 | | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Right now he does not have the nukes, and he does not have a conventional delivery system. He is a long way from getting them... and he is getting weaker by the day. So, what risk does he pose? What risk does he pose to world peace & security (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) On a similar note, the American movie "Bowling for Columbine" screened in Oslo a couple of weeks ago, and received very good ratings. The reviewer were generally more happy about this movie than with "Two Towers"! While "Bowling..." is (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Neither worries me. If the first happens, it would take a lot more than a loony dictator to fire the missiles (and I have not yet heard of collective insanity in such a degree); The second is clearly not the case in Iraq, which is largely (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) What if the holders of WoMD don't care if they get destroyed or have no location to destroy? Why let Iraq get them in the first place? I don't really want to find out what they may or may not do with them. (...) I heard on the local news radio (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
I think that even with the rules of real estate essentially intact, if we called it and understood it as stewardship rather than ownership it would change the way we think about land-resources. For the better. But I think that several positive (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
