 | | Re: It's scarier if he actually believes his own nonsense.
|
|
(...) Well, if we absolutely must have a mad theocrat in office, I'd certainly want the mad theocrat with God on his side. Pity that the rock of W's faith wasn't sufficient to keep him on the straight and narrow in 1992, fully 6 years after his (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Which of course has no bias... (...) But NPR is not biased toward the US, if anything, it's biased against, and has the same information, so what IF the Economist is biased in favor of economic systems that actually work and against ones that (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | It's scarier if he actually believes his own nonsense.
|
|
(URL) showing that article to my SO, she asked if I thought Shrub actually believed this stuff or if he was just trying to gain greater access to a particular constituency group. My answer? See subject line. -- Hop-Frog (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) the most basic element of democracy is that the people decide how they want their government to work. in 1981, when US backed Saddam invaded their country, people signed up en masse to give their lives for their country. Of course, it is easy (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Er, whoops. I'm an Economist subscriber (print edition) so it's no cost to me. But the point of the article, and the diagram in particular, is that Iran is more of a theocracy that has some elected (but basically powerless) appendages, than a (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Hmm, is there a similar report that doesn't have a cost to view? Frank (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Um, not exactly a democracy. You may want to do a little more research. For starters, see this article, particularly the illustration of how power actually works: (URL) entire special report that this is a part of is quite good. (...) Yup. No (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) US diplomatic ineptitude cannot be discounted, but the main reason we are hearing here for the Turkish parliament voting the way they did is pressure from Germany and, especially, France, in the form of a threat to block Turkey joining the EU. (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) oorr.. perhaps they don't want the US army so close to their border.. hmm? And what exactly is the USA doing in the area? removing a government hostile to us, and replacing it with one friendly. Iran is interesting in doing the same thing. How (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Shh! You’ll scare the children. Just imagine the mess at the "trial" of either of these guys if they are ever caught! Scott A (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Patriotism (war time illness) made you blind Larry? Or is this somebody else messaging here using Larry's name? Everybody knows which country supported most both Saddam (against Iran) and Bin Laden (against Russians). (...) Turkish voting of (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Correct! I didn't want to boast about how many civilian lives we were saving by helping the US. It might have made the New Zealand readers feel bad. Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 5-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | DU is/is not a problem?
|
|
(...) This [HM Government funded] report's author was on Radio 4 the other night. His study was a desk study; parts of which have been superseded by a UN report: (URL) also conceded that the model he had used was unreliable, that he was not always (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | [no mention of bombed aspirin factories]
|
|
(...) Excuse me sir, can you tell me the way to the Chinese embassy? Surely you must have an A-to-Z? ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | A look in the mirror & self-determination?
|
|
(...) You mean they have no right to self-determination? Even Scotland has its own parliament these days! (...) What about the USA? Who does it sell/give guns 'n' bombs to? (...) No mention of the USA's tactics? What was Pakistan to get for its (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Hey Richie, you failed to mention Oz! ;) Scott A (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <snip> (...) (Warning: turn your sarcasm detector off now - it may overload) Eureka! Now I understand! Turkey not helping the US probably costs thousands of innocent civilian lives? Of course! Now (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Well you could get a little comfort from thinking how accurate U.S. intelligence reports on WMD have been. ROSCO (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
some excerpts from. (URL) senior leadership decided last month to send irregular paramilitary units across their border with Iraq to harass American soldiers once Saddam Hussein's regime fell, according to U.S. intelligence reports. "This confirmed (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Not necessarily biased, but not particularly brilliant, either
|
|
From: (URL) looming controversy: U.S. and allied use of depleted uranium in bunker-busting bombs and artillery rounds. Depleted uranium is a byproduct of the uranium that fuels nuclear reactors. It turns to fine dust when shells made from the hard, (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
