Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 05:58 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:qro2j296rl564bdlctcfvhmdo4cr42cpo1(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:22:04 +0100, 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 ! > > --- > Not the most important one of all, the one with us, LOL! Wasn't important at the time. When America got French assistance for it's independance we[tinw] were fighting the French for domination of the rest of the world. I dont think I have ever heard the American War of Independance described as the "most important of all" before. > And probably not the two world wars, without our help. No way of knowing. Prior to the US overt involvement in WWII the Germans had shelved their plans to invade the UK. It is equally possible that the UK would have been able to establish a treaty of some sort _or_ that Germany would have decided to invade once more. In any way, the US "help" cost the UK so much (lend-lease terms) it was almost a pyrrhic victory. As far as WWI goes, well, waiting three years until the great European powers have decimated their armies _then_ joining in, well that is help. Certainly shortened the war by a good few months. Not sure it was "won" though as an Armistice is a truce not a victory. What I said still stands and your counter examples only support it. The US military is ten times the size of the UK's and was in WWII. In WWII the US domestic economy was intact and the country had seen no conflict on it's mainland. All the production facilities were still in place and all the agriculture was functioning normally. Trying to score points by saying the Army that country produced was more effective (eventually) than the one the UK produced is strange to say the least. The very fact that the UK could still field an effective combat force is something to be proud of.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 06:00 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:21r2j2tfeudvkq7qcbqofvib941jqm0nsh(a)4ax.com... > It's hard to give up the cop > business after doing it for so long. Police are accountable to the people they police, right or wrong. The US is accountable to no one. It is not a global police force.
From: T Wake on 15 Oct 2006 06:04 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:mk03j2ph5kletipftj89oh28khr1j7ocp9(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:33:41 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > >>Profanity: the last resort of the braindead. > > Being a wuss about profanity: The only resort of a pointless twit. Schoolchild-esque taunts. The only retort of an idiot. > My baby fingertip has more brains than you do. Shame all your brains are in your finger tips then.
From: YD on 15 Oct 2006 07:05 On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:32:38 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message >news:42h2j296b2rjh909ncsvh34q1f7usrib5n(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:46:17 -0500, John Fields >> <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >> >>>On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:44:48 +0100, Eeyore >>><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>You believe Iraqi schools didn't have pencils and books ? >>> >>>--- >>>I'm sure they had some... >> >> >> Granted, but there must be some reason that our boys are handing out >> hundreds of thousands of sets of learning media. > > >Perhaps because the ones the Iraqis had didn't make a single mention of >Creationism...erm, Intelligent Design... and therefore didn't live up to US >standards.... > >Eric Lucas > And possibly due to domestic production currently being at a stand-still due to a lack of infra-structure. - YD. -- Remove HAT if replying by mail.
From: Frank Bemelman on 15 Oct 2006 07:50
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> schreef in bericht news:td03j2truivot3b1ihjrqae8uo85991ebb(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:21:49 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> Gave us: > >>Sure, simple casualties. Imagine piling them up in your back yard, 650.000 >>bodies. > > The number is off, and so was the claim as to the way they died as > well as the reason. Sure, the number is off, have it your way. Imagine piling up the true number then, in your back yard. Try imagine that, while you sit in your garden, enjoying a beer. And when you imagine that pile, sipping your beer, try thinking of Bush and if he has played a role in this. Maybe it is too much to ask, to spend a little bit time thinking over something minor as just a pile of simple casualties, but I thought let's ask anyway. You can use any number instead of 650.000, no problem. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email) |