Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 10 Nov 2006 17:31 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4554EF54.F7F411B6(a)hotmail.com... > >> >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>> >>>>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>And to BAH - it's not *insurance* when the state does it. >>>>> >>>>>The mindset that it is insurance is indeed part of what we need to >>>>>change. >>>>>Call the government-supplied military "providing for the common >>>>>defense", >>>>>and everybody accepts it. Call it "war insurance" and suddenly it >>>>>takes >>>>>on a different tenor, as in "hey, you couldn't afford war insurance, I >>> >>>guess >>> >>>>>it's your turn to die today." Or to take this comical analogy one >>>>>step >>>>>further, why not consider health care to be a "war on disease". There >>>>>are parallels to actual war...everybody is affected, it kills lots of >>> >>>people, >>> >>>>>and it has great societal costs if not taken care of. >>>> >>>>Interesting analogy. >>>> >>>>I've seen no-one suggest that the Army, Navy and Air Force be put under >>>>private ownership. >>> >>>Only a matter of time... >> >>Maybe the Chinese can do it cheaper ? > > > Probably. Already a lot of what was previously a military function is > contracted out to civilian defence companies (I know because my job hinges > on it), so I wonder how long before it will be civilian companies which > operate the UAVs, or the AWACs or the like. Why waste their training if they want out of the military and are well qualified for the jobs. > Eventually, even the ground troops _may_ find themselves out for tender. George Washington met them at Trenton, so that's not a new idea.
From: Eeyore on 10 Nov 2006 17:36 unsettled wrote: > T Wake wrote: > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>unsettled wrote: > >>>T Wake wrote: > >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>T Wake wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>For credit points: What cease fire violations did Saddam commit? > >>>>> > >>>>>Didn't they 'lock on' to various flight with their AA radars a few > >>>>>times ? > >>>> > >>>>Yes. Any AD radar activations within the NFZ were followed up by > >>>>strikes as > >>>>were any AD radar which was suspected of painting Coalition aircraft. > >>> > >>>That used to be called "target illumination." When > >>>detected it is rightfully understood to be a threat. > > > > Yes it is a threat. What is your point? > > > > > >>>"Painting"? > >> > >>So ? > >> > >> > >>>Now there's a bit of doublespeak for you. > >> > >>What's your point ? > > > > > > Not sure why it considers "painting" doublespeak, seems fairly appropriate > > considering how AD radar systems work. > > Because it is doublespeak, concealing the threatening nature > of the act. But you knew that. Good Lord ! Talk about grabbing at straws. Graham
From: lucasea on 10 Nov 2006 17:39 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... > >Not that we're > lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for > snacks either. How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus unum" to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" Eric Lucas
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 10 Nov 2006 17:51 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:39:20 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >news:c8u9l2p15huilmdlqg8okct65cdt6ap5hm(a)4ax.com... >> >>Not that we're >> lily-white, but we don't exactly go around skewering babies for >> snacks either. > >How's that for damnation by faint praise? How far we've fallen from our >high ideals--from "Give me liberty or give me death!" and "E pluribus unum" >to "At least we don't skewer babies for snacks!" Well, it's a floor beneath which some here in the US promise not to sink. There are others, luckily, with somewhat higher standards. You've seen them speak at the polls, recently. :) Jon
From: unsettled on 10 Nov 2006 18:12
T Wake wrote: > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message > news:bB55h.6678$yl4.4954(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com... > >>"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >>news:c3094$4554d332$4fe7132$32504(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I am considered vermin in certain interpretations of the Bible. Does >>>>this mean we need to wage a War on Christianity? >>> >>>You don't need to, but you do nonetheless. > > > Poor Unsettled. It has nothing to add, but a compulsive need to post. > > What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the religion > people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to > religion-derived law though. If you're actually an athiest then you know that religion is derived from the human experience. If not, then why would you worry about this? Only a worry if you've crossed swords with the almighty. Either way, your argument is a loser. >>The rhetoric has now raised the stakes, to where disagreeing with the US >>government's foreign policies has gone from "anti-American" to "treason", >>and is now has reached the pinnacle of being a "War on Christianity". Is >>anybody else getting a sense of what we *really* need to start being >>afraid of? In my best upstate New York accent: "We have nothing to >>fe-ah....but jingoistic rhetoric itself." > > > :-) > > |