Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 6 Oct 2006 16:07 John Fields wrote: > On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:00:07 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >John Fields wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >John Fields wrote: > >> > > >> >> I think the US's actions speak otherwise in that, clearly, we have > >> >> no aspirations to Empire. > >> > > >> >" the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization > >> >whose goal is to promote American global leadership " > >> > > >> >http://www.newamericancentury.org/aboutpnac.htm > >> > > >> >> Had we chosen to we could have kept > >> >> Germany and Japan after we beat them, but we didn't. > >> > > >> >The *USA* didn't beat them and they weren't yours to keep. > >> > >> --- > >> We sure as hell did > > > >I'd give you most of the credit for Japan but Europe ? No way ever. > > > >> , and they were spoils of war, to do with as we saw fit. > > > >No they weren't ! > > --- > Sure they were. As has already been pointed out, we occupied Japan > for as long as we thought necessary to ensure that their former > governmental system would be completely dismantled and irrevocably > replaced by one of our choosing. > > As far as Germany goes, it was split up much like a treasure chest > won in a war (the "spoils of war") might be. And it wasn't just the USA that beat Germany. > >> How do you think England got to be an empire, by giving it all back? > > > >How many countries did we have to go to war with ( and how many killed ) to get the > >Empire ? > > --- > Who cares? The point is that the Empire came into existence because > of your acquisition and retention of "spoils of war". Much of the Empire was acquired without war. Graham
From: John Fields on 6 Oct 2006 16:05 On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:45:03 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:10:34 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >John Larkin wrote: >> >> >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>A lot of this anti-US fervor started with Democrat Presidential >> >> >> >>candidates trying out their sound bytes in 2002-2004 in Europe. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>/BAH >> >> >> >OH BS. It started with Bush invading another nation. >> >> >> >> >> >> Actually, it started with FDR invading another nation. France, >> >> >> specifically. >> >> > >> >> >You're being very very silly. >> >> > >> >> >Graham >> >> >> >> I don't think so. A couple of things are at work here. One is the >> >> military and cultural and technological and scientific dominance of >> >> the USA as compared to Europe, which is bound to cause some >> >> resentment. The other is expressed in the Chinese proverb, "if you >> >> save someone's life, they will hate you forever." >> > >> >You really are monumentally stupid. >> >> You are fat, poor, unhappy, and frustrated by the state of the world. >> I am none of these. Explain to me why I am the stupid one here. > >Because you're stupidly happy in your profound ignorance ? > >The only thing that worries me about the 'state of the world' is what >idiocy America's up to next. --- Bullshit. All you're trying to do is avoid having to account for yourself in a way which won't cast you in a bad light. How much do you weigh? How much do you make? How much do you laugh? Who would you like to see dead? Are you willing to answer even just _one_ of the questions? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 16:08 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:45267813.5DB5BB6D(a)earthlink.net... > well, you know, its always open season > on trolls. No limit! ;-) Yes we know. That is why you get replies.
From: lucasea on 6 Oct 2006 16:09 "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message news:NKmdnW-aOr5QMbvYnZ2dnUVZ8tKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > > "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message > news:vgdci29a8p13kfhhs2i6rnm9b36duq7r72(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:06:03 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: >> >>> >>>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >>>news:regbi2dpkrf103e4opion58ooto1lmft2c(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> It is you, fuckhead, that is incredulous. >>> >>>Yes, I suspect it is he who is incredulous at your idiocy. I think the >>>word >>>you wanted is "incredible", as in "not credible". >>> >> >> No. It was said just fine. >> >> Nothing you say carries any credence either. > > Ooh, such a big word. Did you have to look it up? Bet you had a little lie > down afterwards, didn't you? Nah, it's the only word he can remember from the name of the band. The other two (Clearwater, and Revival) are three syllables, and thus too long. And the word he was looking for was "credibility". Eric Lucas
From: T Wake on 6 Oct 2006 16:10
"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:r50di2tkh012s4c4bl2bqok2l20v0t7blm(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 21:11:35 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>news:63j8i210b7q3qldb3hpe7jgk0hsfscm2fu(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 20:37:44 +0100, "T Wake" >>> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>>news:s2k7i2lbbpsdepbsu912116dvi0vpa6tcf(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:30:06 GMT, "Homer J Simpson" >>>>> <nobody(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>news:45229733.8D7D0F64(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>> >>>>>>> Reputedy Mohammed went a little ga-ga in his later years. Anyway, >>>>>>> show >>>>>>> me >>>>>>> a religious text that*isn't* >>>>>>> riddled with contradictions. >>>>>> >>>>>>They're all really just books of magic spells anyway. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> No, they're not. They're survival manuals. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Cool. Do they tell you which plants you can eat in the jungle? That has >>>>always impressed me in the survival books. >>> >>> --- >>> No, they're mostly about survival in the desert and its environs. >>> Which animals to eat and things like that. >>> >> >>Not very good survival manuals. > > --- > Seems like they've worked, though. ;) Depends on your view of scale. Humanity existed for thousands of years without them. People who cling to them seem remarkably capable of dying. >>Do they tell you how to treat heat stroke? >>Do they tell you how to ensure sandflys wont bite? Now that would be cool. > > --- > Different kind of survival... > Oh well. |