 | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | (...) The Iran-Iraq War was started by Saddam because of the bad blood between him and Ayatollah, in addition to sheer greed for oil and land. Doesn't change the fact that we backed him, though. Doesn't change the fact that we helped perpetuate the (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Didn't say otherwise, but it seems you are trying to slide the primary blame onto America instead of where it firmly belongs. Believe me, I'm not a big Bush backer. (...) Are you saying that "real" arabs wanted Saddam in control of Kuwait? (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | (...) Hmmm, I wouldn't say that it firmly belongs on Saddam, I think the U.S. took the role of the trouble-maker kid on the playground saying "Ooooh, he's talkin' 'bout yo mama." There's a lot of underhanded U.S. stuff that went on, such as the bugs (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | (...) Daniel, I think you need to do a bit more research before you state the above. The upper atmosphere "generally undisturbed"? "Occasional meteor"? Think AGAIN. (...) Combustion of a liquid-fueled rocket (solid fueled are rarely used "that (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Seems like you already did the research, so please enlighten us. As I said, we should approach the matter with caution. Yes, we should research the matter so we don't end up doing more damage to our atmosphere. You got a problem with that? Dan (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's feet. You're not really (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | (...) They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue and America rejected (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Daniel Jassim
|
| | | | | | (...) Hah! My fault, I'm used to the Arabic way of calling it "Saudia" instead of "Saudi Arabia." (...) Good for you! We need more!!! Dan (23 years ago, 13-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) A few years ago I read in a less-than-scrupulous...researched article that each launching of the space shuttle depletes between 8% and 10% of the ozone layer. Now, I'm not a mathematician, but we've had considerably more than 10 or 12 (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | (...) Dang! It's gone! Where's the 200 sun screen? Bruce (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) Sure, but it's 8-10% of the current (or remaining) ozone. So the first one stripped away 10% of the original amount, the next one 9%, the next one 8.1%, etc. So we'll always have some left. Or maybe the Ozone Flies just release more. Who (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh, wait, it's only 8-10% of the ozone it *passes through*, right? ;) I mean, good Lord, only if we're powering it with sulfur! (...) The solution, of course, is to simply drive our cars around in the stratosphere. (A reference, however (...) (23 years ago, 12-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts —James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) Our society tends to be quite liberal with the use of percentage figures to back up a supposed presupposition or argument. Did anyone see that Nova episode about meteors? "We don't know how many [large] meteors there are in the solar system, (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Percents, Per Se —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's fabulous! I read an article back in '92 that proclaimed we'd already discovered 90% of the world's oil. Dave! (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Percents, Per Se —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Grin. When in fact we had already discovered 100% of it! At least 100% of that which had been discovered at that time. :-) Aren't the "proven reserves" larger now than they were then? Not that I know what that means, actually, it's just a (...) (23 years ago, 14-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | |
