Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 16:57 John Larkin wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message > > >> 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. > > "Police" is just a word. Force is what allows people and nations to > act. China, Russia, India, and Iran are "accountable to no one." Uh ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:00 John Larkin wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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 ! > > > If Kim is a crazy as Mao (and he's probably a lot crazier) he may > consider a nuclear exchange acceptable, as Mao apparently did. Both > starved millions of their own people to suit their own purposes. Even > Deng was reportedly once told that a certain policy would cost a > million lives, and replied that a million wasn't all that many. I doubt it was a policy that would have lost his entire country though. Graham
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 17:09 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:10:40 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:07:30 -0500, John Fields wrote: >> >> > The 650,000 are simply casualties of war and have nothing to do with >> > vengeance, Nazi style. >> >> So, Dubya's real motivation for ordering the carnage was to get personal >> revenge for the time Saddam thumbed his nose at Dubya's dad? >> >> Thanks! That helps clear things up a lot! >> >> But that cavalier attitude "Oh, they're just casualties of war" - is >> just so totally wrong it makes me want to puke. > >It appalls me that anyone could dismiss those lives with such a casual >disregard. --- And you are prepared to cry for how long for them? --- >> It's a unilateral invasion, ordered by one man to satisfy a personal >> vendetta, and 650,000 people have died as a result of his criminal >> insanity. >> >> He must be stopped. > >Can he be impeached ? --- Yes, but it's not going to happen because there are no grounds for impeachment. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: John Fields on 15 Oct 2006 17:10 On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:11:33 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Richard The Dreaded Libertarian wrote: > >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:18:26 -0700, John Larkin wrote: >> > On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:36:51 +0100, Eeyore >> > >> >>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. >> >> He's afraid of becoming a victim of "collateral damage", or maybe >> "friendly fire". > >That and I also believe in ethical behavior. --- As long as you can define what's ethical and as long as it doesn't apply to you? -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 15 Oct 2006 17:18
John Fields wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >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. > > --- > But there's nothing you can do about it, so you may as well give up > the concern. It's all about what you can change, what you can't, > knowing the difference between the two, and leading your life > accordingly. I would be deeply disturbed if I felt there was no way to influence it. Graham |