 | | Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | I see the (URL) talks got off to a happy start, demanding that the Iranians and North Koreans give up or do differently their nuclear programmes for peaceful power generation/weapons research/weapons production (as the case may be). Even as a (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —John Neal
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> My take is simply this: nukes cannot be trusted to countries under the leadership of despots, dictators, and other illegitate rulers. Democracy is the key-- when people are free (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Richard is right as far as he goes, where he falls down is in his prescription for how to change countries to be free... (...) You mean like the US??? (...) You mean like Dubya ??? (...) I agree! (...) That too. I think the second admendment (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) The thing is I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but that's irrelevant--I know 'Mericans that are serious about that statement and for that, I thank God every day that I'm Canadian. (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) You snipped the more important stuff I think. (...) Why aren't you sure???? I said it here before, wasn't kidding then, wasn't this time either. (...) To each his own. I won't say that there might be wags on this side of the line saying the (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) I know we've all discussed this before, and I confess that I don't have a clear concept of what's appropriate for whom to possess, but I have I have question about the history of this interpretation. How did the founding fathers feel about (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I'd refer you to the Federalist Papers for something a bit more authoriative, but my guess would be no, their cutoff seemed to be "man portable" rather than "portable if you have a whole team of horses". Before you ask, that DOES rule out (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Interesting (and, I note, consistent with your previously stated views). I wonder if they might have considered relative firepower/destructive potential if they'd known what would eventually be man-portable. That's wonder-if question, as (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | (...) Mmmmm. A truly American assumption that my 'prescription' was designed to change these countries to be free, but not what I was driving at. I have read it again, and I can't see that in what I said. Besides, I think its been discussed even (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's too bad, because that's what you SHOULD have said. There are a lot of ways to encourage and help people that want to be free achieve it, OTHER than charging in, guns blazing (and I'd challenge you to point out where I've been a big (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | | | (...) (chuckle) I can't imagine telling anyone what they should have said, much less yelling at them. A fine example of an underlying problem. (...) I wasn't personalising the argument to you Larry. The guns blazing is a popular and wrongheaded (...) (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Parsons wrote: <snip> (...) Really? Try selling that argument to a German or Japanese person-- I don't buy it. (...) You mean like turning out by the millions against, in some cases, fear of death, to vote? (...) (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) You anti-Semitic troll! The fact that Sharon is a wanted war criminal should reassure us all that Israel has the moral authority to hold nukes (1) any intimidate its neighbours! Scott A 1As a belligerent nation which has no respect of (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) Pot? Kettle. JOHN (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) ....do you care to expand that, or is it just more ugly unjustified name calling? Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) No. (...) On your part? Yes. JOHN (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) **sigh** Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry to disappoint-- but we've already beaten that corpse to China and back. :-) JOHN (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Do you care to give us all a link to this alleged beating? Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Just one? What are you, like Dory from "Finding Nemo"? JOHN (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | Let's forget Finding Nemo and face facts john. You got a little annoyed about what I said with regard to Israel. However, as I was telling the truth, all you could do was engage in pointless and unjustified name calling. GET A LIFE. Scott A (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Fine, fair friend. (...) Not said. "Say". (...) <hands over ears> LA LA LA LA LA LA LA! (...) It wasn't pointless. (...) Now you seem annoyed. Let's call it even. JOHN (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | (...) Unjustified, maybe, but certainly not pointless... ROSCO (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | | | (...) Now there is an argument, and close to the best possible riposte under all the circumstances, I think. Seems to sum up Larry and John perfectly in this case. Richard Still baldly going... (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Richard Parsons
|
| | | | (...) Of all the names I have ever been called (I keep a list of the best as a check on hubris), this one is probably the best. It can't go on the list because you're not serious, but I love it anyway :-) Maybe I'll write it on the back... Richard (...) (19 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Well spotted. I suppose I get tired of people in the media who objectively question Israeli nationalism either: (a) being called anti-Semitic (why is this worse than other, more prevalent, forms of racism?) or (b) being reminded of the (...) (19 years ago, 9-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Hmm... Then you were probably kidding when you called me a (URL) holocaust denying anti-Semite>, too. (...) Hey, those kids were asking for it. They knew that they were Palestinians when they left their homes--what did they expect would (...) (19 years ago, 9-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Sorry. That should have been "Holocaust-denying-a...c-liberal" :-) (...) Yep. Life is tough when you are cannon fodder for the IDF. Scott A (...) (19 years ago, 10-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) That's better! (...) Or when you've committed the horrible crime of being an Iraqi civilian, for example. Dave! (19 years ago, 10-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
