Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: JoeBloe on 15 Oct 2006 22:00 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:00:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> Gave us: > so >the US negotiates no longer as an unopposed bully. We do not, nor have we ever. Do try to get a clue.
From: Jamie on 16 Oct 2006 01:38 JoeBloe wrote: > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:24:36 -0700, Jamie > <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> Gave us: > > snip > > You should probably think about setting your PC clock to the correct > time. yeah, but i like to make sure i am never late! :) -- "I am never wrong, once i thought i was, but i was mistaken" Real Programmers Do things like this. http://webpages.charter.net/jamie_5
From: John Larkin on 15 Oct 2006 22:42 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:00:18 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:03:54 +0100, "T Wake" ><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >><snip> >>> Originally, to defend Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan. I think it's time >>> to pull out of the European bases and let them pay for their own >>> defense, now that they don't need much of it. >> >>I agree. I cant see the US military being too happy at it. Forward staging >>bases are pretty useful. > >Europeans are already beginning to work out the details of a European, >as opposed to individual country, military with soldiers who swear >allegiance to the united countries and not the country they come from. >Yes? > >With the US behaving the way it is, I'd wonder if the Europeans would >bite at the chance to field an independent force sufficiently funded >to balance US behavior and provide the necessary 'encouragements' so >the US negotiates no longer as an unopposed bully. But if it takes a multi-country concensus to act, they won't be fielded in time to do much useful. You can't "balance US behavior" if it takes a year of debating before deployment. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 00:06 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:09:39 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:26:55 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >JoeBloe wrote: >>> >>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >> >>> >> >More 'Christian' propaganda you willingly lapped up ? >>> >> >>> >> You're an idiot. Now that you have been pegged, and proven to be a >>> >> US hater, you try to switch it to Christian hater. >>> > >>> >I respect ppl's right to practice religion. I'm offended by any religion >>> >that inspires ignorance though lies whether that be Christian, Moslem or >>> >other. >>> >>> All of Islam (read the moslems) believe that all others that are not >>> moslem are "infidels" and that killing them is not, nor should not be >>> a crime. >>> >>> I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that? >> >>If it was true I would have a problem with it. It's simply not true though. >>Do you really believe that nonsense ? >> >>Graham > >Sometimes I don't think Europeans understand the religious atmosphere >here in the US and probably no imagination for the extreme reaches of >it or how it actually influences politics here. I have a hard time, >too, so here is a page that paints one of the extreme but important >influences: > > http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/12/105122/66 > >In the latter part of it you will see how "thinking" is blocked and >dismantled. The Daily Kos is hardly a bastion of objective thinking either. > >Imagine living in the middle of this. I do. Where do you live? I haven't encountered much religious extremism in the US, at least nothing threatening. Mormons and Masons and born-agains tend to be enthusiastic, but so are vegans and baseball fans. Boring, mostly. John
From: lucasea on 16 Oct 2006 00:16
"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:sfo5j29skq6i4epi3qslqradmqfnre8pm9(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:45:12 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>JoeBloe wrote: >>> They said the same thing about Vietnam. We responded, and now we >>> have twits like you calling us losers. >> >>The US withdrew for Vietnam as the 'reds' came rolling in to Saigon. Is >>that losing or what ? >> > We were held back from responding, if you'll remember, dipshit, as > that would have caused "an escalation". I am surprised that you > always forget that little detail (no I am not). So now we win wars by playing semantic games? Oh, yeah, that would explain "Mission Accomplished". I'll ask you again, do you *ever* think for yourself? Eric Lucas |