New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 16:47 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:39:05 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >John Fields wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:59:18 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> >I was hard pressed to find a good description. You see I don't *hate* the US nor > >> >does anyone else I know. > >> > > >> >Exasperated about the USA would be more accurate. > >> > >> --- > >> Because we're conducting our affairs in ways of which you > >> disapprove, and while we're happy to take that into consideration, > >> in the long run we'll do what we want to. > >> > >> What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I > >> guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let > >> Israel die than to help her. Why is that? > > > >What makes you think we want Israel to 'die' ? > > --- > Your condemnation of the US's moral and financial help to Israel > seems to me to indicate that you'd like to see Israel go it alone, > which I think would make it rather more likely that Israel would be > militarily conquered and all of its Jewish population that couldn't > get out subjected to another holocaust. Do you doubt that? Yes I do indeed. Israel's won plenty of *real* wars with its neighbours before without your help. I don't for one second doubt their ability to defend themselves adequately. The US aid and arms simply makes then over-cocky and excessively trigger-happy. > >There seems to be an entire lack of > >subtlety in US views such as talking about hate when it's not too. > > --- > "When it's not too?" I don't understand what that means. It's not *hate* it's criticism. I *do not* hate either Israel or Judaism. > >Besides Israel doesn't *need* any 'help' in the sense that the US gives it ffs ! > > --- > What resources other than the US's help do you think Israel has > which it could use to defend against a perpetual attack and not > fall? It's manged very adequately before the USA even took an interest. Using British and French arms amongst others btw. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 16:48 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:40:03 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > > >> Providential for us, as well, that you were there since you helped > >> us in _our_ war with Germany. > > > >That's the most sane thing I think you've said so far in this thread. > > --- > So the rest of my stuff is insane because you don't agree with it? > ;) You're a great fan of turning words round inaccurately aren't you ? Graham
From: John Fields on 5 Aug 2006 16:53 On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:28:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >John Fields wrote: >> On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:32:40 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John Fields wrote: >>>> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006 07:13:49 +0100, John Woodgate >>>> <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In message <ant4d2d1vilsko5kson7t7c4m63cruvlcu(a)4ax.com>, dated Thu, 3 >>>>> Aug 2006, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> writes >>>>>> Didn't you ask us to get into the war? >>>>> Churchill did, several times, and US refused. However, US accepted the >>>>> Japanese 'invitation'. >>>>> >>>>> By the twisted logic of this thread, that proves that the US takes more >>>>> notice of its enemies than its friends. >>>> --- >>>> When your friends are busy taking care of themselves and your >>>> enemies are shooting at you it's hard not to. >>> Sounds like Britain in 1940 >> >> --- >> And the US in December of 1941, and any time you're being shot at. > >Except, of course, that Britain stood alone when it mattered and the US >did not. --- "When it mattered?" Don't be absurd. As far as you know we got there just in time. We didn't go it alone, in terms of manpower, because the war was already in progress when we got dragged into it, but I wonder how it would have gone if we'd been attacked and y'all hadn't... -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 16:51 Frank Bemelman wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht > news:v0r9d29dk6o8mrtvgob25hmv269inq8cfh(a)4ax.com... > > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 01:12:31 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > > > >> > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht > >>news:ngj7d2hst8b7oe15nr9ksl8c3t6620fjgg(a)4ax.com... > >> > >>> What I find incongruous is that so many of you all (Europeans, I > >>> guess.) would rather turn a blind eye toward the middle east and let > >>> Israel die than to help her. Why is that? > >> > >>An eye for an eye, not 10 eyes for an eye. Israel has just > >>slaughtered too many. It has lost all of its credibility. > >>It has no longer the benefit of the doubt. > > > > --- > > Read this: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye > > > > and then come back with something specific, OK? > > Want a specific quote from that page? Okay, here's one: > > *** You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a > tooth". > *** But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on > the right > *** cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39) Those who don't understand that Christians are supposed to take heed of the *New* Testament rather than exclusively the old might as well join up the Jewish faith. Graham
From: Eeyore on 5 Aug 2006 17:07
Phat Bytestard wrote: > On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:22:10 +0100, John Woodgate > <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> Gave us: > > >Well, maybe by 2040, but there are some real oldies still flying now. > >WW1 stuff. > > "still in service" does not refer to "owned by some dude, and he > still flies it". It refers to still being in military service. None of those airframes will date from the inception of the B52 programme. Graham |