modern weapons for a change & many had fought in the British armies in WW2".

Pre. ww2 we would kill & torture them & commit mass atrocities to keep control. {Which is what the Nepali king tried on a smaller scale.}

Many people in are still not free, I think.

Free is good.

Spiral
 
munk said:
.
If you look at it, England lost almost every single 'colony'. In the end, not about economics or supply chains, but inevitable freedom.

Munk
Click to expand...

Also about over reaching. It takes a lot to occupy a land.

I think we will see a big change in Cuba when Castro dies. I mean his Communist revolution brought enough good things that it seems the majority of Cubans don't want to overthrow them or they would. Look at Haiti they are continually throwing people out of office:D However with the loss of backing of the USSR the lower standard of living will for sure prompt a change when he dies. Hopefully democracy for a change. I think their system would still remain socialist but not communist. I'd hate to see the whole place turn into a tourist trap run by out of country corporations, and the cubans lose their world class educational system and health care system to all be minimum wage greeters at resorts:( On the other hand they deserve a better standard of overall living than they are getting.

I predict a Democratically elected socialist will be elected kind of like Chavez.
 
spiraltwista said:
You underlined "The British didnt have the balls for it" Approy.

That was why I responded.

Yes indeed you fought us & we cleared off so you won!

Generations of my family have fought. The English can fight.
Click to expand...

What I wrote was "We fought off the Brits, and they didn't have the guts." The subject 'they' was intended to mean the other non-American colonists who failed to fight off imperial Britain. I can see how the sentence isn't properly clear, but please don't misquote me out of context.

Again, the British have always shown courage, and can fight. That was never my intended point in any way. Many of my relatives fought beside yours in the major wars of the 20th century as you well know.

However, we fought you, and you surrendered, so we won is more historically accurate, I think. Your statement seems to minimize our effort and your own defeat.
 
Appologies Approy.

Balls & guts means the same but yes I should have put.

"We fought off the Brits, and they didn't have the guts." as you did.

Its certanly an easy staement to misunderstand! so thankyou for the detailed explanation of what you realy meant.


Other than that Ill leave your interpritation of what I wrote to you.

Its yours after all.

Spiral
 
aproy1101 said:
The same can be said of Lenin, and Stalin. No?

Even Hitler didn't start out with terror.

How do you judge these men, their intentions, their sales pitch, or the results?
Click to expand...


"The German Workers' Party , the forerunner of the Nazi Party, espoused a right-wing ideology, like many similar groups of demobilized soldiers. Adolf Hitler joined this small political party in 1919 and rose to leadership through his emotional and captivating speeches. He encouraged national pride, militarism, and a commitment to the Volk and a racially "pure" Germany. Hitler condemned the Jews, exploiting antisemitic feelings that had prevailed in Europe for centuries. He changed the name of the party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, called for short, the Nazi Party (or NSDAP). By the end of 1920, the Nazi Party had about 3,000 members. A year later Hitler became its official leader, or Führer. "

i dissagree. hitler started off bad and ended in the grand fashion of world ensconsing terror and death. he may not have been terrorizing his people or another specific country, but being jewish or british or anyone he thought an enemy at even his first rallies would have been a harrowing thing.

hard not to make this a political thread. lots of things i'd like to say, but that one point is really the only one im going to make simply because i feel its basically very wrong to think that hitler started out with what we would call good intentions.

qoute is from - http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/nazirise.htm
 
SO... What are the LEgalities of bringing kukris back home on a plane if I should purchase some from a NON-HI shop?
 
In Nepal, western tourists can have kukri in thier cargo hold luggage. no problem.

Then I guess it depends what country or airport you land in.

Spiral
 
Thanks for the 411 Seth. I'm certainly no expert. I knew he wasn't good from the start, just didn't know how quickly his message turned pure evil.

On another forum there are pictures of Nepalese people dismembered in the streets because they were suspected informers on the Maoists. That is terrifying.
 
I'll say from experience that bringing large amounts of edged weaponry into an airport can be an interesting experience. In the US it should be legal, if it has been checked properly. Your airline and/or the DHS should be your point of contact for any questions regarding the specifics. I didn't find it necessary but requesting an answer in writing certainly would not hurt; documents on agency letterhead seem to carry more weight than, "Well, they told me on the phone that..."

The airlines themselves don't seem to care much as long as you're not threatening their aircraft. I've been told by airlines personnel in the past (when transporting firearms, no less) that what happens on the other end is my responsibility, not theirs -- they're simply moving me from Point A to Point B.

If anyone asks, you're a martial artist. That always seems to get the "Oh, okay, I didn't think of that," look from the folks in the uniforms.
 
"On another forum there are pictures of Nepalese people dismembered in the streets because they were suspected informers on the Maoists. That is terrifying."

Yes indeed they are photos that I posted, that style of killing has been used in Nepal for centuries. Actualy its often how Gurkhas killed prisoners in ww1 & ww2.

They didnt always just decapitate.

In Burma fighting the Naga after dismemberment the bits would be left tied dangling from trees to show not to mess with the Gurkhas.

Kukris make a mess of people.

A Gurkha is a great friend but a terrible enemy.

Spiral
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top