Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 15:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eonsa7$8qk_008(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <i98qq29j207ke01380bfk1h82rhguhf8lb(a)4ax.com>, > Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >>On Tue, 16 Jan 07 10:34:37 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) >>wrote: >> >>>In article <eoin12$8qk_002(a)s961.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>><snippage for bah's reader> >> >>>>NATO is now in charge of helping Afghanistan. Bush isn't supposed >>>>to be helping there. >>> >>>What? We invaded! >> >>Yeah! So everyone else has to help patch things up after we break >>them. That's fair, right? Our motto, "We break 'em, you remake 'em." >> >> ;) > > It would behoove you to watch what happens and NATO's performance. > Our enemies certainly are and, at this moment, are testing the > backbone strength of a European-based association. You can't be talking about NATO then. > If there > is no backbone in Europe, one tactic may be to whack that area > first because it is the weaker. And it's closer. Do you know what NATO is?
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 16:05 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eonsci$8qk_009(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45ACE635.E678672D(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> When Iran starts a war against some country >>> in the West, where are you going to base your armies and air force? >>> In England? >> >>More problematic is likely to be Iran's problem about where to base >>*their* >>forces. >> >>LMAO ! > > If you try to think a little bit, Iran won't need to have > bases in the beginning. Blimey. This means your earlier post was nonsense then?
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 16:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eonujc$8qk_003(a)s887.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45AF7C4C.F054D7B3(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> > >>> >> When Iran starts a war against some country >>> >> in the West, where are you going to base your armies and air force? >>> >> In England? >>> > >>> >More problematic is likely to be Iran's problem about where to base > *their* >>> >forces. >>> > >>> >LMAO ! >>> >>> If you try to think a little bit, Iran won't need to have >>> bases in the beginning. >> >>Ah, the 'fifth column' you mean ? > > I don't know what you mean by that term. You need to learn a lot more about WWII history then. > >> >>We've started putting them on trial and sending them to jail. > > Take another look at your recent history. Putting your local > terrorists in jail didn't solve the problem. The bombing and > messes just kept going and going and going. Incorrect.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 16:11 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a27e9$45afa4f7$4fe7416$11885(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> On Thu, 18 Jan 07 12:51:28 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>Are you agreeing with Lloyd that the Constitution is subservient >>>to the UN charter? That is what he's implying and that is what is >>>underlying our discussions for the last two weeks; I >>>happen to disagree with his assumption, emphatically disagree. > >> I knew what Lloyd was talking about. I was imagining that you don't. >> I've read a few Supreme Court decisions, enough of them to see the >> Justices referring to these treaties with other countries in making >> their decisions. > > There's an inherent problem with any document, which is > supposed to be the supreme law of the the land with > specific methods required to be followed in order to > modify itself then turning around and allowing itself > to be modified by actions answerable to much lower > standards. > > We could create and implement a treaty with England that > we would respect their state religion as ours, for > example. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish may get upset about all that.[*] The Church of England is not really the "state" religon of the UK, and hasn't been for many years. The Queen is head of the Church and defender of the faith in that respect but it certainly does not make CofE the "state religion." Also, surely a treaty which conflicted with your constitution would not be ratified in the first place? ~~ [*] Not to mention the States of Jersey, the Isle of Man, The Falkland Islands and the other oddities we suffer from as part of the Union.
From: T Wake on 22 Jan 2007 16:14
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eoqhmd$8qk_001(a)s790.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > And supreme law of the land implies that a treaty overrides the > States local laws; it does not imply that treaties can overrule > the Constitution. Which treaties do overrule the Constitution or are you being entirely rhetorical here? >> >>In regards to the United Nations, its charter was set up as a treaty. >>The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Charter that was >>originally signed on June 26th, 1945 in San Francisco, as a __treaty__ >>by a vote of 89 to 2, about a month later on July 28th, 1945. This >>treaty (charter) is now the supreme law of our land. >> >>http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/index.html >> >>That's my understanding of it, right now. > > You are right. I'm trying to undo some really bad assumptions > in certain people. Remember that people who are not US citizens > are also reading these posts. I've heard a number of hints > that the UN should be the supreme law of the globe. Really? Who? Are you misreading my posts? Do you know the US instituted one of the main international treaties about when a law can be declared by a nation which was a signatory to the treaty? |