 | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | (...) Name all those that you feel see it as "obvious", subtract that from everyone else, and you will have "a great deal". (...) Seems obvious even to you that is NOT about freeing the people of Iraq, but controlling the flow of oil (which was (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Fine; put it this way: there are a great deal of countries on both sides. Saying "the world clearly thinks it isn't obvious" is a gross distortion. (...) Not controlling the flow of oil (or do you have cites for that?), but enabling the free (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) Oh well, I guess the US should just try to take over the whole world now - they have no more credibility to lose. ROSCO (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) John's right. Haliburton will make it's money just from infrastructure contracts, the oil in this case is almost secondary. And anyway, the puppet democrazy that we establish isn't going to be hostile to us even if the people are. So we'll get (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Awww. "Haliburton" again???? (...) Awww. More "puppet" talk? (...) We always could, even from SH if we wanted! (...) But that is precisely my point-- OBL was acting independently from the policies of his country, so equating the nationality of (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) No. We replaced an errant CIA stooge with a compliant one. ;) (...) Read (URL): Many Iraqis believe the decision to launch military action against the regime of Saddam Hussein was unwarranted, according to a poll by Oxford Research (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually, it's not Haliburton again. It's Haliburton, still. This is hardly an over-and-done-with matter, no matter how much Conservatives, Neo-Cons, and the administration might wish it were. (URL) This> is worth reading because it provides (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) The last time I looked Bush: had ~140,000 troops in Iraq. had installed a dictator in iraq. was conducting show trials there. If that is not control, what is? (...) ...and where is that oil flowing to? Your "SUV" perhaps? (...) I'm not (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) At the request of the sovereign, democratic nation of Iraq. (...) Look again. You'll see elections are on the horizon-- a concept quite foreign to dictators. (...) I have no response to the ignorance of this one. (...) If that is not the (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | (...) Sovereign, maybe, democratic no way. At least until proper elections take place, Iraq is still a technical dictatorship. So call it whatever else you want to at this stage. (...) You may be right, but I wouldn't be so vehement in condemning (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | I fear we are about to create yet another martyr. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) My comment was also meant to cover expedient “trial” of the chap caught abusing prisoners in Iraq… I think it lasted ~1 hour. (...) I don't have time to list my concerns about SH’s appearance yesterday. It is suffice to say that I have yet to (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: I fear we aren't playing fair —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Fair? What for? He cheats at everything, and (URL) here's the proof>. Enjoy, (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: I fear we aren't playing fair —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) And besides, the US isn't into fair trials for terrorism suspects, why would they worry about a fair trial for SH? And if the US isn't worried, why should Iraq??? ROSCO (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You didn't even look at (URL) the proof>, did you? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Yes, I did. But I'm not sure what my browsing habits have to do with the topic at hand? ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Well, perhaps you should've replied directly to Scott, because you completely ignored what I had to say. Do you often speak just to hear the sound of your own voice? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Holy crap, I'm sorry I didn't conform *EXACTLY* to some strict unwritten forum rule of who should answer to who in what threads. Whatever. ROSCO (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Liar. You're not sorry. You did it on purpose because you're one dimensional and have no sense of humor. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Sarcasm —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Last I heard it's a humourous device. It was present in my last post, and (URL) this post>. Maybe you missed it? I guess maybe different people have different senses of humour. <SARCASM> I'd certainly never accuse you of not having a sense of (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Sarcasm —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) From the internet. <www.cogsci.princeto...-bin/webwn Sarcasm: witty language used to convey insults or scorn>. Hee, hee. Don't know how I could have missed the insults and scorn. But you're right, I'm wrong. I see you are a funny guy after (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Sarcasm —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I think this might not be formatted quite right, I think you need to put the http:// part on the front or else LUGNET thinks it is a relative link (shifted to plaintext so you could see it, but go upthread and try clicking on it to see what (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | An apology —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Ah perfect. Everyone seems distracted with BrickLinkGate, so.. I think it's long past time for me to take Larry's advice and "play nice". Yes, I admit it. I behaved like a total jerk when I posted to this thread way back in July (and probably (...) (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: An apology —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) We all know it is always difficult to apologise, even a day, a week or a month or more later.. Hats off to you, Don. I hope those you were apologising to see it, and accept it. (20 years ago, 24-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Don, do you often go into bars looking for fights? Scott A (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ignoring the proof that's right in front of you. —Don Heyse
|
| | | | | | | | (...) No. That's what this place is for. Right? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) John, don't be silly. (URL) Bush has no interest in democracy>. (...) Saddam held "elections" after he installed himself too. ;) (...) I note you do not counter my argument. (...) I note you do not counter my argument. (...) I note you do not (...) (20 years ago, 5-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) Actually, I'd say your misquote of me is the gross distortion (see the first line in the quote sequence for the correct claim). :-) (...) I still don't see what your point is here beyond controlling that flow (your original point was how it (...) (20 years ago, 4-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I stand corrected. I noticed my gaff after I posted:-( Though it isn't your stance, it is a common misconception that is held. I apologize for attributing it to you:-) (...) Our main objective was eliminating a dangerous threat in the person (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | (...) If you do think he had WMD, are you not concerned that Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over the country? Scott A (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Along with everybody else. (...) What exactly do you mean? Yes, there are terrorists there to attack Americans. But can you not see that we are not the only targets? What if, tomorrow, we were to evacuate completely from Iraq? Do you think (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) I'm talking about *today* (...) I mean Bush has engineered a situation whereby OBL’s foot soldiers are apparently crawling all over Iraq... a country apparently full of WMD! (...) Nice try. I did not say that. (What is your point?) (...) I (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh that's simple then--there's the base line right there! We can kick at the ant hill all we want and so long as the ants don't come and attack us directly, then things are honkey dory! We can get the hornets all nice and angry by throwing (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Fair use and allusion? —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | (...) Yeah, I'm with John! What does it matter if Americans die needlessly and have their resources wasted as long as it is happening Out of Sight! ;-) Hunky-dory. No relation to Shiri Dori. Or were you being ebonical? -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Win-win-win? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Well that has failed. The WMD are apparently AWOL, the whole country looks like a giant terrorist recruiting centre and it is clear that the "threat" to us all is (URL) increasing>! (...) Yep. We killed >10,000, put new torturers in the (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
