If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> We simply no longer had > time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus. Yeah, 'cause if we'd waited any longer, Saddam would've used those weapons of mass distraction he didn't have...right? Pffft. DS |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Louis Hom wrote:
> >I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame. > >Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France > >and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer > >had time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus. > > But it seems like we didn't have any such problem waiting to > organize against the threat in Afghanistan. And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for China. Hello, double standard? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The governmant is so insidious. They tax EVERTHING
Greg Houston wrote: > The USA announced that it was going into Afghanistan on September 19, 2001. This > was a mere eight (8) days after the worst terrorist attack in history. Correction: That should say "in US history." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article k.net>,
Joseph Oberlander > wrote: > >People wonder why California is bankrupt. At least some part of it is due to Prop 13, and the expenses that over the decades have bubbled up toward the state level. The huge fires of this past year left many to comment that you either pay for it along the way in taxes or you pay in one huge lump sum when nobody might expect it. P.S. I think my friends at *.saturn are getting tired of this thread. Maybe we should go to e-mail. -- __________________________________________________ ____________________________ Lou Hom >K'93 http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Greg Houston > wrote:
> >about the deficits, than you worry about tax cuts. The deficits are a result of >spending, which is a function of the US fighting for security. Another Deficits are the result of spending more than you take in. Either you're spending too much, taking in too little, or a combination of both. You seem to blame it all on spending. I blame it on some of the tax cuts. -- __________________________________________________ ____________________________ Lou Hom >K'93 http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message ... | | Another couple of critical questions: When did Clinton get the UN | approval to invade and topple Kosovo? How many nations were involved in | the "multinational" UN-approved invasion of Kosovo? | | Bill Putney | (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my | address with "x") | He didn't. The UN told Clinton specifically to stay out of it, if memory serves me. It's interesting that Bush keeps getting blamed for the policy of pre-emption, but Clinton set the precedence, as you basically point out. But having said that, what does this topic have to do with cars? ;-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Tony P. > wrote in message >. ..
> > As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, evidence is now coming out that the prime > motivation was to scare the USSR more than force the Japanese surrender. There is no evidence coming out that says anything at all like that. All evidence shows that the point of the bombs was to force Japan to accept Potsdam. > Most people now believe that Japan was prepared to surrender even before > the Hiroshima device was dropped. It is a shame that Japan was not prepared to surrender on our terms. The way out for them was to accept Potsdam. Trying to surrender on unacceptable terms was a non-starter, and a mistake that got them nuked twice. > Nagasaki was just a bonus and a test of a slightly different device. Nagasaki was an attempt to force Japan to accept Potsdam. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:04:04 -0500, "Daniel J. Stern"
> wrote: >And hey, we're still waiting -- probably fornever -- to invade China. It >is, after all, an unfree country run by brutal dictators, possessing >weapons of mass destruction. They conduct economic terrorism against the >US every day, and have been doing so for the last 15 years. They've even >got lots of oil. Oh wait, that's right, we haven't attacked them because >we'd lose, and because the MBAs of America have a permanent hard-on for >China. > >Hello, double standard? Well, China can hit back. Why do you think there are such kid gloves for North Korea? -- Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing? http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 07 Mar 2004 02:23:51 GMT, "Matthew S. Whiting"
> wrote: >I agree had that been possible in a reasonable time frame. >Unfortunately, most governments in place today are too much like France >and don't have the spine to take on terrorists. We simply no longer had >time to wait to try to achieve UN consensus. Why did we have no more time? Because the inspectors weren't finding anything? Because the "coalition of the willing" was falling apart? Because Ms. Gun had to blab about UN members being illegally bugged to get information to coerce them to come aboard? Or was it because Saddam was about to pull the trigger on the WMDs that no one can seem to find? -- Brandon Sommerville (remove ".gov" to e-mail) Her name was Valerie Plame, and she was a NOC. She was keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. What was the Bush administration doing? http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022404A.shtml |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used propertysales. | [email protected] | General | 0 | February 29th 04 10:09 PM |
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sa | Tony P. | General | 0 | February 26th 04 02:19 AM |
The DMV is so insidious. They are allowed to tax used property sales. | Louis Hom | General | 0 | February 25th 04 02:45 PM |