New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 5 Aug 2006 21:50 In article <4jkis4F8f907U1(a)individual.net>, dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com says... > John Fields wrote: > > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:38:32 +0100, Eeyore > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >> > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > >>> > >>>> I note that the US is keen to get 60 million Muslims into the EU, > >>>> against the wishes of the vast majority of its people. > >>> And just in case you don't get it: > >>> http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/15924.htm > >>> > >>> "As President Bush said to Mr. Erdogan just two days ago, =3Fthe U.S., > >>> although not part of the EU, supports Turkey's bid for accession.=3F " > >>> > >>> And you think the US has the best interests of Europe at heart eh? > > > > --- > > No, the best interests of the world, as _opposed_ to provincial > > little Europe who can't even let all of Europe into the EU without > > squabbling, LOL! > > --- > > Look at a map. > Turkey is no more in Europe than Spain is in Africa I didn't expect you to be very bright bulb, but half of Turkey is in Europe. Now show me a part of Spain that's in Africa. BTW: http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/europe/european- union/turkey/ -- Keith
From: krw on 5 Aug 2006 21:53 In article <7d7ad2t8k85bf8st24shi0haqv6s05qug5(a)4ax.com>, jfields(a)austininstruments.com says... > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:44:30 +0100, Eeyore > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > >John Woodgate wrote: > > > >> In message <4ji12eF83vuqU2(a)individual.net>, dated Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Dirk > >> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes > >> >And it will have to be one with enough teeth and muscle to fire on the > >> >Israelis as well as Hezbollah. > >> > >> Almost certainly it will never need to, in defence. Let us fervently > >> hope that it never fires on Israel in aggression. > > > >Likewise. I'd hope Israel isn't that daft. > > --- > You seem to have missed the point, which was that a [UN] force with > enough teeth and muscle to fire on the Hezbollah as well as on > Israel would almost certainly never have to fire on Israel, since > Israel wouldn't fire the first shot. > > The second part was a fervent hope that the [UN] force would never > fire on Israel, in aggression, because of the horrible aftermath > which would inevitably follow. Israel nuking the UN? Kewl. -- Keith
From: krw on 5 Aug 2006 21:58 In article <44D4FBC7.23E1174B(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com says... > > > Phat Bytestard wrote: > > > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:00:46 +0100, Eeyore > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > > > > >> > > >> Nope, it's quite simple. It's called war (declared by Iran, BTW). > > > > > >You're pathetic. > > > > No. He is correct. Where have you been? > > He's wrong. Iran no more declared war on the USA than the USA did on Iran with > the 'Axis of Evil' speech. Both were examples of political rhetoric. Iran declared war in Israel you stupid twit. We *WERE* discussing Israel. But no matter, Iran also declared war on the whole world, in particular they claim all land from "Spain to Iran". Perhaps you'd throw Spain over the side too, eh Nevill. > Not sure about that - it may be a bit of a big word for you. > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric > > The difference of course is that you believe it's ok for the USA to indulge in > it about other countries but not vice-versa, 2 faced as you always are. You really ought to get your moral equivalency checked. It's overflowing. -- Keith
From: krw on 5 Aug 2006 22:08 In article <44D4F05C.CD325FF8(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com says... > > > John Larkin wrote: > > > On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:12:59 +0100, Eeyore > > <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >More for you.... > > > > > >BAE Systems - A Key Partner on the F-35 JSF Program............................ > > > > > >BAE Systems is a major UK industrial participant, investing $72M upfront in the > > >Concept Development Phase (CDP) and $65M in UK JSF facilities during SDD [ System > > >Development and Demonstration Phase ] > > > > > >http://www.baesystems.com/facts/programmes/airsystems/jsf.htm > > > > > >Graham > > > > BAE has fairly extensive operations in the US, too. We work with one > > group that's doing B-52 radar upgrades; they were Sanders Associates > > before being acquired by BAE. They tell me that, because of security > > rules, they can tell me stuff they aren't allowed to communicate to > > the home office in Europe. > > How widely known is it that the largest overseas investor in the USA is Britain btw ? > > > > The B-52's are scheduled to be retired in 2040, at which time they'll > > be 80 years old. > > Astonishing longevity. It's actually the design that's that old - nothing made back then > is still in line service though. Mainly the H and maybe some G models flying now IIRC. No 'G's left (see: START), other than a tail grafted onto an 'H' that had an owie. The 'H's are already 45 years old (first contract let in '60). In 2040 (some say they'll be flying until 2050) they'll be 80YO. > C130s been around a while too and not much has come along to challenge it although > Airbus do have an A400M they'd like to develop. C130s are still (or were just a couple of years ago) being made. Few old ones are still in the first-world's inventories. When was the last P51 retired from an air force? -- Keith
From: krw on 5 Aug 2006 22:09
In article <sGWttRp0vP1EFwXI(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk>, jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk says... > In message <ams9d2tksts40a3lndlfb3m1vu9391ridl(a)4ax.com>, dated Sat, 5 > Aug 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> > writes > >It has so much BIST that it barely works at all. > > BIST? British Ingenuity Still Triumphs? No, British Ingenuity Sells Triumphs. -- Keith |