New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Frank Bemelman on 7 Aug 2006 12:02 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:q0oed2dcmk02ill7rapb5m9g9ikp2vel9t(a)4ax.com... > > It seems what you're suggesting is that we descend on all tyrannies > and wipe them out, because you recognize that they're bad, yet when > we descend on _one_ you choose to find fault with that. > > That's what I call hypocrisy. And what do you call this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Jim Yanik on 7 Aug 2006 11:44 "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote in news:44D6C341.286462F1(a)earthlink.net: > Eeyore wrote: >> >> Jim Yanik wrote: >> >> > John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> > news:UIZDeWgKGj1EFww$@jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> > >> > > In message <92acd2ti8n9opnthr1fd7d3imis3ah08vt(a)4ax.com>, dated >> > > Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard >> > > <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes >> > > >> > >>Iran is trying to make nukes. Not for protection of their nation, >> > >>but so they can USE them. >> > >> > Nuclear WEAPONS,not power plants;they really don't need nuclear >> > power generating plants. >> >> I find it curious how 'Washington' feels it's its business to dictate >> what power sources another country should use. >> >> By the same token, the USA should shut down all its own reactors. >> >> Graham > > > You should stop wasting oxygen, so stop breathing. > > If you hadn't responded to that twit,I'd never have seen his drivel;he's been killfiled. He's not worth responding to. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 7 Aug 2006 11:52 John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:lcPP7jHTKu1EFwnR(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: > In message <MPG.1f405d1a49858e6798985f(a)news.individual.net>, dated Sun, > 6 Aug 2006, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> writes > >>It's not debatable at all. There is nothing "virtual" nor >>"defenseless" about Iran. > > They have defences against a stealth bomber at 100 000 feet, which is > how a nuclear weapon would probably be delivered? > > Agreed that they are not defenceless against other forms of attack. Stealth only works until they get close,it doesn't make a plane totally invisible.It just reduces the warning time. And those bombers don't REACH 100,000 ft. Very few aircraft can reach above 60,000 ft,and they dont drop weapons from those altitudes,either. A B-2 probably won't reach over 50,000 ft. and why risk a bomber and crew when an ICBM from sub or land could do the job? Or a cruise missile? Besides,the US has been very restrained in it's use of nuclear weapons. I doubt the US has the will to use them,IMO. Any attack on Iran would be using conventional weaponry. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Frank Bemelman on 7 Aug 2006 12:16 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht news:76jed29m8vpqd407nngk8nicilmh0mkn65(a)4ax.com... > > If you have a bloodless solution which would keep everyone involved > happy or, at the very least, a compromise which everyone could live > with, I'm sure we'd _all_ be overjoyed to hear it. That solution has been there, and has been fucked up 100% by your terrorist leaders. But you're blind and deaf if not totally brainwashed. Still in the fase of denial. -- Thanks, Frank. (remove 'q' and '.invalid' when replying by email)
From: Reg Edwards on 7 Aug 2006 12:21
Have the bridges across the Blue Danube, destroyed by senseless USA destruction of Yugoslavian infrastructure, been replaced yet? Or do children on their way to school still have to go by boat. I very much doubt it. ====================================== |