Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 08:38 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. > > This is wrong. It's true. You may not like it but it's true. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 08:44 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > >> >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. > > > >It had ZILCH to do with WW2. > > > >Graham > > How could *anything* that happened after WWII have zilch to do with > WWII? So WW2 is responsible for *everything* ???????? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 08:46 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >When does Bush get impeached ? > > Not worth the bother. His term expires in 2008. > > >When does the Republican Party get impeached ? > > Sorry, there's no provision for impeaching a party. > > But the real question is, why are you so obsessive about US politics? > We ignore your politics, so it's only fair that you ignore ours. Given the effect the USA has on the world it'd be crazy not to be concerned about it. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 08:48 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >The rest of the world loathes the USA. They didn't used to. You've had to work hard to > >get to that position. > > From a eurocentric point of view, maybe so. But India and China and > Japan and Africa don't count, apparently. > > I could argue that the rest of the world ignores Europe, but they > didn't used to. Really ? It the biggest market in the developed world. You'd be crazy to ignore Europe. Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 08:51
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > You had an implication that they are not as dangerous with a crude > > bomb than with a sophisticated bomb. > > Well, the fact is, they probably aren't. Their weapons are probably fairly > crude, and their delivery systems are probably extremely crude and may have > to rely on something decidedly low-tech, like sailing it into New York > harbor on a 35' yacht out of Cuba or some small, under-the-radar Caribbean > island. This would still be very dangerous, don't get me wrong. However, > it's inarguably more dangerous to deliver a sophisticated > fission-fusion-fission device by a ground-launched missile from their own > country. You'd have to conceive of a situation where N Korea could benefit from such action for it to make sense though. Since the likely result would be 'wiping N Korea off the map' it really wouldn't be very much in their interests to do this ! Graham |