 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their subjective judgment of us? (...) By my book it only matters what the intentions are of those (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify with relative (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
<snip> But though it's changing the (...) <snip> I love trying to define words. I also can't stay out of this forum. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here's my take on the definition of terrorism... I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Palestinians & Israeli occupation (Again) (was Re: Hiroshima... )
|
|
(...) He tried that with me, it did not wash either. Further, I fail to see why Israel is not a friend of the USA? They look pretty loyal to me. Certainly not an enemy? I also fail to see what this has to do with Hiroshima? (...) No, but the killing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I don't view the terrorists as cowards. They may well have been deluded, but they were not cowards. The answer to Ross's Truman question is "no". Although, Truman did not drop the bomb personally, he is responsible for that action. It could be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By "harshest" do you mean more harsh criticism than against any other? I would agree that Israel needs harsh criticism of some of it's tactics. You've got a lot to do to convince me that the government Israel is worse than the government of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Let's not blur the issue here. What was cowardly about the Sept 11 terrorism was that it took no courage to hijack civilian aircraft during peacetime and steer helpless civilian passengers into buildings. That's hardly the same as the US (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Founding Fathers Anti-American?
|
|
(...) All, I read text linked below last night. When I did, I realised that it linked quite well with a number of themes we (as a group) have given time here. It is heavily laced with paranoia, but it is still an interesting perspective. Have a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Hmm. I see your point. Secure means this: "able to avoid being harmed by any risk, danger or threat" Simply, free means this "not limited or controlled". I think the UK being "gun free", gives me both. I suppose another freedom I have lost (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) the (...) I see no definition there, only opinion. (...) I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I don't consider terrorism. (...) Compared to what? (...) ????? So what???? What has their "expectation of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
(...) rude (NOT POLITE) adjective not polite; offensive or embarrassing No doubt calling somebody a liar without justifying it is not rude according to Larry's ethical code. Then again, he probably thinks "ethics" is the English county next to Kent. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) You said it, not me. (...) How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff). And what exactly am I supposed to change my mind about? (...) You jump, I jump. Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel, I'm here for the reality (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Two parts then-- "war" and "appropriate". I think whether we were at war or not in this particular example is pretty gosh-darn settled. We *were* at war. But that comes into question more in the more recent Sept. 11th example. More on that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Put three libertarians together in a room and they won't be able to agree where to go for lunch...
|
|
A survey was held recently, I got the email about it and participated, but it was intended for LP members only, so I didn't mention it here. I found the results rather interesting. Totally unscientific as it was self selected whether to participate, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is "terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) how (...) It's easy to use words like "cowardly" in such situations - were the pilots flying the planes which dropped the bombs "cowardly"? No they were following orders (they may have even volunteered). Was Truman "cowardly" then - he wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yep, completely closed minded, that's me. (URL) admitting that my arguments might not be 100% water tight or that I might be wrong about anything. Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you, since you've never ever (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It terrorism (was: Necessary)?
|
|
(...) One way or another 8?( (...) I don't really look at it as valid - I'm not sure they (Al Qaida, whoever we're fighting...) view it that black & white either. But I would also ask, does it matter which side is "good" and which is "evil"? Does (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The problem is the hole I dug for myself here. We hold them to be terrorists but they do not hold themselves as such. Rather they see themselves as combatants in a war against evil (US) which they *have* declared, some time ago, and which they (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) That is open to argument, but I don't have enough knowledge of politics at the time, so I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But though it's changing the subject of the thread, I still believe the acts of dropping the bombs were terrorism, no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I feel my sarcasm was well placed since your initial response made it clear that you already stated your stance on this topic in previous discussions in this group, hence nothing that has been presented ever since has swayed your opinion. So (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Me either. You're right, there's something a little off with that definition as written. As long as you assume that they felt they were on the side of good and their target was on the side of evil (that's the part that matters, not that GWB (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Let me see if I can paraphrase your position accurately: Regarding an enemy who not long before had made an unprovoked attack against US soil, an enemy that had been responsible for hideous medical experiments (not to mention the extermination (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) The use of a 767 on Sep 11 was probably deemed effective and appropriate by the perpetrators - with a little investment in pilot training, and without the need to carry into the country any explosives or risk discovery by building their own, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Nope, it was definitely a thread. My post on the subject, which includes why I think it was both political and necessary, is here: (URL)Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right" (...) The most devastating war in ALL (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Either is possible. (...) No, my argument is more of a "if you're at war, use the appropriate weapon for the job", as I tend to reject "might makes right" in what I hope is a pretty consistent way and welcome being called on it if I ever lean (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Ok, I looked. I can't find it. I tried various search strings on the off-topic.debate(1), read through 90% of the results (skimming the other 10% admittedly) and I can't find any place (where you partook) other than the thread starting around (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) (sorry, forgot the Sarcasm on and Sarcasm off warnings)... that is, unless you plan to *never* post about any of the topics you've posted about already. I guess I am *shocked* that you'd try to stifle discussion that way, Dan. But I can see (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Yes indeed, very thoughtful of you. However rest assured I still have some questions for you which I will be posting soon. (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) True-- although mainly I think it would be evidence provided twofold-- I.E. "Here are before and after shots of this island, here's a videotape of us blowing it up, and here it is now. Go to the island and verify yourself if you don't believe (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said nothing about guns in specific. Nor does this address what I said: you can give up a freedom for security. Okay, this is what you have done: you can't carry a gun, but you feel more secure because of it. You'd rather have the security (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I'd question that part. Not too many years earlier a good chunk of the US populace believed we were being invaded by Mars. Even today, credulous lout believe that the moon landings were faked, so if we'd simply shown a film of our nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) I said it was a caricature in the message you replied to(!) :) (...) I would say "free", but try to talk me round if you want! (...) So you think I'm less free as I don't/can't have a gun, even though I would feel less free if I did have one? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No, the idea was that they'd invite other nations to send representatives to witness the event-- not that we couldn't have merely recorded the event anyway. At least such was my understanding. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) My point exactly, if not directly stated. (...) A bit garbled - I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Sorry. But I think I address what you are trying to say below. (...) No, it's not you culture. The people of Chicago often noted that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) My comment was caricature. (...) I would say "free", but try to talk be round if you want! (...) They are freedoms to me... perhaps it is my culture. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Why was there no demo explosion in an uninhabited island to convince the Japanese of the power of the bomb? What would be lost? If it failed - nobody would know. If the real thing failed, the Japanese would have a bomb (or at least bits of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Mature democracies outlaw them. :-) (...) In my ideal there would be no charities. We can save that one for later. (...) Scotland - not really England - hmm London - Yes (...) GP on demand (walk-in clinic) Specialist in less than 1 month (I'm (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) It was interesting reading. Lots of work went into it. It failed to note that there was never a decision to drop one bomb, and then another decision to drop another (it was a decision to drop two bombs). It noted that the Japanese were looking (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Money is a form of power. You have more money, you have more power. I'm not talking about the United States, mind you, I'm talking about the world at large throughout history. I'll grant you it's pretty blatant here. (...) No, that's not (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) From what I heard from a US history teacher, the question was being considered as to whether or not to test on an uninhabited island. We were considering "demonstrating" on the island to other nations, but were worried that "What if the tests (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) And reform in this area is coming -- give it time. Even the two party system is slowly but surely under attack. Again, time will correct these issues. As far as the whole gun thing goes: Sorry to disappoint you but I believe that the ruling (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think the evidence is against them being necessary to beat Japan (they were already beaten). Cynics will say that they provided a test for the new toy (I can't believe that). But I do wonder if they were deemed necessary simply to send the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) <snipped> That being said, it is reasonable to conclude that you have nothing new to contribute to this discussion and anyone interested in your opinions can check your previous posts. Thanks for pointing that out to us, I'm sure anyone (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I must have missed that debate-- suffice to say that while I obviously don't have all the information, based on what I know, I don't think they were necessary or called for at all. Anyone want to point me somewhere to make me reconsider? DaveE (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) No time to dig into this in depth but I should point out that I have, in this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings were necessary. I spent a little time at that site late last nite (early this morning, actually). The (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I haven't yet read the site (I dunno if I will-- depends I guess), but it really leads me to wonder whether anyone out there actually *DOES* believe it was "necessary"? And on a related note, I also didn't see the movie Pearl Harbor. And I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
"Scott A" <eh105jb@mx1.pair.com> wrote in message news:GLAHKt.C9B@lugnet.com... (...) post. (...) opinion). (...) and insensitive to the tragedy which occured within a mile of LD, you spin this to make it look like John was the instigator. If you (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) It was meant to be a caricature – and I said it was! (...) What I was talking about was how in the USA the main political parties are hugely indebted to their sponsors. On of the criticisms of GWB's NMD was that it was payback. Dan has alluded (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Typo-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) Just couldn't let this one get past. I prefer walnuts with my ridicule!! 8?) ROSCO FUT: fun (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) That's a gross overstatement, and a pretty glib generalization. influence, perhaps; but political *power* must be negotiated. And you don't think this happens in Britain? Please. You just don't talk about it quite the same way, in part because (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) The problem with your system is the huge inequalities in your country. Political power is bought and sold like cheese at a cheesemongers. People keep guns to protect themselves from there *own* government. Your healthcare system is derided (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
(...) Thank you. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
(...) 8000 Years! Pah, that is nothing compared to 250,000,000 years: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
I have not read your link, but I think it was unnecessary to bomb Japan to win the war. I expect your link will say that the USA knew that the Japanese wanted peace as they had broken Japanese codes, and that dropping the bomb was all about (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
(...) I think it is. This is where he made the unsubstantiated allegation. This is where he should substantiate it or apologise. I could call you “pond slime” here publicly, and then e-mail a quick note to say sorry. Would that suffice for you? (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Essentially, if threats by foreign governments are made against a book publisher, or an airline, it's the same problem. It might as well be a dry cleaner for all that. (...) You mean there are definitions in this group? Really, what's the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
I posted earlier in a different thread regarding this but now I'm thinking it should have been a separate thread. Here is some background research regarding the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan: (URL) actually pretty extensive and not (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
(...) Here's a link that indicates some people think they may be able to survive indefinitely (URL) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | oops, my bad!!
|
|
Sorry folks, I've gotten several points of history wrong and aplogize for ruffling your feathers. Mostly I got the wars mixed up, haven't read about them in a long time. ...anyway, sorry folks...!! (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Hey, no problem. I'm the first to admit that I'm uneducated and really shouldn't be getting involved in these debates. This isn't the first time that I have been wrong about these things. Part of my problem is that I don't know (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
(...) Wow. Like there aren't enough problems in the world already. Just what we need...dinosaur cooties. And I felt bad when they disinterred those Spanish Flu victims in '99... best LFB (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
(...) At a California university researchers have uncovered living bacteria spores (encased in amber?) up to 135 millions years old. Incredible. -chris (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
(...) No, but this isn't the place to ask. Larry's stated very clearly his position. Please sort it out privately with him. If after that Larry sees any reason to apologise, he can do that here, but this is not the place for your private feud. ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) AKA "a group of people". :-) (...) Yeah, right. America is good, those who don't follow it are bad. A little simplified, perhaps? (...) Probably Stalin, but fewer deaths and not *that* lunatic: maybe send cannon fodder, but not *civilians*! (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.loc.pt)
|
| |
| | Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
|
|
(...) Dan: No reservations whatsoever, nor will I shoot from the hip in the future. james (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
|
|
I came across this post AFTER my reply to the previous chewing-out from James: (...) Forget about it, dude. I realize I make bitter statements that reflect my personal dissatisfaction with our government's foreign policy, and I have my reasons. I (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
(...) The powder isn't bacteria. The powder is *spores*. And spores keep a long, long, long time--live spores nearly 8,000 years old have been pulled from ice cores in the last decade or so. (...) Apparently it's possible to get small amounts of (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) I'm weak too; I can't pass up clarifying historical confusion. 'Tis an occupational hazard. (...) I've never heard that. The general consensus was that FDR (assuming you're American, of course) was particularly eager to get into the fight, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Well, that's human history for you then. It's not the case that your country has anything better to offer, I know. It's trial and error, and so on...sometimes justice doesn't come quickly, or even at all. The Constitution is NOT what the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Daniel: I apologize to you for taking your comments out of context. As I read your statement, it seemed to me that you were implying that most Vietnam vets had engaged in dishonorable warfare. Sincerely, james simpson (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) What?!!! You're taking my statement completely the wrong way, pal! Show me where I insulted any Vietnam vet?! I'm PRAISING the fact that many, many Vietnem vets knew something about chivalry. They detested the fact that they were put in the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
|
|
(...) If I've misread Dan, then I sincerely offer him an apology for implying that he believes Vietnam Vets to have acted cowardly. Dan, if you don't mind, please clarify what you meant. james (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
|
|
(...) I think James is reading something into Dan's comment that I don't think is there. Dan stated that there's no chivalry in killing the defenceless, and to ask a Vietnam vet if you doubted that statement. I also know a number of Vietnam vets-- (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
|
Scott, you have been asked, twice, to keep this topic in .debate yet you repeatedly redirect it back to lego.direct. How rude. The lego.direct newsgroup is for direct communication, not prolonged discussion. You are in violation of the charter for (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) It does not sound all that great when you describe it like that? (...) I agree with some of what you say, but at times I think we get too hung up on property rights. (...) Thanks again for your comments. I think we *all* have good things to (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) Well almost any kind of minor legal hassle can have the appearance of erroding my rights -- including a bill to stop terrorist activities. The real test comes in time, tested in the courts, and sometimes even retested in the courts. Sometimes (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | From Vietnam to Jesse Helms (Re: More on Palestine)
|
|
(...) I agree, Dan's tarring everyone with a big sticky brush. His general comments are interesting though. I read this in the Observer yesterday about Jesse Helms's apparent Amendment to Protect Servicemen From International Criminal Court: ==+== (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) I have spoken to a Vietnam Vet; last night in fact; I have a special word for him; I call him Dad. And you know what? Dad *never* killed defenseless women and children in Vietnam. I take extreme umbrage with your statement. That was a horrible (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) What I mean is that rather than debate these issues, we get an argument that goes like this: "It's in the constitution, so we can't change it". I find that "ridiculous". Here is an example: (URL) Gore declared that "the Constitution is a (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) That's a ridiculous statement. And it is so poorly supported by any meaningful argument as to be pointless to debate the matter. (...) No, that would be false. GWB might wish to errode my rights, but that would be what is so great about our (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | He still doesn't have the humility to admit when he's wrong.
|
|
Larry, that was not an apology - that was more insults. More mud. More of your low level of debate. I shall ask you again. Give an example of were I have lied. I challenge you. Do it, or apologise. Put up, or shut up. All I am asking is that you (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) Me too. My impression of Turkey post WW I was more of a country struggling with internal issues and being kicked around by others, than a country that was a kicker. But this isn't my area of knowledge (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Reading comprehension problems.
|
|
(...) Satisfied or not, that's all the apology you get. (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: (citing the Guardian) (...) Thanks for the cite. Does anyone know if this stuff keeps for 10 years in powder form? Bacteria are quite resilient but 10 years is an aw'fly long time. (of course that (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Palestine
|
|
(...) ---> while Turkey was getting ready to move into Africa (was Spain (...) I really wondered where you get this info from. Selçuk (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A N T H R A X - they aren't making this stuff in caves in Afghanistan
|
|
(...) I'm not sure we do. Yesterday's Observer: "Iraq 'behind US anthrax outbreaks'" (URL) anthrax, on its own, isn't so difficult,' one senior US intelligence source said. 'But it only begins to become effective as a biological weapon if they can (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) I would agree that *public* companies should be totally open (like thats ever gonna happen), but I see no reason why *private* companies should not be allowed total privacy. I see them as similar to families. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) I see that as almost inevitable. Maybe not in the next 20 years, maybe not in the next 50, but I think it will happen eventually. ROSCO (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) passengers (...) No, in this case it is necessary because terrorists are threatening to use the planes as bombs. Otherwise the extra security would've been put in place before Sep 11. (...) But that's what's being proposed! (...) I disagree. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) If you buy goods from air users you will pay. If you pay tax you will pay for the policing? (...) I think you should act reasonably. (...) Some say they do already (tax). (...) Some do view air travel as "essential". I view it as a bore, but (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) So we should give in? Or should we keep on using our failing methods? (...) I could not resist. (...) I don't follow? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) The enhanced security is only necessary BECAUSE they fly. Security would be enhanced even better if they didn't fly, but banning air traffic as a whole seems a bit too far fetched ... (...) We are not talking an extra service. We are talking (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Yes, keeping it to traffic. I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Germany, and most of Europe ... ... people pay for the trafic-safe state of their cars themselves ... people pay for their liability insurance themselves ... (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on Airport security.
|
|
(...) Which property of the airlines are you talking? Their god given right to fly above people? (...) The essential difference between these two is this: There IS a right to freedom of speech, but there is NO right to freedom of flight. (...) If (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: not sure what to call this
|
|
(...) I agree. (...) I agree. (...) I don't agree. Not that I have to offer a better system, but how can you prove it's impossible? (...) I agree on freedom, but then, isn't there also a price others in the world have to pay for our freedom? If so, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yes, it is. Not by itself, but because it won't help track down a single terrorist. We have had a number of similar disputes here in Germany, where some politicians and executives said they need this or that legislation to track down the (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Libertarian comes through for the Terrorists
|
|
(...) Yeah, the simple logic of a simple cowboy president. Do you always believe what your president says? (...) I don't know how exactly you define privacy. According to my definition, privacy is something individuals should be able to enjoy. So, (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Israel and Palestine
|
|
(...) It seems the majority of Israeli voted an administration in place that is more part of the problem than part of the solution. So, how can you back this statement? :wq Horst (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
