Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 13 Oct 2006 05:12 In article <v5udncRbs-7DCbPYRVnyiw(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:egl7bj$8qk_003(a)s837.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <452D8AAB.63CA95F9(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>>> >>>> > You guys? >>>> > >>>> > You'd tremble at the prospect of it unless you had the US to back >>>> > you up, and you have the temerity to believe that we'd defend you if >>>> > you were wrong? >>>> >>>> Really? Is this an unspported assertion in order that you may score some >>>> points against Eeyore? >>>> >>>> I can certainly think of occasions where the UK has _not_ had US back up >>>> in >>>> military operations. That said, our military is about 1/10th the size of >> the >>>> US military so expecting the same is a fallacy all on its own. >>> >>>The big difference is that the UK actually *wins* the wars we take on ! >> >> WWII, WWI, The American Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the nameless >> one around 1800. >> >> Yep, you won all of those. > >WWI and WWII were won by the British as much as the Americans or any other >"single" nation. They had a lot of help from the US. The UK government ignored the warnings of impending messes until it was too late. > >Its interesting that the other "non wins" you mention are from almost 200 >years ago. We have lost more recent wars as well. We can compare this to >Vietnam, I suppose. Which was a French mess and a continuation of WWII. > And if you call WWII a non-win for the UK, America gets >the pleasure of Korea being a "defeat." > >We have however, won some interesting wars - even one that was half a world >away - without American assistance. How long ago were those? /BAH
From: Daniel Mandic on 13 Oct 2006 06:22 JoeBloe wrote: > I merely want them to honor patents, copyrights, and other types of > owned material, like the honest folks of the world do. If you want to > play with an unfair advantage, you do not deserve to play. I understand. China do have its own 32-bit Processor. Somewhere in 2000/01... The stolen things are used by blended citizen. Blended by dangerous USA materialistic thinking and lifestyle. The other 50% is either poor as stone, or use paper and paint, and some may use real china digital hardcore stuff/staff ;-) (ermm, Austria for example) Best Regards, Daniel Mandic
From: Daniel Mandic on 13 Oct 2006 06:29 JoeBloe wrote: > > Have you EVER made a post in Usenet that wasn't 100% retarded? I am long enough in Usenet.... But I can write better without the use of rude words. Best Regards, Daniel Mandic P.S.:when didi you start reading and posting ti NNTP
From: Spehro Pefhany on 13 Oct 2006 08:24 On Fri, 13 Oct 06 09:41:04 GMT, the renowned jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >I understand the reticence. Delaying cleaning this mess up is >just going to allow the mess to grow logrithmically. China's >history seems to be wait and see while saving everything that >is supposed to deal with the mess until later. I understand >this kind of thinking. Since China's growth is exponential, waiting to solve a logarithmically-growing problem would make perfect sense. ;-) I suppose they really should bite the bullet and invade (with the blessing of the UN), at a cost of at least tens of thousands of lives (unless they wait until the DPRK weaponizes their nukes), topple the current government for a more responsible and friendly government, set up a bunch more special economic zones and expand the current ones, implement land reform and get the moribund collective farms producing, replace the current nuclear crud with some modern reactors for power, and get the heck back north of the Yalu. Most of the DPRK's defenses are positioned to deter and repel an American attack, not a Chinese one. Maybe a year or two of actual occupation. No refugees, and the US military might finally be able to leave the Korean penninsula entirely (perhaps commit to this in advance), where there is little of strategic importance at stake and much cost is incurred for the US and Korea both. Re-unification could then finally proceed in stages, along with economic liberalization in the North and through South Korean and Chinese investment. Win-win-win. But the Chinese are probably not (yet) prepared to undertake that kind of role, even with substantial outside support, and US hawks would probably try to turn the situation into a new cold war. Still, if reason and cooperation could prevail, this sort of ugly stuff could become a footnote in history: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/HJ06Dg01.html Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Lloyd Parker on 13 Oct 2006 04:17
In article <f9lti2hovlmbvh6tpsbg55oi45obh9s11h(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:01:45 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>So therefore we should kill more of his countrymen than he ever killed. > > > We have done no such thing. Those we fight "the insurgents" are >largely NOT Iraqi. Those THEY kill are not our fault. > > Get a clue, you retarded fucks! Well, they weren't dying at this rate before we invaded. Coincidence? |