To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26915
    Re: A few things... —Dave Schuler
   (...) Won't work--my family doesn't have a huge stockpile of oil. Nor did you supply me with chemical weapons in the 80's out of a criminally short-sighted sense of expediency. Nor did you all but grant me permission to invade Kuwait just weeks (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
   
        Re: A few things... —John Neal
   (...) What is it that you think we would do with that huge stockpile of oil? Steal it? (...) A lot of countries have them. Not many actually use them. Guns don't kill; people do. (...) Let's face it-- SH was an idiot. The guy read the tea leaves all (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
   
        Re: A few things... —David Koudys
     In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) I'm glad to see that revisionist history isn't limited to the US administration. Looks as if John has the bug as well. <snip> (...) Dave K (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
    
         Re: A few things... —John Neal
     (...) Actually, I don't adhere to that scenerio. I believe he actually was hiding WMDs and their whereabouts is still unknown. But since we haven't found any, I am willing to concede the above scenerio, which would make SH out to be an idiot. It (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
    
         Re: A few things... —Scott Arthur
     (...) SH was not the biggest fool on the world stage. (...) You mean the "scandal" (URL) and abetted> by Washington? Who do you think bought that oil and burned it in their bloated "SUV's"... your countrymen! John, you are being played like a (...) (19 years ago, 26-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
   
        Re: A few things... —Dave Schuler
   (...) Is that a rhetorical question? We are actively engaged in the process of securing a sovereign nation's natural resources for our own benefit, and this is exacerbated by the fact that our hegemonic military presence in that country is intended (...) (19 years ago, 27-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR