 | | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Usually the list of Who The US Won't Sell To is the same as the list that France Will Sell To. Pretty much where there is a demand, there will be a supply. As to meddling, David (not Dave!), at what point should the US have stopped "medlling" (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I think the U.S. public is becoming wary of Bush's motivation. They may not like Saddam Hussein, but the Al Queda connection is tenuous at the very best. (...) Those governments that support the US against the wishes of their citizens may find (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) I would certainly support that plan. Can we rely on our allies in France (for example) likewise to cease the sale of arms to any country that doesn't belong to France? (...) Sadly, this is hardly a US-only phobia. Other nations likewise have (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Dubya and Osama--Separated at Birth?
|
|
Game 1--You choose the power that said it! "The enemies we face are resourceful, merciless and fanatically committed to inflicting massive damage on our homeland, which they regard as a bastion of evil," says <Osama><Dubya> "In this war, there can (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) Oh please do! And while you're withdrawing your troops from non-US countries, please remove your diplomats, your meddling, and your arms sales from any country that is not yours. I (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Honestly, it's hard to say. There's the rabid (and, frankly, fascist) campaign by the Bush administration to marginalize and demonize anyone voicing reservations about prosecuting this unjust war, so it's difficult to assess the actual (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) It could be argued that NATO and the UN are gaining respect in the international community for failing the follow Bush's line. Indeed, it is notable that a large proportion of the public internationally will only support a war which has UN (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HA6Joo.M94@lugnet.com... (...) 8, (...) Parliament (...) on (...) asked (...) NATO (...) welcome. (...) This is how it worked when I was a little kid and wanted some icecream: Ask (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes: <snip> (...) That's right - he didn't mention the relationship at all - he made claims about contracts and agreements. (...) What 'property is involved involved in the relationship' is not my concern. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) You mean they're less welcome at home than they are in Germany? ;-) Richie (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
This is awesome news... not only might this little war we're about to have finish up the UN as an active force, it might well do in NATO too. From the text of a speech by Senator John McCain (R., Ariz.) on February 8, 2003, at the Munich Conference (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Chris wasn't saying the relationship is not propery. He was saying the contract is not a property, it is documentation of the agreement of what property is involved in the relationship and how to handle disolving the contract. Chris also added (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Capitalism (was: People are idiots...)
|
|
(...) Hmm, if land is not a good, then what rules should govern trading it? If you always have a right to some land as part of your right to exist, then what stops you from "selling" your land, and then demanding a land grant because you're now (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) I would agree with this refinement. It also better supports the idea that the wife terminating the relationship is different than a murderer terminating the relationship. (...) Right, it's not so much that the value of the relationship (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) No. There may be an agreement, but Frank said clearly in (URL) that "The relationships that make a family a family are property". The example of marriage may also have a contractual element which may also have value, but according to Frank's (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Small world. My family had a dog named Taffy when I was a child. Also, don't worry about becoming crotchety at 35. When I was 21 I was always telling my dorm mates to turn down their music. And I'm sure that if I had had a lawn I would have (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | astonishingly light? [Re: Its about time someone put this concept in print.]
|
|
(...) I can't see the wood for the trees! I found this page: Afghanistan War Produces High Civilians-Killed-Per...mb-Dropped Ratio (URL) passage: ==+== After surveying numerous reports on civilian impact deaths caused by bombing, I estimate the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) I agree with Frank on this point. The contract isn't exactly a property (well, the paper and ink are, and the IP that goes into it may be, but the contract in the sense that Frank means is merely an agreement. The agreement itself (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) Why would the value of the relationship change depending on who took it away? Do other pieces of property change their value depending on who takes them away? (...) I don't think that matches with what you've said earlier: you declared the (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Idiots, Part Deux
|
|
(...) I would say yes. To some extent this is already covered by divorce law. I'm pretty sure I've also read about cases where someone sued their ex for basically this reason. I'm not sure one would win very often, but there certainly are cases (...) (22 years ago, 11-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
