Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:23 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:qri8j2d5v1aqj917e5sm8k3gm7ecakm6sl(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:39:25 +0100, "T Wake" > <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > > >>Sorry, I didn't realise any countries had upped and moved to the US >>lately. >>You are talking about migrations of population which rarely (in modern >>times >>at least) has anything to do with a love of the new country. >> >>Also, you are presenting a strawman based on the very unrepresentative >>population samples. To make matters worse it largely supports the claim >>because the people left behind in those countries will continue to dislike >>the US and feed of each other even more. > > Excellent. We really only want the good ones. Yes. It is good. Sadly they are not all the best skilled so it does not provide the benefits you allude to here. >>As I said, the majority of the countries in the world have a low opinion >>of >>the America an entity. >> > > Sorry, I didn't realize that countries could have opinions; I thought > only people had opinions. Good point and fair cop. Although the debate was about America as an entity so there is still some validity in the terminology used. I am not trying to say "everyone in Azerbaijan hates America" or anything along those lines. It is simply the case that the "general opinions" as made available by popular media, news and political debate is that the populations of most countries have a low opinion of the US as an entity (not of Americans per se) and of US actions on a global scale. This is strange as the US does so much good. People can either accept the low opinion and ask why this skewed perspective exists or dismiss it and carry on as normal.
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:30 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eh2ef2$8qk_001(a)s777.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <vc97j2t5u0ugeni9jnqks988b3db7aounl(a)4ax.com>, > John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>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. > > Which Communism? From the little I've studied, Russia's seems > to be the same peasant economy without one individual ruler > who inherited the job. > > China's (from reading and observation) seems to have been the > only method to restore the country's resources and survival. > China was being run by the Ottoman's equivalent of Janissaries. The Janissaries were Ottoman. They were the Ottoman empires standing army. China was run by a bureaucracy under a King. Pre-Communism China was a successful country. It suffered at the hands of the UK, US and then the Japanese to such an extent communism got a massive foothold. > This seems to be a key to the cessation of a political and > economic empire. > > I don't know. I'm still trying to figure all of this out. > > /BAH > >
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:31 "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:vku9j29bus4nvqo1b6qoiks95vt03f88e2(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 06 11:32:56 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >> >>I'm still trying to figure out how people keep track of >>all these kinds of details when they're having things >>we call summit meetings. >> > > And if the world were run by historians, would it work any better? > Be a lot more books published.....
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:32 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:DhYYg.14725$vJ2.13515(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > > "John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in > message news:hmg8j2d5e66hed8b2afqgd8t6lstbflj99(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:37:22 +0100, "T Wake" >> <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>>news:jul5j2tkh6tg8nptqgn390urkanmgjbng9(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> Actually, President Bush has explicitly kept the "nuclear option" on >>>> the table -- particularly, their tactical use. >>> >>>Sad really, isn't it. I was hoping I would be able to see my great >>>grandchildren. But it gets less likely. >>> >> Well, if you survive the next two years, you're over the hump. > > Good lord yes, let's hope saner minds take office in 2009. Does the party in office make that much of a difference?
From: T Wake on 17 Oct 2006 14:36
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:0su9j2tbgmi1lk9probji10efek75h3uf1(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:38:17 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan(a)easystreet.com> wrote in message >>news:i9n8j29atodlsous5hl3bpuk1avrj0s9a4(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:39:16 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>>>Nicely written. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>>>Ever heard of a dinky, crappy little liberal arts college called Kent >>>>State? >>> >>> I'm not sure how you intend that to be applied, of course, since you >>> don't say what you are thinking here. >> >>Sorry if that sounded snotty--no hidden agenda, just the obvious example >>of >>troops being ordered into a situation and attacking their own people. >> >> > > Somehow it never occurred to me to throw rocks at armed National Guard > troops. > Depends how willing you are to defend your cause. |