New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2006 03:37 Jim Yanik wrote: > 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. Well, that's about 50% correct. Dirk
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:36 Jim Yanik wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:11:49 +0100, Eeyore > ><rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> wrote: > > >>> >There weren't any WMDs ! > > 500+ of them found to date are not WMDs? None have been found at all after the recent conflict. Where do you get your numbers from ? And do please learn to post properly using the correct attributions. Graahm
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:39 Jim Yanik wrote: > Considering Saddam and his KNOWN ways,it would be insane to think he > complied with the UN resolutions. Guilty by *suspicion* ? That clearly a very 'democratic' principle you have there ! > Unless one is just a Bush-hating,America-hating person. The hate would appear to be on the American continent, not the European one. We're just aghast at your simplistic bile towards those you don't happen to agree with. Graham
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2006 03:44 Eeyore wrote: > > 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. Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? Most Americans don't want to believe him, for some odd reason. Dirk
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 03:42
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: > 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: > > >> 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 It seems the Americans can't understand that these things must in time fall from within. It would be a sad reflection on human nature if they didn't. In the meantime, wars simply tend to prop up and 'legitimise' the miltarist regimes. See Huxley's '1984' for example. Graham |