 | | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HC3xvn.14rq@lugnet.com... (...) making (...) to (...) the (...) No, I´m not reading wery closely. English is my second language. And yes, it was sarcasm. "Nothing short of war will (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
I'm sort of not following you here, Chris. (...) I don't know if we *have* but some think we *can*...see (URL) gives a link making the argument that working to overthrow tyrants is useful. Again, I'm not sure I agree with that writer's view. Do you? (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
(...) If that's a serious suggestion, it is a terrible idea. If sarcastic, well then, not reading very closely, are we? Or perhaps you were referring to the DPRK strategy? Mr. Kurtz is not saying we should definitely nuke anybody. Too bad we're at (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
"Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message news:HC3vLD.wMn@lugnet.com... (...) Yeah.. better safe than sorry. Nuke em all. /J (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Stop speaking in "initial"!!!
|
|
(...) I don't speak Initial. I can take a stab at french, I might be able to eventually decipher latin, and given enough time I can figure out what someone from England might be trying to pass off as english, but I don't speak Initial. At least LP (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
For those joining the discussion late or for those (like me) who weren't immediately able to realize what "DPRK" stands for, it is NOT an abbreviation for Dorney Park. Dave! (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More on the DPRK
|
|
In: (URL) makes the case (partly by reanalysing a New Republic article making the opposite case!) that either - war with the DPRK or - an eventual loss of a US city to terrorist nukes is inevitable as they have already been reprocessing and are not (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) I've been wondering about that point for a few weeks, and it's given me perspective on a similar issue from a few decades ago (my apologies to those among us who've already heard this story): Anyone who invokes Godwin's Law with the same zeal (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Just sit tight, Chris--after Spencer spends about six quarts of his own, then the market will probably run dry for him. Dave! (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) What I don't get about all this is how much we have failed to appreciate the 11 September 2001 attack and what it could do for us. We were gifted with the opportunity to walk in the other guy's shoes. We were, just for a day or two, knocked (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) So, I wonder why you require "hard" evidence for one side of the coin, but such amazingly soft (ie clearly fabricated) evidence for the other. (...) What better objection could there be? You are essentially claiming that blood is a fine (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Blogs
|
|
I'm not a big blogger, don't normally even read them much, but lately my blogconsumption has gone way up. There are a lot of warblogs out there... Forbes picked their favorites: (URL) you follow some of the links, you'll find collections of other (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
I previously noted: (...) Q: One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? THE PRESIDENT [Bush]: I can't make that claim. THE PRIME MINISTER (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) My current proof is the currently skewed state of affairs that leans our govt. very heavily in the direction of multinational corporations. These corporations are stealing our collective wealth through tax breaks, reporting fraud, stock fraud, (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Show me hard evidence that proves we are only there for oil. otherwise i will regard you as just another empty-headed anti-war protester jumping on the no blood for oil bandwagon for lack of a better objection.... (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Shame on Us (was Re: Just Teasing...)
|
|
"Opening War Salvos Spark Global Protests" (URL) and Australia, the only nations to commit significant numbers of troops to the U.S.-led effort, resolutely stuck by Washington. ---...--- So, that's basically the English speaking world except for (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Whose Wealth is it Again? (Re: Just Teasing...)
|
|
"Iraq Oil Wells May Have Been Set Ablaze" (URL) before the war began, the Pentagon (news - web sites) expressed fears that Saddam Hussein had planned to sabotage Iraq's oil fields by booby-trapping wells so one person could blow them up. A loss of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) Evidence, please. The Secret Service is, as I understand it, trained to secure the safety of the president, even if he's appointed rather than elected to the position. I think that should take a maximum of about half an hour. I'm no expert on (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) All sarcasm is lost on him, but I digress. (...) I think you mean "Secret Service", but there are those that would argue that your statement is equivalent to the one made by Dave! They may seem to have different words but they come out to the (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "gutless" bush?
|
|
(...) I think a lot more of us could benefit from being separated from Cheney... Perhaps he can be placed in a rocketship and sent into space with what -- a 2 hour supply of oxygen? Works for me. Although I guess some kind of "conflict of interests" (...) (22 years ago, 20-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
