 | | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Oh, let me count the ways: 1. The adult can obviously overpower the children, so any overpowering action taken by the adult must be greatly tempered by thoughtful restraint 2. If the adult has any kind of maturity, he wouldn't simply squash (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) You condescending jackass! If this is what you believe America portrays, or even should portray, to the world, i.e. "The Responsible Adult", while all the other countries, i.e. "The Kiddies" play around--oh my goodness--you truly are (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) People like Saddam Hussein? Emphatically YES! JOHN (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Not what I said. Might *can make* right, if the might is right(eous). JOHN (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Yes, because a UN weapons inspector says something, that makes it true. That's the same bunch that includes members who tipped off the Iraqis that inspections were about to happen so that they could shift stuff around. (...) You know, for (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Are you out of your mind? That would be like me saying: 1. I believe Spencer plans to acquire a gun (though I have no evidence of this) 2. I believe that Spencer dislikes me intensely. Therefore 3. I am justified in lauching a mammoth (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) Really? In what way? JOHN (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) You and I agree that we should not be contributing aid to the worst nations in the world. It is a disgrace that China is a PNTR partner. Supporting Israel with no strings attached (and maybe at all) is also bad. Being there to help them up (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Just Teasing, I Have No Intention of Debating Any of This...
|
|
(...) I could say the same... why do we need "hard evidence" to go to war(which, by the way, we have given saddam ample chances to avoid by simply telling us what he has) and "soft evidence" to stay home and let a US hating dictator get wmds? (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: More on the DPRK
|
|
(...) Yes it does help. You're merely being dismissive of the author, writing him off with "nuke 'em all", as if that's what the author is advocating... but I made the mistake of taking your comments seriously, when I pointed that isn't what the (...) (22 years ago, 21-Mar-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
