 | | Re: Who the devil are we to lecture on 'nucular' non-proliferation? (careful, long rant)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 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)
|
|
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. (...) (20 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 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)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil)
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil)
|
|
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? (...) (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 'changing countries to be free' (was Re: Who the devil)
|
|
(...) (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 (...) (20 years ago, 7-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
