 | | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
(...) "Nuke em all." was the phrase you used. Did you mean something else by the use of "nuke" than nuclear? Nuke is colloquial english for nuclear. Hope that helps. As for N Korea selling stuff, do your research. (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:HC40sL.1DEt@lugnet.com... (...) it (...) I never said that. (...) Is it the same guy that also said "The war party, of which I count myself a member, is therefore now in full (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Sun is not being very nice.
|
|
(...) It's a UK paper, IIRC, it's just the French edition of it. Editorially controlled from the UK. So I wouldn't read too much into it. (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Sun is not being very nice.
|
|
(...) But I'm glad they did; it helps me to believe that there indeed might be hope for France after all. JOHN (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Proof! (was Re: The Sun is not being very nice.)
|
|
Sorry, I should have included this before. It's from Larry's link. "Chirac Sets Strict Terms for Post-War U.N. Role" (URL) statement from "Colon" Powell:] "We're going to use the assets of the people of Iraq, especially their oil assets, to benefit (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
