New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:06 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <44D784E6.719EADBD(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > [...] > >I recall watching the fall of Saigon on the TV and it was actually not > >very violent at > >all. More idiotic propaganda you've fallen for ! > > I knew the guy that turned over control of the school system. He didn't > talk about it much but his stories were more about the threat and fear of > violence than the actual act of it. Indeed. The S. Vietnamese were trembling in their boots but the North had the wisdom to act otherwise. > He spent a long time on a pig farm > doing heavy labor before he figured out a way to get out. He and his > family were some of the "boat people". Fair nuff. Looks like the place has ended up OK now after all btw. Graham
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Aug 2006 02:50 Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> wrote in news:pan.2006.08.08.21.53.47.770682(a)example.net: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:18:16 +0100, John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <92ued29drs5ivb9483hvqsveon0m14h012(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 >> Aug 2006, Phat Bytestard <phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org> writes >> >>>It isn't his power sources in question, it is his intentions with the >>>spent fuel rods, >> >> The US is objecting to enrichment of uranium beyond the 5% or so >> required for peaceful purposes. If there are plans to extract Pu239 >> from fuel rods, there won't BE any spent fuel rods for about 5 years. Some reactor types can make PU aside from the normal complement of fuel rods. Russian reactors are like that,I believe. Iran's reactor is from Russia. > > I wonder howcome none of the anti-nuke fanatics are bitching about the > US weapons of mass destruction and their factories, which are, > basically, dirty breeder reactors. Because the US is on the Western side of freedom and democracy. Guardian of the Free world,y'know.(like it or not!) > > I wonder what the US gov't weapons program does with its reactor > waste? > > Thanks, > Rich > > > We DON'T make dirty bombs with it. We're going to securely store it under Yucca Mountain,until it decays and cools off. Heck,maybe in the future,we will have developed a method of burning it up in a power generating reactor. And why are you unconcerned about France,UK,or other nuclear nations,and what THEY do with their wastes? -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: John Woodgate on 8 Aug 2006 02:58 In message <dgagd2dnnd6egl07phm8qh0aog2rb09nn5(a)4ax.com>, dated Mon, 7 Aug 2006, xray <notreally(a)hotmail.invalid> writes >At that time, I think the hate toward the US was mainly because of how >our lifestyle was leading the rest of the world (including the Middle >East) astray because it was enticing, not so much because of any >political or military actions the US had made. It's a big factor. The priests see their lifestyle threatened, and I don't mean only Muslims. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immensely. John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Aug 2006 02:55 Richard The Dreaded Libertarian <null(a)example.net> wrote in news:pan.2006.08.08.22.30.29.863659(a)example.net: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:53:42 -0500, John Fields wrote: >> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:00:53 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >>>I'm not suggesting we descend on tyrannies - just the opposite. That we >>>leave them alone and do not support them in *any* way. >> >> Short of a blockade, then, you'd let the cancer grow? --- Blockades never last for very long. And Russia,France,China,Germany are all too willing to sell anybody anything. > > > Of course. For one thing "Freedom" means let people do whatever in the > world they want to do. No,that's Anarchism.Highly destructive,too,and these days,not just to a single country.Have you forgotten World Wars One and Two already? > For another, you might have noticed, cancer is > somewhat self-limiting. In single humans,not in nations. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Aug 2006 03:05
John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in news:4iffd252lhbmia5bl108ka2coq9tsmbod9(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:11:49 +0100, Eeyore ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>John Fields wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:00:40 +0100, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >Jim Yanik wrote: >>> > >>> >> Saddam was using Oil-for-Food money to rebuild his palaces and >>> >> fund WMD programs >>> > >>> >There weren't any WMDs ! 500+ of them found to date are not WMDs? (of course,they are) How many was Saddam allowed to have,old or not? (ZERO) Were WMD made before a certain date allowed? (ZERO) >>> > >>> >How many times do you need to be reminded ? >>> >>> There were no WMDs found because they were moved before we got >>> there. >> >>A few ppl like to believe that. Is there any evidence of this ? > > --- > Not yet. > > None that's been -released- yet. Maybe they wisely don't want to stir up more than they have on their plate already. Maybe they don't want the terrorists finding them,or having knowledge of them. Maybe they haven't translated all the Arabic documents they've captured yet. Saddam made a clear concentrated effort to disguise and conceal his programs and products. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |