Whats up with the history channel

[Lt. Maverick]

all they've been showing is stuff about how or when the world's going to end....must be the end of the world holliday today?

[Emerson1]

They like to have apocalypse weeks every once in a while

[Phil C]

Take it from an old man - I have heard many dates set as the time that the world will end and long past those dates the world is still here.

[I. B. Watching]

I think old Nostradomas owned some stock in the History Channel

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Lt. Maverick
all they've been showing is stuff about how or when the world's going to end....must be the end of the world holliday today?
.
The History Channel has been around for maybe 15 years... think about it.:D :nerd:

[Blastoderm55]

I watched those shows all day. Fascinating stuff.

[sahen]

they normally show stuff like this when a movie that has something to do w/ the apocolypse/end of the world comes out....that movie "knowing" w/ nicolas cage just came out thus they are showing a bunch of end of the world stuff...

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by Lt. Maverick
all they've been showing is stuff about how or when the world's going to end....must be the end of the world holliday today?

Apparently we agree on this subject.:thinking:


http://bbs.3adownlow.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=91234&highlight=history+discovery+channel

[c-town_balla]

History Channel is best when it shows the Band of Brothers miniseries in a row...

[waterboy]

The reason they show this kind of stuff is it makes people think, and it's good for ratings. My take on this whole 2012 thing is they had to stop future predictions somewhere. Those seers couldn't just keep going on and on into infinity with their predictions. All these seers were into the cosmos (astrology) to the point that they knew one of the astrological cycles would end on December 21, 2012, the winter solstice when the sun would be at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. I don't think it'll be the end of the world, but just the beginning of a new astrological cycle. Only God really knows when the world will end. Why would anyone think people can predict the earth's end when the "end" is truly in His hands? Just my opinion......

[BEAST]

Originally posted by waterboy
The reason they show this kind of stuff is it makes people think, and it's good for ratings. My take on this whole 2012 thing is they had to stop future predictions somewhere. Those seers couldn't just keep going on and on into infinity with their predictions. All these seers were into the cosmos (astrology) to the point that they knew one of the astrological cycles would end on December 21, 2012, the winter solstice when the sun would be at the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. I don't think it'll be the end of the world, but just the beginning of a new astrological cycle. Only God really knows when the world will end. Why would anyone think people can predict the earth's end when the "end" is truly in His hands? Just my opinion......

Could not agree more. AMEN.




BEAST

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by BEAST
Could not agree more. AMEN.




BEAST

Another little known Nostrdamus quattrain:

"And in the North there shall rise a power under the sign of the Bull in the fall of ninth year of the 21st century.

It shall ride and defeat all who oppose even though they be of great reputation, for none shall stand the might of the Bull."

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Another little known Nostrdamus quattrain:

"And in the North there shall rise a power under the sign of the Bull in the fall of ninth year of the 21st century.

It shall ride and defeat all who oppose even though they be of great reputation, for none shall stand the might of the Bull."


OHH, you mean kind of like in 2008?;) :p

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Daddy D 11
OHH, you mean kind of like in 2008?;) :p

Well, we wern't too shabby, Daddy D, and I bet you didn't feel that way for the first half of a game we both remember. :D

[Daddy D 11]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Well, we wern't too shabby, Daddy D, and I bet you didn't feel that way for the first half of a game we both remember. :D

Eventually, luck always runs out:2thumbsup

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Another little known Nostrdamus quattrain:

"And in the North there shall rise a power under the sign of the Bull in the fall of ninth year of the 21st century.

It shall ride and defeat all who oppose even though they be of great reputation, for none shall stand the might of the Bull."
China..........maybe? Nostradamus' quattrains are so vague it's a wonder anyone can interpret them. I also think they can be interpretted in a number of ways, but that does make sense....:thinking: . The United States has already risen to power,.........right?:thinking: I know China is buying up all our raw materials, and that's pretty scary, but the U.S. can become a military machine if the need arises. Sheer numbers are the only real advantage China would have...........that, and the will to fight, which I wonder whether this country would ever have again. It would take the total war effort such as the one given during WWII to win such a war if it did happen. I'm not sure we could get that kind of effort out of our people again.:(

[sahen]

Originally posted by waterboy
China..........maybe? Nostradamus' quattrains are so vague it's a wonder anyone can interpret them. I also think they can be interpretted in a number of ways, but that does make sense....:thinking: . The United States has already risen to power,.........right?:thinking: I know China is buying up all our raw materials, and that's pretty scary, but the U.S. can become a military machine if the need arises. Sheer numbers are the only real advantage China would have...........that, and the will to fight, which I wonder whether this country would ever have again. It would take the total war effort such as the one given during WWII to win such a war if it did happen. I'm not sure we could get that kind of effort out of our people again.:(

before WW2 the USA didn't want to fight....they were isolationist and arguably less likely to fight than we are now....it took Pearl Harbor to get them in a fighting mood and it woke up the whole nation...if there is a threat i think we would fight, but whether or not we woudl have the stomach to weather a war for as long and as bloody as WW2 i dunno...it probably depends on the imminent danger we feel here at home...one thing is for certain people's values and minds change about war when their home is threatened, its human nature...

[waterboy]

sahen, I certainly hope they would. I just hope we never have to find out. These days people don't want to fight a war, and I know it was the same way back in the late '30s and early '40s, but people in this country now show more distrust and opposition to their government than they did then. That leads me to believe that they couldn't stomach a prolonged and deadly war unless we were provoked. Even then, people would forget after a few years what actually caused the war to begin with. Remember 9/11 and what happened after that? People have basically forgotten what happened that day, and think that any war going on right now because of it is unjustified. Not everybody, just the ones that are always whining about the costs of war.

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by waterboy
China..........maybe? Nostradamus' quattrains are so vague it's a wonder anyone can interpret them. I also think they can be interpretted in a number of ways, but that does make sense....:thinking: . The United States has already risen to power,.........right?:thinking: I know China is buying up all our raw materials, and that's pretty scary, but the U.S. can become a military machine if the need arises. Sheer numbers are the only real advantage China would have...........that, and the will to fight, which I wonder whether this country would ever have again. It would take the total war effort such as the one given during WWII to win such a war if it did happen. I'm not sure we could get that kind of effort out of our people again.:(

Maybe I did a little too good of a job on my Nostradamus quattrain imitation, waterboy. :D My intent was tongue in cheek with the "fall of the ninth year in the 21st century" corresponding to the start of the 2009 HS football season, and the Bull, of course, being Bridgeport. I did enjoy your serious analysis, however, and makes sense when you think about it in those terms.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Maybe I did a little too good of a job on my Nostradamus quattrain imitation, waterboy. :D My intent was tongue in cheek with the "fall of the ninth year in the 21st century" corresponding to the start of the 2009 HS football season, and the Bull, of course, being Bridgeport. I did enjoy your serious analysis, however, and makes sense when you think about it in those terms.
:eek: Whaaaaa..?:eek: You wasn't being serious?:doh: You made that up?:doh: You actually made me think........that's hard on my poor little cell-deprived brain you know!:D Oh by the way, this is the year of the "Stump", remember?;)

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Maybe I did a little too good of a job on my Nostradamus quattrain imitation, waterboy. :D My intent was tongue in cheek with the "fall of the ninth year in the 21st century" corresponding to the start of the 2009 HS football season, and the Bull, of course, being Bridgeport. I did enjoy your serious analysis, however, and makes sense when you think about it in those terms.


The "fall of the ninth year in the 21st century" would have been the start of the 2008 football season. The 2009 season is in the 10th year. So my question is who in the world rose to power in the end of 2008? Well if I'm not wrong THIS country had a Presidential election in Nov. of 2008. But the idea of Obama being known as "The Bull" is hilarious. Add the *hit to it and maybe....

Sorry! I couldn't resist.:D :D :D

[sahen]

Originally posted by waterboy
sahen, I certainly hope they would. I just hope we never have to find out. These days people don't want to fight a war, and I know it was the same way back in the late '30s and early '40s, but people in this country now show more distrust and opposition to their government than they did then. That leads me to believe that they couldn't stomach a prolonged and deadly war unless we were provoked. Even then, people would forget after a few years what actually caused the war to begin with. Remember 9/11 and what happened after that? People have basically forgotten what happened that day, and think that any war going on right now because of it is unjustified. Not everybody, just the ones that are always whining about the costs of war.

i certainly doubt people have more mistrust in government now than they did in the 1930s.....before Pearl Harbor we were basically still in the Great Depression, people trusted the government so much they were naming shack cities after the president...there was a HUGE rift between the rich and poor.....people may trust the government just as little now but i dont think we trust them any less than the people in the 30s...i think people have a tendency to fight when their home is actually threatened, for a couple years after 9/11 everyone was gungho about attacking over in the middle east, when it became apparant (and probably falsely apparant) that we werent going to get attacked again people lose the taste of war...we'll either get another attack and return renewed or maybe the armed forces are doing a good enough job keeping them occupied over there that they are worrying about themselves more than attacking us...either way, if a nation actually attacked us w/ the military might of 1940s Japan with allies like the Germans in the same period i think our response and will to fight would be much different....

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by sahen
i certainly doubt people have more mistrust in government now than they did in the 1930s.....before Pearl Harbor we were basically still in the Great Depression, people trusted the government so much they were naming shack cities after the president...there was a HUGE rift between the rich and poor.....people may trust the government just as little now but i dont think we trust them any less than the people in the 30s...i think people have a tendency to fight when their home is actually threatened, for a couple years after 9/11 everyone was gungho about attacking over in the middle east, when it became apparant (and probably falsely apparant) that we werent going to get attacked again people lose the taste of war...we'll either get another attack and return renewed or maybe the armed forces are doing a good enough job keeping them occupied over there that they are worrying about themselves more than attacking us...either way, if a nation actually attacked us w/ the military might of 1940s Japan with allies like the Germans in the same period i think our response and will to fight would be much different....
Globalization has skewered those lines so badly that bedfellows are ironically counter-productive to utilizing war. China and the U.S. could go to war, but it would cripple each other's economy. Many prognosticators outside the pentagon believe it will soon fold on itself on shear immensity alone. The inability for it to control so many, and as stratification increases they will be pulled down. Now they could seek allocation of natural resources which they lack, but they aren't likely to take the same path the Japanese did per Plan Orange. Chinese expansion west and a policy of neo-imperialism in by proxies in Africa are more likely. Many people have sought a way to deal with NK, and some of the best options have been to allow them to have their weapons, but have them disarmed under guises of non-aggression-pacts with them. Rest assured, a war in North Korea would be one of the bloodiest and geo-politically provocative acts. W/O allies and China cooperation it would be near impossible.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
Globalization has skewered those lines so badly that bedfellows are ironically counter-productive to utilizing war. China and the U.S. could go to war, but it would cripple each other's economy. Many prognosticators outside the pentagon believe it will soon fold on itself on shear immensity alone. The inability for it to control so many, and as stratification increases they will be pulled down. Now they could seek allocation of natural resources which they lack, but they aren't likely to take the same path the Japanese did per Plan Orange. Chinese expansion west and a policy of neo-imperialism in by proxies in Africa are more likely. Many people have sought a way to deal with NK, and some of the best options have been to allow them to have their weapons, but have them disarmed under guises of non-aggression-pacts with them. Rest assured, a war in North Korea would be one of the bloodiest and geo-politically provocative acts. W/O allies and China cooperation it would be near impossible.

as u mentioned our economic ties with China has basically created a SILENT allies. We disagree with them on the outside, but behind closed doors I think both sides realize to much is at stake.

I even think if we ever truly went to full scale war with NK that China would not do much to help NK

Right now the truly toughest part about fighting NK on their turf is just that..Their physical borders and how they sit on the earth make them tough to truly invade unless u do it from the inside out. But I also think their will to fight as people is not as strong as we assume. The economy is so totally blasted there and they have NOTHING. I really dont think the indoctrination by the Nk government is as strong as it once was. Now the people there "support" the government more out of fear than loyalty when at one time loyalty was the bigger factor than fear.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
as u mentioned our economic ties with China has basically created a SILENT allies. We disagree with them on the outside, but behind closed doors I think both sides realize to much is at stake.

I even think if we ever truly went to full scale war with NK that China would not do much to help NK

Right now the truly toughest part about fighting NK on their turf is just that..Their physical borders and how they sit on the earth make them tough to truly invade unless u do it from the inside out. But I also think their will to fight as people is not as strong as we assume. The economy is so totally blasted there and they have NOTHING. I really dont think the indoctrination by the Nk government is as strong as it once was. Now the people there "support" the government more out of fear than loyalty when at one time loyalty was the bigger factor than fear.
So, what you're saying is, if we were to go to war with them, we would have to have a covert operation that went ahead of any hostilities to cut the head off the snake -- so to speak. That would mean assassinating the head-of-state in Korea, and most of their military leaders. If we did that, the rest of that country would fall. I like that idea..........if it ever got to that point......but this country is too rational to do anything like that, even though there's a strong possibility that it would make the war shortlived and spare many thousands of lives, not only ours, but their's as well.

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by waterboy
So, what you're saying is, if we were to go to war with them, we would have to have a covert operation that went ahead of any hostilities to cut the head off the snake -- so to speak. That would mean assassinating the head-of-state in Korea, and most of their military leaders. If we did that, the rest of that country would fall. I like that idea..........if it ever got to that point......but this country is too rational to do anything like that, even though there's a strong possibility that it would make the war shortlived and spare many thousands of lives, not only ours, but their's as well. Actually that is simple thinking and why with so many chances to kill Hitler, they were abruptly halted when we realized his remaining at the head assured STUPID decisions. In this case, while Kim may be irrational, we have no clue on what may replace him, and as in Iraq, you break it, you own it. I think we should be done with nation building! Choppin off the head and eliminating the system in place only creates jobless hostiles. You can't simplify a tantamount decision. We can only presume what goes on behind those walls, pursuing a path where we believe we'll be viewed as liberators, well, we know how that worked out!

[garciap77]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Another little known Nostrdamus quattrain:

"And in the North there shall rise a power under the sign of the Bull in the fall of ninth year of the 21st century.

It shall ride and defeat all who oppose even though they be of great reputation, for none shall stand the might of the Bull."

Now that's a bunch of "BULL"!

:D






;)

[Sweetwater Red]

Originally posted by Bullaholic
Another little known Nostrdamus quattrain:

"And in the North there shall rise a power under the sign of the Bull in the fall of ninth year of the 21st century.

It shall ride and defeat all who oppose even though they be of great reputation, for none shall stand the might of the Bull."

Did Nostradamus say whether the Bull would bring a kicker with
him?:evillol:

[Bullaholic]

Originally posted by Sweetwater Red
Did Nostradamus say whether the Bull would bring a kicker with
him?:evillol:

LOL---butt kicker maybe. Heck, we've solved that prob the last 2 seasons, Red. Our kicker even iced a 30-yarder against Monahans to give us the OT win last season--Imagine that after that gut-wrenching 05' Monahans game,

[waterboy]

I think the everyday Korean peasant would actually appreciate it if it happened, so long as there is a more moderate replacement. Then, like you said, we would have to occupy that country indefinitely -- another idea that's out of the question. It's definitely one of those danged if you do, and danged if you don't type situations. The idea of ending a war swiftly would carry a heavy price from our country militarily (with an occupation force) and monetarily (setting up and establishing a democratic government) in the long run, but a prolonged war would not only cost us that, it would cost us with a heavier loss of life. I like the idea much better of ending ANY war as swiftly as possible, but that's just me.

[Buckeye1980]

everybody know the world will end on July 8,2009 at 6 seconds after 4:05 AM

04-05-06-07-08-09


and I hope you do not think I believe that!!

[sahen]

wow how did korea end up in all this?....all i was saying in my post was that IF we were directly attacked by a nation that had the intentions and ability to take over us or completely destroy us then there would be no shortage of people promoting us to fight that war...none of this second party we fight for their land stuff or take out their weapons stuff, in that situation you will always have people who disagree/agree with that no matter how right or how wrong it is...i was simplifying it to the most extreme case for war and that is protection of what is yours, and yes i know its highly unlikely to happen however i was just using it as a hypothetical...

[I_Do_Care]

Originally posted by sahen
wow how did korea end up in all this?....all i was saying in my post was that IF we were directly attacked by a nation that had the intentions and ability to take over us or completely destroy us then there would be no shortage of people promoting us to fight that war...none of this second party we fight for their land stuff or take out their weapons stuff, in that situation you will always have people who disagree/agree with that no matter how right or how wrong it is...i was simplifying it to the most extreme case for war and that is protection of what is yours, and yes i know its highly unlikely to happen however i was just using it as a hypothetical... Partner, in our lifetime it is not likely we'll see an army face off with our military in the open. It is just plain suicide, no matter the number. Our technogical superiority has acted much like the nuclear deterrent. Now, will nations invade weaker nations (Russia-Georgia 'the country not the state you podunkers ;) ) Sure, we can't have our military everywhere, alliances can draw us into wars more likely than the extreme of invasion or threat there of. Disproportionate and unconventional warfare will be the foreseeable norm (pirates, insurgency, terrorist etc). I think the one hot button issue will be our proxies. Iran vs Israel, while my personal views differ from religious anecdotes, Megiddo certainly is a wonderful job of prognostication considering how countries array in defense of one or the other.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by I_Do_Care
Partner, in our lifetime it is not likely we'll see an army face off with our military in the open. It is just plain suicide, no matter the number. Our technogical superiority has acted much like the nuclear deterrent. Now, will nations invade weaker nations (Russia-Georgia 'the country not the state you podunkers ;) ) Sure, we can't have our military everywhere, alliances can draw us into wars more likely than the extreme of invasion or threat there of. Disproportionate and unconventional warfare will be the foreseeable norm (pirates, insurgency, terrorist etc). I think the one hot button issue will be our proxies. Iran vs Israel, while my personal views differ from religious anecdotes, Megiddo certainly is a wonderful job of prognostication considering how countries array in defense of one or the other.
.
Would you just come out of the closet, Boog?:p :D