 | | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
Thank you for being so transparent about your thinking. I leave you to the horror that is your thought process. Might makes right. He's a John Neal. The Arm of the Lord. Pathetic. -- Hop-Frog (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:HC469J.1tE7@lugnet.com... (...) Well, why did you respond with: "Doesn´t say nuclear there" if you referred to my statement instead of referring to the article? I have never said that (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) For the adult, perhaps. But in that case, the adult is behaving like a jackass. Dave! (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Ever play "King of the Hill" with a *really* big guy (an adult)? The adult *stays* king and all of the little guys have fun trying to topple him. He may feign that he is almost fallen, but that, too, is part of the game. The end result is that (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Sun is not being very nice.
|
|
(...) What do you think about Canada, John? I mean, because France may have ulterior motives to speak against this war(their own oil interests in Iraq), what about the other countries that are speaking up against this fiasco your own United States (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
