Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Nov 2006 07:49 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ein7c1$8qk_004(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <kTb3h.1659$r12.387(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:oojpk2tg7e5iphjsl7qdafkucotg01m67q(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:59:10 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>>>kicked his >>>>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. >>> >>> It didn't get into the papers much, but there was a continuous >>> campaign of bombing and so on for many years after the Gulf War had >>> allegedly ended. To enforce the "no fly zone" mostly, I think. Look it >>> up. >> >>And none of that had anything to do with "expansionism". At worst, it >>*might* have been Saddam attacking his own citizens in the no-fly zones. >>However, based on the patterns of flights and such, I remember analysts at >>that time suggesting it was only Saddam thumbing his nose at Shrub Sr. > > This was during the time when Clinton was in office. So the Clinton administration did indeed keep Saddam in check? Is that what you are saying?
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:48 In article <EIednSjaV63BmNPYnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >news:eikjp2$8ss_004(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <454CA33F.20867B1F(a)hotmail.com>, >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >When people I know go to [Insert European Destination Here] on Holiday, >> they >>>> >will often shop for things as well. >>>> > >>>> >Isn't it strange. >>>> > >>>> >Also, we actually do have shopping malls here in Europe. >>>> > >>>> >What a wonderful world we live in. >>>> >>>> Think about how mobile people how work are. When they >>>> go visit a foreign for their jobs, they experience new >>>> foods, products, etc. They bring back enough and their >>>> neighbors see the stuff or taste it. So now they would >>>> like to have some. The next time a friend of theirs goes >>>> to that country, he a grocery list. Eventually when the >>>> authors of the list go on vacation, part of the constraint >>>> of their plans is go somewhere so they can stock up on X >>>> product. >>> >>>There's no real need to do that in the UK since we have the ingredients >>>for >> most >>>world cooking available in the shops here. >>> >>>That's just one aspect of having such a broad mix of races living here. >>> >>>Heck, I've even eaten traditional Zambian style cooking here ! >>> >>>Popular restaurants here include Chinese, Indian, Italian, Spanish, Greek, >>>Turkish, Thai, Japanese, French, Moroccan etc etc ..... There's even >>>Swedish >> food >>>available ( at Ikea ! ) and you can find Swiss cooking !!! of all things >>>at >> the >>>Swiss Cente in London. More 'exotic' eating out ( rather fewer >>>restaurants ) >>>include Russian and Hungarian. >> >> What?! No Mexican food? > >Oddly, Mexican (and Mexican restaurants) are common enough in the UK that >most people tend to ignore them as an "ethnic" dish - a bit like the way >Curries are pretty much British food now. (I've never found one in India >like the ones British people think are "Indian" food...). That happens with the Dutch Indonesian food. > >There are a multitude of Mexican restaurants - enough to support at least >one chain. Is there really? We never saw them. Are they new? > >On the flipside, if you like spicy Mexican food then Portuguese restaurants >are well worth looking into. Naw, completely different. The town I lived in was a Portuguese center of the state. Different spices and cooking methods and ingredients are used. /BAH
From: T Wake on 6 Nov 2006 07:53 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ein79g$8qk_003(a)s943.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <454C9CAE.AC9911AC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>> >> Would it have been OK with you if the US stopped containing Saddam >>> >> and >>> >> his excursions north and south? >>> > >>> >What excursions ? There weren't any after Gulf War I. >>> >>> Exactly. Everytime Saddam tried, the UK and US bombed him. >> >>I don't recall any excursions. > > Perhaps you need to learn more recent history. Feel free to remind people how many times post GW1 the Iraqi military carried out an excursion? Oddly, moving troops around _within_ national borders is not considered an excursion. >> >>> Or have you forgotten all that? It was the UK and US spending >>> money to keep him and his expansionism contained. >> >>Expansionism ? What expansionism ? After we ( and the other allies ) >>kicked > his >>troops back out of Kuwait he wasn't doing any expansion. > > The UK and US were spending tons of money to keep him in his cage. > They were not reimbursed for that. Europe and the rest of the UN > were perfectly willing to let these two countries tie up their > military resources and monies babysitting Saddam. Saddam did > not learn his lesson about not attacking his Arab neighbors. Interesting lesson but I am not sure it was "taught." Saddam was funded heavily to attack his Persian neighbours and when the funding dried out he attacked one Arab nation. After GW1, what neighbours did Saddam attack? Equally interesting, since Saddam was removed from power it seems the "Arab Neighbours" who needed protecting are actually the attackers. Isn't the world an amazing place. >>> >I'll also point out to you that it wan't just the *USA* involved in >>> >that > one >>> - >>> >nor even Gulf War II. >>> >>> I know that. >> >>So why did you say the USA then ? > > I'm currently reading about it. They were the first to say > they would help when asked and backed it up with action. Really? I suspect your books may be presenting a slightly biased take on things.
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:57 In article <454DBACA.3CA76BD2(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> "Jamie" <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1lpa_(a)charter.net> wrote in message >> > Eeyore wrote: >> > >> >> Why would anyone spend that much on a watch ? I can't figure it. Aside >> >> from bragging rights of course ! >> >> >> > you can't figure it out? why does that >> > not surprise me? >> >> Because not everybody in the world allows the cost of their possessions to >> define them as human beings? > >A film and sound editor acquaintance of mine who's worked in the USA said he >couldn't live there long-term in part because he found the use of wealth to >define yourself to be offensive. Then he didn't mix with the usual US types. He only saw a slice of US. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 6 Nov 2006 07:59
In article <454C9C11.F26D71E5(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >Do you guys not have fireplaces any more ? >> >> Only for show. > >I have 3 working ones. I have one that is functional. But it doesn't do anything useful. I can't cook nor heat with it. > > >> Are you saying that it's OK to pollute the air for heating? > >A good stove can be 90% efficient. That's not good enough if you're burning wood. <snip> /BAH |