Guy N. Heels

Saw a girl this weekend with shoes that I want, but since I didn't talk to her, I'm not sure of what I should be searching for.

Basically, what I could see of the shoe was a big round toe area (I think some of you call them bubble-toes) with a very discreet chunky heel (her jeans covered most of the shoe). I could tell they were heels not by looking at the shoe itself, but because of the stride/posture of the wearer. My guess was that it was about a 3" heel.

I've been searching, using words like "oxford", but I don't think that is quite right. The impression that was left on me was almost "work boot", but with a bunch of lift in the back.

Any help in at least naming the type of shoes so I can go searching for them?

I am reminded of the story of the woman who told her psychiatrist, "Doctor, I have this nameless fear." To which the psychiatrist responded, "Not to worry, my dear. Here we have names for everything.":text_lol:

Personally, I find your description much too vague to be able to draw any picture from. But speaking of pictures, perhaps you could visit some of the on-line shoe stores and find what you're looking for, or at least something similar. Zappos or Beverlyheels might be a good place to start.

Get out before it's to late dude!!!!!!!! If it's companion ship your looking for, get a pet... Won't cost you near as much money and will apriciate you.

Right on!

If you want a true friend - get a dog. - Harry Truman

It's called Sharia law and it isn't guided by the Koran at all. It is based on the code of laws that was in existence in Mohamed's time.

You are right again about Sharia, a system of "law" that is so cruel that here in the US anyone treating an animal that way would be thrown in jail.

But now I have glad tidings of exceeding great joy! We are presently in a very bad patch wherein we must suffer wars, poverty, and disease for the next few years. But after we get through this present bad patch, we will have peace in our time. Those who are able to survive the next few years will see the greatest Kingdom mankind will ever know established right here on earth. Suffering, famine, poverty, and disease will end and peace will break out all over.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough the first time. My point was that , shipping weapons to Shia militias reflects different intentions than shipping weapons to al Qaeda or Sunni insurgents.

Have you read THIS Newsweek article? You might find this article from the AP similarly interesting.

Iraq President is historically allied with the Quds: Newsweek

"Perhaps no one has benefited from the Quds Force’s patronage more than the current president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, who is also a close U.S. ally. Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) party was Iran’s main ally in northern Iraq during the 1980s. When fighting broke out between rival Kurdish groups in the mid-'90s, the Quds Force fought on Talabani’s side against Massoud Barzani, whose Kurdish party had asked for Saddam Hussein’s help."

Iraq government invited top Qurds officials into Iraq: Newsweek

"In December, two IRGC officials were invited to Iraq, including a man believed to be the third most senior Quds Force official, Mohsen Chizari. U.S. troops arrested the men, even though they had diplomatic passports. Talabani demanded immediate release of the Iranians and confirmed that they had been invited by the Iraqi government."

"The two officials had come, Ameri told NEWSWEEK, to discuss security issues. Ameri said two top Iraqi government officials, Deputy Prime Minister Barham Salih and national-security adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, had asked the Iranian government to help rein in the Mahdi Army, the rival Shiite militia directed by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that is believed to be responsible for death squads and other sectarian violence, as well as attacks on U.S. troops. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki “wanted Iran’s help and said you can influence this issue," Ameri said in an interview. “This led to the Iranians sending the group with the diplomatic passports.” He added: “They had a meeting with me and we talked about how to put pressure on the Jaish Mahdi [Mahdi Army] not to attack Sunnis … how to prevent the Jaish Mahdi from working against the government and not to raise their weapons illegally.”

Iraq seeking active support from Quds: Newsweek

"The upshot is that while the American military is blaming the Quds Force and IRGC for all sorts of misdeeds, the highest officials in the U.S.-backed Iraqi government appear to be buying weapons from them and asking for their help on security issues"

It thus appears to me that Iran is helping their Shia allies in Iraq prevail in a civil war which has already begun and seems likely to get worse. In my view, it's likely that Iran is preparing the Shia majority to defend itself when the U.S. pulls out.

It has already been mentioned that the Shia brand of Islam, and particularly the virulent Wahabbi brand of hatred, is what managed to get swept into power in Iran when the Peacock Throne was overturned. That virulent brand of hatred is what the ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard embrace, practice, and export. Furthermore, this radical doctrine has found fertile ground in Saudi Arabia where it has flourished. (Perhaps the most notable Saudi adherant is Osama bin Laden.) But worse yet, this malignancy is spreading throughout the murder-east and it does seem to have found favorable harborage in places like: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and the Sudan. Naturally, the Shiite Persians are delighted to help out the Iraqis with weapons, bombs, or anything else that will promote the spread of this malignancy, whose main fruits are: death, destruction, pain, suffering, and sorrow. So why do the Shiites in Iraq need to defend themselves from anything when their main goal, apparently, is to propagate the killing until there's no one left to dig the graves? It's called "kill indiscriminately" by any means possible until there's no one left to kill.

But what I can't seem to understand is: With all of the death and destruction going on, exactly what kind of future do they plan to build for themselves and the next generation (assuming that there will be a next generation to follow)? After all, it's one thing to destroy everything in sight, but after the smoke clears away and the dust settles down, what will they have left and what do they plan to do with it?

I think that inward curving heels are sexier too, it's what I think of as the classic stiletto heel.

Chris

Having read all of the posts on this thread, I'd like to add my 2 cents' worth.

First of all, the "set-back heels are highly reminisent of the kind of heels generally worn in the thirties and forties, albeit, much thinner. While those old style heels did get the gals up to a higher level, they left little in the way of eye-appeal. Perhaps that's why the introduction of the stiletto in the fifties was such a hit. After all, the stiletto held out all manner of promise that the earlier heels really didn't have. But as I recall, it was sometime in the late sixties or early seventies that a recurved heel that resembled a stemmed wine glass was introduced. In fact, I seem to recall Baker's specifically heralding their wineglass heel. Needless to say, not only was the wineglass heel an instant success, it is still with us in large measure today. There is indeed something about it that has instant eye-appeal, and the fact that it moves the overall balance and strike of the foot forward doesn't hurt matters any either. But one other thing was sure to make it an instant success - it's ability to make the foot look smaller. Indeed, the ability to disguise the actual size of the foot seems to be a major requirement for women's footwear deigners. So how could the wineglass heel miss?

IMO, the wineglass heel has become something of a classic and will be with us for many years to come. :academic:

Excellent story, Pumps. Could you tell us a little more about Fastelaven? Tell us about it's origins and history. Is it something like Carnival or Mardi Gras? Is it purely Scandenavian?

Woman ind front man ind backgrounds same shoes

A type like them i have like this on :

Okay, your point is taken. But I didn't see any of those images when I made my previous post. Nevertheless, I still think I'll stick with my wardrobe.

I agree with Fog, going through someone else's stuff without permission isn't right whether you're stealing or not...

Besides which, it's so much more fun than sneaking about when a woman actually invites you to try on her shoes!

Chris

Except for the time my mother offered to let me wear her shoes, I've never had that to happen to me. But I definitely agree that such an invitation would be an enormous turn-on.

Nevertheless, going through someone else's things without permission does constitute an invasion of privacy, at the very least. I did appropriate a cute pair of my mother's heels when I was in my pre-teen years, but I hasten to add that she had already abandoned them years earlier. Knowing that, I felt that I really wasn't hijacking her property. But anyone old enough to understand property rights really ought to ask permission to use what doesn't belong to them. After all, if you really wouldn't want it to happen to you, why shouldn't you expect others to feel the same way?

i live in the middle of nowhere and where everybody knows everybody and what they are up 2

Well, if the local gentry all have their tongues hung in the middle so that they'll wag on both ends, you could try going on-line and finding a shop you can ship them to. There has to be someone in the entire kingdom you can turn to.

Another thing, if the zipper failed straight out of the box, you may have a warranty that you need to look into. Unless you bought the boots "AS IS", there is usually an implied warranty with the product.

Just an opinion, I'd go with off-black which isn't as dark as the straight black but still offers a fair amount of contrast with the shoes you sported in the pictures you displayed. Hope this helps you out.

I have to agree with JeffB, the off black is always a good choice. Even a sheer straight black works for me. IMO, the darker colors tend to draw less attention to your feet.

The problem is is the fact that Arab politics is more complex than that.

One minute they're your best friend and greatest ally and the next they're cutting your throat.

Iran and Iraq had a bitter 8 year war and yet when the first Gulf war kicked off only a couple of years later where did Sadam send all his military reserves to protect them from coalition attack?

They have a saying: "Same enemy makes makes us friends."

Right you are! "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," is the code many live by. It makes for loyalties about as solid as the shifting sands.

Welsh Whisky has been around for a while - it's the sort of thing that makes the local news on telly when they've got a quiet day. I've never tried it, I suppose I should. Has anyone tried Australian single malt. I saw some in a supermarket in Agen (France) just before Christmas. I didn't buy it, it was €43, which seemed expensive when you could get aberlour for €20.

Well now, those Welsh lads probably make a real fine brew. But I'm figurin' they's drinking it all up, 'cause I'm not findin' any on the market. As for that Aussie brew goin' fer €43, well it'd hav'ta be a mighty fine brew afore I'd be partin' wi' that many coins. I've heard of those sellin' a pound o brew fer a pound o gold, but that's much too steep fer my blood.

It has taken a while, but I've finally learned how to navigate around this forum and now I like it. As with anything, it has a few drawbacks, but in the main I like this new format fine.

not the best idea where i live methinks

Zippers can be tricky. Depending upon what has actually gone wrong, it may be possible to repair the zipper. But in most cases you are going to end-up replacing the zipper. Either way, the average person does not have the skills and/or equipment to do the job right. Any competent shoe repair shop should be able to do the job fairly inexpensively. Unless you're prepared to toss the boots, it's about the only way to go.

No we're not.

He was the only person who could keep the Iranians, Saudis, Syrians and all the bloc factions at bay. He was a ruthless dictator who kept any attempt to shift the area into fundamentalism ruthlessly oppressed. Now we have a situation whereby the control of the entire region is wide-open for the taking by absolutely any faction including the Taliban.

We cannot keep our troops there forever and as soon as we withdraw there will be a civil war and the most powerful faction will probably be an Iranian backed group. This will create a fundamentalist Al Qaeda supporting superstate capable of wiping all the surrounding nations off the map with the Iranian nukes and it won't be long before they can reach southern Europe with nukes and hold the entire world to ransome. As plucky as they are the Israelis are the thin red line and if a Iraq-Iran coalition invaded Jordan or Syria then every single Israeli would be within range of artillery, nuked-up SCUDs and any other nasty little weapon they could devise including FAEs. We would be doomed.

However, if a Syrian backed group took control and were as ruthless as Sadam then we might have a chance but this would mean that there is a new major power on the oil-producing stage who might or might not hold the world to ransome.

Either way we were better off with Sadam in charge whether we liked it or not.

All too true except for the civil war part. Just exactly what do you think is going-on there now? The only two terms that seem to fit are either civil war or anarchy. Either way, it ain't pretty and neither is it readily solvable. To my mind, the main question now becomes: How do we get the maximum number of troops out with the minimal loss of lives? If they're all determined to kill each other over there, then why do we need to be a part of it?

...and Sadam Hussain.

So far the US has had 2 Bushes in office. Both times they elected to mount a war in that region. Both times Saddam was the focal point.

Saddam was a problem and I had little use for him. But there's an old adage that says: Better the devil you know than the one you don't know. Are we really all that much better off without him?

So carter was actually there was he? He was solely responsible for planning the mission too was he?

No, it was a failure because of the planning, logistics and sheer incompetance of the command. Moreover it failed because they went in "too big" it should have been a surgical operation but they tried to hit it with a blunt club. TBH I'm surprised the Iranians didn't start to kill hostages in response.

Entebbe was diferent in that the hostages were held in an airport with the exception of Dora Bloch who was under treatment in Kampala General Hospital.

Too big is exactly correct - all at Carter's insistance that all of the services be involved. It's the age-old problem of the guy at the top trying to micromanage everybody instead of calling up the Joint Chiefs of Staff and telling them what he wanted and let them figure out how to do it.

BTW, it was Carter who yanked the rug out from under the Shah, which is one of the main reasons we have the war(s) in that region today. The Shah lent stability in that region and was the main fulcurm used to enforce western stability throughout that whole area. The Shia Wahhabists that rushed in to fill the vacuum left by the overthrow of the Peacock Throne are the very forces we're having to deal with today - only now they have 1000 mile missles and are trying hard to put nuclear warheads on them.

I guess some folks can't understand that "letting it all hang out" isn't always the proper thing to do.

Hey Fog, isn't that a new avatar yer sporting on this thread?

...So what I guess I'm trying to say is it don't matter what body type you have and it isn't about if you like skinny or thick women but if you like wearing heels, then just do it. Thats just me.

I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, Johnieheel. I prefer wedgies with a platform, but that's just because I find them more comfortable. But I definitely think it's really about how one carries it off. If you can't carry it off well, you don't need to be in heels.

Does any body need any 5 1/4" floppies or a 10 platter cat-eye alignment pack? I'm selling out cheap. I really would hate to see the alignment pack go to the crusher.

You'd better not come to my house! AND don't even think of trying on Mrs. F's shoes if you don't mind. As he rushes back to the Guns thread! I'm going to keep a close eye on any repair men from now on.

You've got it, Fog! You need to watch those guys like a hawk!

Aircraft carriers are great for attacking but you need to complement any air attack with ground forces and these need to be armoured. You also need supply and logistics chains and these are very vulnerable if delivered by air besides, your massive carriers weren't that much of an asset in Vietnam. With all the high tech fire-power you couldn't even rescue the Tehran hostages whereas the Israelis rescued all but one of theirs from Entebbe in 1976, and they had to fly across three hostile countries to do it. I know that the situation was different but it does highlight the need for proper ground bases.

It all depends upon the mission objective. I agree that no amount of air or naval forces are capable of taking and holding large land sectors. In order to accomplish that objective, land forces and secure supply lines are necessary.

On the other hand, if the mission is solely punative, one or 2 carriers can generally do the job while standing several hundred miles out at sea.

As for the failed rescue effort in the desert, I personally know one of the Delta Force operatives who was there and he explained to me exactly what went wrong. In the simplist of all possible terms, the biggest part of the failure began with the buck-toothed jerk in the White House. Even Hyman Rickover had questions about Carter serving in the military, and that was decades before he ever even thought about the White House. As Forest Gump said,"Stupid is as stupid does." Carter proved beyond any question of a doubt that no amount of military power can ever make-up for a jerk at the helm. I think we have legitimate reason to question the leadership abilities of any man who claims to have been attacked by a rabbit. But then maybe the rabbit knew something we don't.

There were two reasons he didn't:

1. There were no neighbouring countries prepared to allow him space to set up bases.

2. They lacked the military hardware to do the job properly and the loss of life (US personnel) would have been prohibitively high and the whole exercise would have been seen as another Vietnam. Remember that that war had only been over for four years.

Why's that? They're just as keen to kill our troops as any other group. Al Qaeda are not active in Iraq and never have been. Moreover, they are not insurgents because they are people who live there and just want to be left in peace.

Until you've seen and experienced up-close and personally the awesome power of a single US strike carrier, it's difficult to imagine any nation launching a seaborne war against a mostly inland country. But please consider: One US aircraft carrier carries a combat complement of 5000 men, is over 1/4 mile long and carries 2 fully equipted combat fighter-bomber squadrons. Just one such warship is capable of visiting unholy war against better than 85% of the surface of this planet, and the US has 13 such monsters. Moreover, I haven't said a thing about the 20 or so carrier escort ships that accompany one of those things every time it sails.

I will grant you that land bases in the region would be highly desirable, but not necessary. Just one or 2 carrier groups in the Persian Gulf and a similar number in the Black Sea would be quite sufficent to lay waste to that entire region.

^ My current "beef" with the Iran issue is if Iran is shipping weapons to Iraq, why is it doing so? If I'm not mistaken, anonymous military briefers are claiming the weapons are being shipped to "extremist groups" which appears to be an intentionally cryptic phrase. Which "extremist groups" are the Iranians shipping weapons to? Shipping weapons to Shia militias is alot different than shipping weapons to al Qaeda or Sunni insurgents.

I think yer mixing up the oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp. In the final analysis they're all shellfish. The only extremist groups in the present-day murder-east that anyone needs to concern themselves with are:

Iranian Shias,

Saudi Shias,

Wahabbis,

Teleban fighters,

Hezballah fighters,

al-quaida fighters,

PLO fighters,

Mahdi army freedom fighters,

Iraqi Sunni freedom fighters,

Lebanese freedom fighters,

Syrian freedom fighters,

Jordanian freedom fighters,

Egyptian freedom fighters,

Iranian Sunnis,

Baath Party freedom fighters,

Iraqi Shite freedom fighters,

Hamas......

I'm sorry, but time has failed me. There must be at least one or 2 groups I've overlooked. So which particular extremist group were you concerned about?