 | | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Ya, Taiwan can sleep well at night, Mainland China has no desire to "take back its rogue province" and all those platforms they're building in the Spratleys are just fishing shacks. Ya, Japan can sleep well at night, North Korea is the most (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Got me... I did not know that. Pick some other tiny country as the root of the example then... one that does have a tiny army. How about if we use the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, because that's obviously fictional. This is a fictional example, (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
Yet another addendum: (...) I mean "of" Israel not "on." Never type tired... Dan (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
Another addendum to my last post: (...) What I meant to say: There isn't a violent "Palestinian" action against Israeli civilians on record since the creation on Israel that matches the Massacre of Deir Yassin. My apologies, I am usually more (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
An addendum to my previous posts regarding the Israeli occupation: Although I have used the term "Palestinian" repeatedly to describe the Arabs of that area, I realize that there are certain inaccuracies with the term. The root word is (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Come on Larry, tell us. Tell us how your rights based personal philosophy came up with these tomes of wisdom. Scott A (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Very good point. However, both arguments assume there is the real risk of an attack. (...) I doubt it will bankrupt China too, especially given the amount of $$ the west is pumping into it! Scott A (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) Na, Dave! has it right, all it is going to do is save the attacking country ~ 10 billion dollars or so, on ICBM research as well as Special Weapons (Gas/Bugs/Nukes). It's a farce. An expensive farce, that I don't think will bankrupt China, (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) I am perfectly willing to give you the last word, Dan -- but tell me this: what do you propose should happen if you got everything you wanted? I don't want a fantasy, answer with what you would do tomorrow if "fixing" the situation were up to (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A question of remembrance...
|
|
(...) You are missing the point! It has nothing to do with defence. It has two objectives: 1. Start a "new" arms race and bankrupt China. 2. Move large amounts of money from US taxpayers to US shareholders. Everything else is salesman’s banter. (...) (24 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
