Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 09:39 "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message news:76hbl2t983id2hqlp87vvpgu5nhqu995r0(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:22:21 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> >>"T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message >>news:FuudnUJttc5DecnYRVnyiA(a)pipex.net... >>> >>> "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message >>> news:1ko8l25obt73evog3kn6g81jeimhc27str(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>>>When Saddam was "arrested," why did the occupation forces remain? >>>> >>>> --- >>>> 1. To make sure the country wouldn't fall into worse hands than >>>> Saddam Hussein's. >>> >>> Interesting argument. I assume from this that self determination is not >>> an >>> option in your opinion. >> >>In fact, many Iraqis seem to think it *did* fall into worse hands than >>Saddam Husseins.... > > I'm sure. Now think about what that means in terms of self-determination. >>>> 2. To rebuild the country. >>> >>> Iran has made the same claims. Why does the US have more right to do >>> this >>> than the Iranians? >>> >>>> 3. To help give the folks there a chance to govern themselves. >>> >>> You need to leave to do that. When a country is occupied it is not >>> governing itself. What you may mean here is to give the folks the chance >>> to set up an acceptable government. >> >>I wonder if he can honestly not see the hypocrisy in 3. > > Sounds to me like you might have a little voluntary reading > comprehension problem. And what exactly do you think I miscomprehended, purposely or otherwise, about what you wrote? Eric Lucas
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 09:45 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:34:36 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >news:7c150$4555089e$4fe76a4$1154(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:23:23 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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!" >>>> >>>>Fields has warranted a nickname. >>>> >>>>Impaler ! >>> >>> >>> No, that would need to be 'almost Impaler.' Doesn't quite rank up >>> there with the best of them, yet. ;) >> >> >> Several of you need to get back on your meds. > >Hey, it was Fields that pointed out that our standard for decency involves >not cannibalizing our young. --- No, it was intended as an example at the opposite end of the spectrum from lily-white, which you seem to have missed. _You_ were the one who assigned it as a "standard for decency", so I guess _you'd_ find anything short of that action (skewering of babies) acceptable. I, personally, tend to try to stay as close to the other end as possible. However, dealing with the likes of you sometimes causes me to stray. ;) -- JF
From: John Fields on 11 Nov 2006 09:47 On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:38:41 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >That roast Iraqi baby in your oven's ready for eating. --- Wow! Seems you've latched onto a subject you really like! -- JF
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 09:48 "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message news:9phbl21vpv2prs7aitep6isu3jia57frvc(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:26:36 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> > wrote: >>T Wake wrote: >>> Possibly. Why do these governments and organisations hate the US when >>> you do >>> so much good? Why is the US, with its massive media capacity, unable to >>> counter this propoganda when all you have is the good of the people in >>> your >>> mind? >> >>My mother, 1907-2000, said in a 1950's conversation >>that it was simple jealousy and she'd been seeing >>it all her life. > > Hahahaha! Er.... no thanks, I have no wish to live under the US yoke, > thank you very much. Wha on earth have I got to be jealous about? A > country that fails to see the results of its actions on the planet, > the lack of a proper healthcare system, a country that seems (IMO) to > be filled with hate-ridden people who are only able to judge the worth > of a person by how much they earn... OK that's enough to be getting on > with. Don't even get me started on their lack of a proper democratic > system. > >>Brits, in particular, hate the US because Brits, >>by comparison, feel impotent, while some remember >>what it was like back in the Empire days. > > God, you're so stupid. Well, that is certainly true. However, that last paragraph he wrote arises more from his sense of megalomania and self-superiority, not stupidity. Eric Lucas
From: lucasea on 11 Nov 2006 09:53
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ej4hah$8ss_014(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45537045.AC5FCFC6(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >>> Something approaching 20% of the people in our country can't afford any > sort >>> of health care. To say that "ain't broke" is one of the most morally > bereft >>> statements I've heard in a very, very long time. Congratulations, >>> you've >>> demonstrated the lack of a conscience along with a lack of a brain. >> >>BAH may not be aware that it was a social conscience that drove Britain to > look >>at the possibility of a National Health Service. > > Britain is a single country and has a "small" acreage.The US > is 50 "countries" span a quarter hemisphere. Yeah, we're about the same size as Canada. And Britain and Canada are subdivided into roughly the equivalents of our states (which you disingenuously call "countries"). So what? What does that have to do with the ability to provide a nationalized health care system? >>A society that condemns its less well-off members to poor / inadequate >>health >>provision is no great example to anyone. >> >>Heck, there's an American chap I chat with on MSN who simply couldn't >>afford > to >>buy the best medicine for his wife's condition. > > You should have examined the situation a tad more closely. Pretty arrogant of you to assume he didn't. > Was > he able to get the good medicine or was he forced to take the > generic? Did he expect to pay $12 for the best? No, he said "afford". It doesn't matter what it cost, if she can't afford it, she can't afford it. > I've run > into this attitude before and people simply don't want to > buy drugs without a massive discount. And why do you imply that it is the case here? > I don't understnad this > mindset yet. There's a lot of things that you don't "understnad". Eric Lucas |