 | | Proof! (was Re: The Sun is not being very nice.)
|
|
For those demanding proof, dicover what the whole of the world knows already -- a simple truth <<<YOU>>> have failed to understand. This war is about oil. This is the money/oil trail. Follow it. You may learn something about the value of american (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The Sun is not being very nice.
|
|
According to the following Guardian story, anyway: (URL) if it's true? Wonder if The Sun will get fined... I guess I can see where they're coming from given this statement by Chirac today: ""France would not accept a resolution which authorizes (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Disagree. I do not believe in the one peace -- not the Pax Romanus, nor the Pax Americana. Ever play "King of the Hill" -- where one person stands atop a rock or a small dirt mound and everyone else tries to forcibly remove the king from his (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
(...) Doesn't say nuclear there. (...) Saying that nothing else will work does not make you "pro" war. It merely makes you resigned to the inevitable (assuming your analysis is correct). (...) Their track record speaks for itself. They sell anything (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Hmm, the question of what to do if the locals don't want a a free state. It seems obvious to us that anyone (who won't have substantial power in the alternative state) should prefer a free state, but is that really true? If it isn't, what do (...) (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: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)
|
