New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 8 Aug 2006 03:08 John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in news:i3hfd25fdedi9i14st8ipb9421va08gpve(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:34:33 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" ><f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >>news:2bsed2lrh07brpplqqhuod9ora8phrcet3(a)4ax.com... >>> 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 ! >>>> >>>>How many times do you need to be reminded ? >>> >>> There were no WMDs found because they were moved before we got >>> there. >> >>Maybe that was the will of God too eh? > > --- > Maybe, but I think more likely the will of Saddam. > --- > >> But honestly, are you insane or something? > > --- > Not as far as I can tell, but maybe you've got evidence to prove me > wrong? Or something? > > Considering Saddam and his KNOWN ways,it would be insane to think he complied with the UN resolutions. Unless one is just a Bush-hating,America-hating person. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:27 > > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:00:40 +0100, Eeyore > ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>There weren't any WMDs ! > > yes,there were;we've found over 500 of them. No you haven't ! You're just making things uo. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:32 Jim Yanik wrote: > 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. *All* nuclear reastors make Plutonium. That's how you get it. It's not a naturally occurring substance. The idea that Russian reactors make more of it is as daft as the idea that the laws of physics behave any differently depending on the political regime in place. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:34 John Woodgate wrote: > 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. Sorry, John but I don't see that the argument that the US was attacked because of jealousy over the richness of the western lifestyle holds any water at all. Graham
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2006 03:36
Jim Yanik wrote: > 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. Of course it's self limiting. Where's Franco's Fascist Spain? Where is the USSR? What happened to Mao's China? Not to mention all those S American dictatorships you did your best to prop up. Remember the military dictatorships of Greece and Portugal? etc etc etc Dirk |