New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 6 Aug 2006 13:25 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:14:10 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Fields wrote: > >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:15:49 +0100, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >John Fields wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:28:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >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. >> > >> >I guess he might be referring to the Battle of Britain ? >> >> Maybe, but he'd be wrong since we _were_ there. Only a few of us, >> but... > >These were Americans fighting on our side simply because they believed in the >cause of course not on account of US policy. > > US Army trained pilots were temporarily relieved of their comissions so that they could "volunteer" to fight with the RAF. That took official approval at, as they say, "the highest levels." Once the US was officially in the war, they rejoined the US Army Air Force. John
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 13:29 On 5 Aug 2006 20:12:43 -0700, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org Gave us: > but the >clowns that run your governement at the moment don't even listen to >their own advisors. Actually, that is exactly what they do do. You, on the other hand, do nothing but doo doo. You wallow in it, in fact.
From: John Larkin on 6 Aug 2006 13:31 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:06:56 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <1154865648.931183.173690(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> dated Sun, 6 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >> >> >As was pointed out before you invaded Irak, the three-way division of >> >Irak into Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites makes it impossible to construct a >> >stable government. >> >> The *government* was reasonably stable before Saddam, and, of course, >> during his reign of oppression and genocide. Various sectors of the >> population experienced bad things; such was the price of 'stability'. > >Overall it seems that the price under Saddam was less than the price under the >coalition. > In what units of measure? Certainly not in lives. John
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 13:33 On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:36:17 +0100, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: >It's not hate John. I see you don't criticise those on your side of the ocean >who probably do hate France with no good reason btw. I don't hate France or the french people (except the ones that say "stupid Americans"). I DO hate the french government, and their underhanded, "scratch the back of the bear", etc ways.
From: Phat Bytestard on 6 Aug 2006 13:38
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:57:43 -0500, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> Gave us: >Can't you understand the difference between a bullet and a >thermonuclear weapon? He obviously cannot. |