Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 16 Oct 2006 06:54 In article <i1d5j2pdr5simfhpaumjlf6ku3b0piudg9(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:23:26 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> >> >>JoeBloe wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:02:44 +0100, 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. You are lying. > > I have a problem with that. Do you not have a problem with that?
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:32 On Mon, 16 Oct 06 09:53:59 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <45322D41.6B0FA0F9(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>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* ???????? >> >Did you think that a political climate that culiminated with >WWII went away when people quit fighting? It certainly changed. Communism was a lot different in philosophy and tactics from facism. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:41 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:02:13 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:42:19 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>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. > >I'm mostly just curious. I understand they already have many >thousands of highly trained Euro-troups in the form of a rapid >deployment force, right now. The figures slip my mind, but "rapid" is >part of it. And the allegiance isn't to any country, as I recall. They're only a rapid deployment force if they get depolyed rapidly. I bet Spanish troops will remain under actual control of Spain, and not be deployed if Spain were to object to, say, action against a Muslim country or group. And I didn't just make up "Spain" as a random example. > >It's a start. I have no idea where it will go. But I suspect that US >behavior is going to help break down political barriers in Europe so >that it will grow more quickly than otherwise. Fine by me, and most Americans, I think. But whether such a force comes to be, and is not paralyzed by politics, remains to be seen. Even then, the role it might be obliged to play outside of Europe is yet another issue... maybe "none" is the answer, leaving the USA as the rest-of-the-world's-cop. > >So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing. Me too. Very. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:41 On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:26:11 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > >> John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> >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. >> >> I'm mostly just curious. I understand they already have many >> thousands of highly trained Euro-troups in the form of a rapid >> deployment force, right now. The figures slip my mind, but "rapid" is >> part of it. And the allegiance isn't to any country, as I recall. >> >> It's a start. I have no idea where it will go. But I suspect that US >> behavior is going to help break down political barriers in Europe so >> that it will grow more quickly than otherwise. >> >> So I'm curious how some Europeans see this developing. > >Anything has to be better than the USA ! > Historical counter-cases abound. John
From: John Larkin on 16 Oct 2006 11:42
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:08:46 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Larkin wrote: > >> Jonathan Kirwan <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> >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. > >We've been working on a 'rapid deployment force'. > For, umm, how long? John |