Debate : 24623


Off-Topic / Debate / 24623

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Would you mind providing why you think this? I think we'd all agree that war, all things being equal, tends to be unjust. Furthermore, Saddam was the recognized (by us) legitimate ruler of a sovereign nation. He did thumb his nose at UN (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) That he is a genocidal tyrant that has additionally invaded two of his neighbors soley to steal their resources springs to mind. Or are you saying that Saddam's actions are "just"? (...) Unjust things happen during any war - however, from a (...) (20 years ago, 6-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) Much of which he did with US support. (...) Seriously, was he any worse in 2003 than some of the human rights abusers Bush supports today? I’m talking about countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) If you'll modify that to "some" rather than "much", I'll agree (mostly support to him being a thorn in the side of Ayatollah wackos in Iran, but then, there's a certain sense of deja vu in the U.S. screwing around with things there, too). (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) No. I'm saying why oppose Saddam whilst supporting other problem countries. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Umm.. I think his concept is that if we overthrew Saddam b/c he was abusive to his population, we should overthrow the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Israel, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan as well. If nothing else, it shows a lack of consistency in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Why? I find myself with complicated reactions to the situation that I haven't yet worked through. Were they dodging slavery (the draft), then I would assert that they had the moral high ground and I would be supportive of their desertion. But (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

(...) yet (...) assert that (...) desertion. (...) of (...) up. (...) Hmm, interesting question. I tend to feel that you should have known what was possible before signing up. Anyone who is active now has had an opportunity to bail out, or should (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yeah. You know, this whole topic would be easier if one of two things would happen: either privatize the armed services -- eliminating any need to deal with this kind of situation any differently than any other contractual obligation, or (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Interesting comments by you and Frank. I have a reaction on a couple of different levels. One, as a soldier, I sure as heck wouldn't want those guys forced into guarding my back. Two, at some point, people as individuals must question their (...) (20 years ago, 7-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:I0Hq3D.5IE@lugnet.com... (...) guys (...) must (...) that (...) in the (...) line. (...) these guys (...) Good point about people who don't want to be there guarding people's (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I0Hp4F.24K7@lugnet.com... (...) happen: (...) this (...) or (...) lives (...) granted. Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with either solution, but I think we should widen the sources for aid. (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) Some soldiers will always refuse to fight. I read the other day about paratroopers who refused to jump on D-Day. During the Vietnam War, many servicemen refused to fight; indeed, a few ships did not leave port. If soldiers have enlisted, I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) I'm not suggesting, nor making any statement, that Saddam's actions are just. I'm questioning whether the USA's actions were just. Or rather, specifically, wondering why you think they were "not unjust." (...) I'm speaking hypthetically as (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped much away. (...) However, is there a distinction between recognising the reality of a strongman being in power through force, and recognising the legitimacy of his rule? I'm just asking. But I suspect that many countries, operating in the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Typo! This should read "wasn't legitimate" rather than was. That is, the UN hardly ever says anything bad about a government's legitimacy, compared to the number of coups. So the UN seems to see coups as (at least defacto) an OK way to change (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) This is an interesting point. But then, I'm begining to really question democracy as the most effective way of ruling a people. Sometimes coups occur because the masses make the wrong decision (ie, Musharraf taking over Pakistan to keep it (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) What is the alternative when it is often the people in these countries which can benefit most from what the UN can provide (e.g. direct aid and peace keeping)? Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I gave my reasons. (...) So, Germany could slaughter jews at whim in the 20th century because it was a sovereign nation and you fully support that? (...) Perhaps you mean "right" and not "power", because you are demonstrably wrong on that (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote: <snip> (...) There's a debatable issue for you--if Pearl Harbor never happened, would the Americans have 'officially' entered WW2 at all? I mean, the Allies didn't know Hitler was murdering the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) See, with that kind of non-sequitor answer you are just encouraging Lenny to dodge the question the same way. Nor was the question aimed at countries, it was aimed at him as a person. Let me direct it specifically at you: could any nation (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) I'm pretty sure this is maybe the most ignorant thing I've read in a month. I'm starting to think you're not able to have a friendly discussion about anything. No, I don't condone genocide. Did you really think I did? Regarding WW2 - the key (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Christopher L. Weeks

Jeez, did everyone take angry pills today? I think Bruce's point is pretty clear. You asserted that our invasion of Iraq was bad (illegal, unjust, whatever) because it violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Bruce is asking you (and now DaveK) if there (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Well, when you ask it, it seems well thought out and even-headed. I do believe, what Bruce actually asked me was if I supported Hitler killing the Jews - which is not well thought out, not even headed, and offensive. i tend to respond to guff (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) But that was just an extreme example of what I said. It was a starting point for distinguishing what you really think about the role of sovereignty in our war-decisions. Do you think that a nation can act to cause harm to its own population (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The Macho Libertarian Flash(tm) answer is that there is NO justification, short of actually being invaded by another sovereignty and needing to repel the attack, that justifies attack on another sovereign country. Nor is there any (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

(...) Well, let's talk about this, then, and keep it entirely in the realm of hypothetical. Country A is oppressive. A majority of citizens of Country A decide to have a 'revolt' to shake off the tyrannical oppressive gov't. Can the citizens get aid (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

These are MLF answers mind you, not my personal view which is a bit muddier (...) I suspect you're not going to do that but OK, I'll play along. (...) Check. (...) Check. (...) Not legitimately directly from other countries. Only from privateers who (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

(...) Nope, I was genuinely intersted to see where the debate would go--I don't have a solid opinion on the matter, and this particular hypothetical scenario doesn't pertain to the current Iraqi situation. I did think about the American revolution, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Jrr3.GAL@lugnet.com... (...) short (...) to (...) own and (...) foreign (...) always (...) answer (...) Hmm, how do you define sovereignty? Does it require consent of the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

These are LMF answers, not my own, which are rather muddier. (...) Yes, each and every one... (...) Any group of people, no matter how small, whether territorial or not. At the extreme, it must be unanimous consent or else provision must be made to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0Ju05.zt6@lugnet.com... (...) people (...) Ok, so an improperly formed sovereignty doesn't have any validity... (...) the (...) exclude (...) Hmm, if I'm accused of a crime, (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Dejure. "consent of the governed" and all that... It may defacto have a lot of guns though. (...) Only if you can escape, and your former co citizens (or properly employed police) don't come find you and remand you back into custody. I don't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Dave Schuler

(...) I'm curious--under the Flash(tm) philosophy, what happens if one sovereign nation invades and subjugates a second nation, thereby imposing the sovereignty of the invader over the invaded? What kind of action can be taken in response, since the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

These are LMF answers, mind you... not mine, which are rather muddier (...) Armed conflict happens, presumably. (...) The citizens of the invaded country. As always, just as if they were considering secession peacefully. (...) The Second Amendment (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Dave Schuler

(...) That's fine with me--I'm interested in examining the philosophy itself, (...) Okay, I think that makes some sense. But couldn't the dominant nation simply impose upon the seceeding nation a fee of, say, a billion dollars per person to effect (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) In advance? Would you sign up for that? Or do you mean after the fact against people who were in already? I would tend to think (and I'm guessing here) that every new law (except basic common law, you can't dodge the prohibition against (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, maybe this is a better hypothetical: What if the dominant nation (accepting, though, that the minarchist idea kind of trumps this) simply buys all territory surrounding the smaller nation and then charges the smaller nation a billion (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Don Heyse

(...) Hey, you know, I always (well, not really always) wondered why they don't do that with those "Native American" casinos you see popping up all over the place these days. Apparently they're able to fight that sort of thing off. (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Honestly, I don't know the answer to that one off hand. What do you suggest? Armored VTOL aircraft or spaceships? Or maybe just never leaving? (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Dave Schuler

(...) Not sure--maybe they could go at night, when no one's watching. Your other post suggesting "information" seems a good compromise, unless the surrounding nation can somehow claim the airwaves as its own property and thereby charge for their (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) Sounds a bit like Cuba. ;) Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) In my experience, extreme examples do more to mud up the argument rather than cutting to the essence. The key issue is regarding WW2 and the Holocaust is that nation sovereignty wasn't an issue for either case (the war or the genocide). (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@*NOSPAM*ma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:I0JsE3.KMD@lugnet.com... (...) point (...) in our (...) than (...) Hmm, in my experience, extreme examples are great for exploring assertions, and helping cut to the essense. I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I put a question mark behind my question to show that it wasn't an assumption. You assumed incorrectly that I was making an assumption. I would have used a more recent example from Africa, but I couldn't remember the name of the country (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Dave Schuler

(...) It always bums me out when I discover that someone hasn't been reading any of my posts. Dave! 8^) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Dave. You are now my hero. I will make an effort to read OTD regularly from now on so I can catch every snipet of ignorance that falls from your golden mouth. -Lenny (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I just finished replying to your message where you did indeed dodge the question, so I gotta say that you ignorant claim is pretty darn ignorant. :-) (...) Of course not. I was merely trying to get you to confront the logical extension of your (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) ooh.. i know! Maybe I'm not man enough! (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

(...) I was just starting a tangent to the current discussion--hence, 'here's a debatable subject'... It's a "Hmmm.." (strokes chin thoughtfully). That said, if you want an answer to your specific question--'can sovereign nations slaughter the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0JpDD.1yqA@lugnet.com... (...) from (...) ways, we (...) a) (...) world (...) of your (...) This does tend to be the best way to deal with people who won't play nice. Of course at some (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

(...) I support cohesive sanctions against Iraq. That said, my wanting to not let people suffer anywhere in the world gets conflicted with what's best in the long run. 'Food for oil' will minimize the suffering of the people today, however it won't (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Can information penetrate this barrier? In that case pretty much any country with a sufficient(1) technology and manufacturing base should be OK (even if they're a net importer of food and raw materials now) 1 - I suspect defining "sufficient" (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) There's only one part of your answer that matters: "No". When talking about something being "just" or "unjust", we are not talking about the power to enforce that, and I'm not addressing that at all. So, no, Saddam doesn't have the right to (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

(...) Its an example to show that you can't use a country's laws legally in another country. The UN had the resolution--the UN has to deal with enforcing it. The US, stating the UN resolution as reason to invade, but at hte same time acting against (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I thought I made it clear that I was not making any reference to the U.N. resolution you are refering to. (...) You just ignored it again!!! (...) But it happened because of stupidity, thus it was Yet Another Stupid European War caused by (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Koudys

(...) I thought we were talking about the legitimacy, legality, moralness, and wisdom of the war. I was setting out to show via example, how this war was illegal. (...) No I didn't (this is sounding like a bad Python sketch). If action is justified (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) No. You said the war against Saddam was "unjust" and I disputed that. I did say in passing that I would dispute "illegal". It was never about the wisdom of the war, and I have said so repeatedly. Nor was it about Bush's stated reasons for (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Laswell

(...) The US didn't invade Iraq because Iraq was breaking US laws, though. The justification for the invasion was because Iraq had failed to live up to the sanctions imposed on them by the UN after the Gulf War. The UN set a deadline by which time (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) Note: The "consequences" did not include what happened (i.e. armed intervention). (...) That is a rather subjective view. (...) What did SH do whilst Clinton was running things that was worth even lobbing missiles at? (...) I hear they have (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Laswell

(...) From what I can tell, the consequences didn't really amount to much other than saying "Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again!" If the UN wants to be taken seriously, they need to stick to their own decisions, and follow up on their resolutions in (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) No, they need to ignore debates based on flawed intelligence. (...) Are you saying that mandate was still valid? (...) So Clinton should have done less; not more? (...) Britain comprises Scotland, England and Wales (i.e. Britain can't (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) James Stewart, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, followed Elizabeth I to the throne, so didn't Scotland take over England? ;-) -->Bruce<-- (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Laswell

(...) It sounds logical on paper, but after acceding to the English throne, James IV of Scotland (becoming James I of England) only returned to Scotland once during the whole of his rule, at which time he basically told them they were worthless (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —David Laswell

(...) They need to know that it's flawed intelligence before they can choose to ignore it on that basis. Last I checked the UN doesn't have a spy department, and SH was refusing access to their more direct information gathering services, like (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Ross Crawford

(...) Ummmm scotsman only has one "t" :) And as an aside, it is a commonly held (mis?)conception in Australia (and more than likely elsewhere) that most Americans couldn't point to their home town on a map. But I was disappointed to see a Letterman (...) (20 years ago, 10-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) It's also not spelled with a lower-case "s", but that's beside the point. (...) I've often wondered about this sort of thing. Admittedly, I have it easier than most US citizens, having lived my entire life on the longest lakeshore in the (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Thomas Stangl

Yes, I get tired of the "clueless American" geography issue, when I find so many non-US citizens are surprised to find out that I can drive for over 600 miles on relatively straight interstates without touching reaching the far end of the state I (...) (20 years ago, 11-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Koudys

(...) Takes me 20 hours(ish) of straight driving to get from my place in Ontario to the next province--Manitoba Though I'd say the best story about size and geography--a friends father tagged along with a university undergrad study course to look at (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Frank Filz

"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0qwBt.2D3@lugnet.com... (...) to (...) Yep, your provinces are pretty big... (...) tagged (...) former (...) which (...) country on (...) Careful though, 7 hours doesn't sound that (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —John Neal

(...) Hmmm, maybe it's a pretty darn big world after all! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yeah, but LA to Boston is only 5 hours...he was flying east. Chris (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Koudys

(...) Added to that the idea that LA and Boston are on opposite coasts, whereas Moscow and the city whonse name I can't remember are not really near the 'outer edges' of the former Soviet Union. So the 7 hours was 'in country', not even going from (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Frank Filz

"David Koudys" <dkoudys@redeemer.on.ca> wrote in message news:I0r8qE.nzy@lugnet.com... (...) country on (...) non-stop (...) Moscow (...) edges' (...) True, I was just pointing out that 7 hours by itself isn't impressive. You need to add the fact (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Frank Filz

"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:I0r83n.J72@lugnet.com... (...) country on (...) non-stop (...) Good point. I just checked for Seattle to Miami, it's 5 hrs 44 minutes. I looked at Alaska Airlines schedule, can't (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) Last I checked, it's faster to fly west than east, since you'd be flying into the planetary rotation instead of overtaking it. Also, you can't judge the size of a country very accurately by board-to-debark times, since many airlines pad those (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Frank Filz

"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0rBKu.1C9r@lugnet.com... (...) into (...) Flying against the planetary rotation might get you somewhere, I'm not sure how all the dynamics work. What I do know is that in the (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) Basic physics says that if you spin the world in one direction, the air will (generally) spin in the other direction (counter-rotation, equal/opposite reaction and such), which should carry you even faster into the rotation and fight you even (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Last I remember of Halley, Hadley and Coriolis that's not how it works, but it's been quite some time since I last looked at that kind of thing. The basic physics as I remember the model is that the heated air around the equator rises (the (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Your explanation of hot air movement and how it affects weather and climate matches my memory of the facts a lot better than the previous hot air explanation did. Thanks for posting that! (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Dave Schuler

(...) Does this apply to driving, as well? If so, I may have found a new excuse for being late to work. But a more serious question: How big a factor *is* planetary rotation vis a vis commercial jet travel? I would have thought that, because flights (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Don Heyse

(...) I think the issue is the jet stream. It moves eastward somewhat faster than the ground, so going east you have a tailwind, and going west you have a headwind. Unfortunately for you, the mountains in PA aren't high enough for this to make you (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'll buy that, except that the original claim seemed to be that the rotation itself was the factor, not the jetstream. Admittedly, I may have misunderstood the framing of the problem: perhaps the question of east/west travel already assumed (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) I must admit I have never checked, so I can't even say "last I checked", but since Long Jumpers don't slaver at setting world records on a west facing runway let me be the first official doubter. Going east helps getting into orbit since that (...) (20 years ago, 14-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) Yeah, Russia is _almost_ bigger than any two of the other 5 largest nations, even after having large chunks of the ex-U.S.S.R. lopped off (and one of those chunks still ranks at #9 for both total land-mass and total area). In 1998, the (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Frank Filz

"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0ny3F.F5E@lugnet.com... (...) easier than (...) the (...) where (...) If it's (...) the US (...) without (...) single (...) the (...) failing to (...) of (...) Hmm, I think I could (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) Have you ever lived in Kansas? ;) (...) Exactly. And to many Americans, knowing the geography of your neighboring States is roughly equivalent to knowing the geography of neighboring nations in Western Europe. The big difference is that most (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Frank Filz

"Purple Dave" <purpledave@maskofdestiny.com> wrote in message news:I0r5CA.243s@lugnet.com... (...) of (...) major (...) No, and I admit, I would have a harder time placing Kansas with just a map of natural features. (...) their (...) the US (...) (...) (20 years ago, 12-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Look for the place with no elevation contours. :-) (...) What? False!!! Sam traveled Middle-earth from Mordor to the Grey Havens, something very few in Middle-earth could say that they had done. Now his old Gaffer, Hamfast, is given away by (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) I try to avoid doing that as much as possible. I may live in Michigan, but we've got sand dunes nearby, rolling hills, and lots of faux-elevation (i.e. trees in great abundance). (...) I was thinking specifically of the scene in TFotR, where (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Thomas Stangl

(...) Yeah, the one that someone proved really WAS "flatter than a pancake" ;-) -- Tom Stangl *(URL) Visual FAQ home *(URL) Visual FAQ Home (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —John Neal

(...) Downright provincial:-) Moi: Canada, Mexico, Spain, Portugal, France, (West) Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Jordan; most of those countries on multiple occasions, and 34 states. JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not bad. You have me beat for foreign countries, that's for sure. Countries: US, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy, Australia, Japan States of the US: All but HI, ME, MT, AR, NM, ND (unless you (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —Richard Parsons

(...) Oo! Oo! Finally a piddling contest I can do reasonably well in! Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany (both sides before the wall came down), Ireland, Malaysia, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Thailand, United Arab (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —Ross Crawford

(...) (Enters the public toilet) Within Australia: All mainland states & territories, lived in Tasmania, NSW and Victoria Countries: USA, Canada, Indonesia, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic, UK (England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland) USA: California, (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —John Neal

(...) What I've never done, however, is go below the equator. Sounds scary down there! But at some time I would like to see in person water circle the drain in the opposite direction;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —Christopher L. Weeks

Nations (in order, to the best of my ability): West Germany, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, England, Denmark, Austria, United States, Mexico, Canada, Jamaica I have driven, as an adult, on my own, and (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —Larry Pieniazek

(...) What's the order there? Chronological by earliest first visited, to most recently first visited? If so, were you an Army brat or expat's kid? For me, the chronological order starts with the US since I was born here... (US '59, Canada '59 (I (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —Pedro Silva

(...) You got me curious now: isn't Labrador a part of Newfoundland nowadays? Administratively speaking, that is. ;-) Pedro (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —Dave Schuler

(...) I think that Labrador is in charge of Retrieval. Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —John Neal

(...) Irish you hadn't setter straight; for puns, I grousely outnumber you Dave! JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I have no idea offhand and didn't look it up in advance. Perhaps someone else does know and feels strongly enough about it that they want to share. But being American, it's apparently expected that I not know... just trying to hold up the (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —David Koudys

(...) I could hold up the Canadian stereotype, eh and say the centre of the universe is Toronto... Faulty history/geography recollection--Newfoundland came into Canada in '49 (or was it '52, should really refresh my memory on that one) When I was a (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —David Laswell

(...) Two straight weeks in salt-water? That can't be good for your skin... ;P (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck (was Re: Geography —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yeah, I thought about that after I'd posted: "In order...of course it's in order, everything's in *some* order." It is chronological order of visitation. I was sort of an army brat. Dad was drafted during Vietnam and went to Germany and got (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —John Neal

Yes it is. There! ;-) JOHN (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Not particularly on topic for .debate but what the heck( was Re: Geography —Frank Filz

"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...areDOTcom> wrote in message news:I0rxHu.uF0@lugnet.com... (...) had to (...) in (...) driving (...) My first hole is #4... I'm not well travelled in Texas (have been to Dallas and Fort Worth though, Dallas (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Pedro Silva

(...) When??? (refers to edited highlight) We ought to have given you a LUG reception, had we known in advance you were coming! :-) Great list. Mine is about the same size, but probably less extensive within the countries themselves: Portugal, (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —John Neal

(...) lol Well, Pedro, it was a little before your time (circa 1967:-) I was about 6 at the time and I'm sure I had my LEGO in the back seat of the rental car to keep me quiet and occupied;-) I was close in 1984 when I spent part of my honeymoon in (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —David Laswell

(...) See, there's one of the things I'm wondering about. Do Europeans and such have an easier time of placing their home town on a world map or globe where everything is color-blocked by nations? I grew up seeing a US map that was color-blocked by (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geography (was: We'll take in your poor....) —Ross Crawford

(...) Yep, and I'd probably have no trouble with the places I've lived (and most of the places I've visited) in Aus. I'd probably take a little longer to find the places I stayed in the USA & Canada, but I think I'd generally get pretty close. (...) (...) (20 years ago, 13-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) Britain and France had a treaty with Poland which guaranteed its territorial integrity. A {much} overlooked point is that the USSR invaded Poland a week or two after Nazi Germany did. We did not declare war on them as Churchill hoped the USSR (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Scott Arthur

(...) I can guess how it will deal with (URL) this>. I suppose the fact that this issue has been given this much attention is a small victory for those who really believe in freedom. Scott A (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) Not comparable. And I'm not talking about my support - but rather the legality of international law. (...) You're changing my scenario. But even then, you'd still be a murderer for killing him. The correct thing to do would be to call the (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) A dodge, but I'll go with the flow: then you believe that international law supports that any nation recognized by the U.N. is free to slaughter its inhabitants at will and no intervention is just? (...) I'll lay it out to you the same way I (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Leonard Hoffman

(...) "no intervention" - the UN has repeatedly placed economic sanctions on countries for human rights abuses. "slaughter" is a loaded term. A nation has a right to defend itself from insurgents and rebels. A nation has a right to enforce its own (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) This does not answer my question. Because it hasn't doesn't mean it can't. (...) Or a genocide against different tribe from the ruling one? Or those of a given religion that aren't rebeling? Or a people or region that were forced into the (...) (20 years ago, 9-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: We'll take in your poor, your homeless, your oppressed... —Frank Filz

"Lenny Hoffman" <lahoffma@*NOSPAM*ma...r.fsu.edu> wrote in message news:I0Jo0v.1KL2@lugnet.com... (...) was a (...) legality (...) of (...) it. I, (...) the chest (...) directly (...) them (...) is (...) Hmm, are you never justified in taking (...) (20 years ago, 8-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)