 | | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) You can turn that the other way around: even Saddam is clever enough to know he cannot rely in such a lunatic as OBL. Saddam has managed to keep power for so long due to a careful choice of allies; he is well aware OBL cannot be controlled! (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) But what about Israeli terrorism? See: (URL) Arafat is (...) ...and Sharon is wanted on war crime charges: (URL) are others in the Israeli “military”. (...) A number of countries have come under sustained terrorist attacks without resorting to (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Well, if this is the motivation behind the war, then go beat up yourselves. That controversial commercial about that guy filling up his SUV is dead on--the truth hurts and you Yankees don't want to hear it. Come up with a coherent foreign (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) SH does not have a nuke. If he did, do you think he'd trust OBL with it??? (...) Is Bush not a "religious fanatic". Does he not support terrorism? Why else would he have "pardoned" Orlando Bosch? See: (URL) to the justice department in George (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Pedro, you are missing the point. Even if SH isn't crazy enough to fire off a nuke at an enemy (which is in and of itself debatable), he's smart enough and perfectly willing to give one to a looney like OBL who IS looney enough to denotate one (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) would (...) you (...) peace (...) No but supporting Israeli defence against Palestinian Terrorism does. Arafat is just another dictator that needs to go. I highly doubt the US or most other "Western" countries would be as patient as Israel has (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
It has most likely been mentioned here before, but I'm too lazy to read thru all messages in this thread. NATO was made to stop Soviet Communism to take over the whole planet. That was a good thing, very easy to unite to. Now that the Soviet empire (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Relevance? [BTW: They’d have been right; he did not have nukes ;) ] (...) Don't make me laugh. Does supporting Israeli belligerence make the USA a safer place? (...) Can you justify that? (...) Did you answer my question? Will stealing Iraq’s (...) (22 years ago, 17-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) That's what the members of the League of Nations thought about the German military in the 1930s. (...) & (...) Oh yeah, Israel is such a threat defending itself and all. (...) It would take about 20 years for Iraq's oil production pay for the (...) (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) The rally in London was the biggest gathering in the UK since VE [Victory in Europe] day: estimates range from 750,000 to 2,000,000. 500,000 were expected. (URL) counter attacked before it even got underway: (URL) A (22 years ago, 16-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) There was a considerable number of non-democracies in the LoN... in part, perhaps that may have helped to prevent any concerted action at the time. But then again, the LoN had no real power to sanction intervention, unlike the UN has nowadays. (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) we (...) Are you kidding me? The whole rest of that was completely irrelevant if you don't see this. (...) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) What I meant to say was most Europeans that were part of the League of Nations. (i.e. the democracies) (...) According to the polls: While 87 percent of Americans recognize that Saddam is or will be a significant threat, only 42 percent (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What the Confederate flag stands for. (was Re: Just wh...)
|
|
(...) I guess I was thinking something along the lines of Slavery was the reason for the reason. (as silly as that sounds.) (...) Well that was a much better explanation than mine. :-) -Mike Petrucelli (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The nature of property (was: Idiots, Part Deux)
|
|
(...) Hm. I guess I have to question how different is this stewardship you're envisioning versus ownership? What does ownership entitle you to that stewardship doesn't; given that in our current system, the government can confiscate your land if it (...) (22 years ago, 15-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
