Re: Well

[Clyde Slick]

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:skfrm01t97eh723i5rkv1sr86t9ud4jfvc@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
>
> Thank you for that. I'd simply say it was sick.
>

you are welcome
I knew you wouldn't like it.

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...

>
> Illegal war is terrorism.
>

Oh, you mean one that fails the
'global test', which of course,
we all know is not a veto.

[normanstrong]

>
> At least the US is a cut above the countries listed above, in that
it
> does not knowingly harbor terrorists. No.. the US goes one better by
> being actively involved in terrorism.

What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.

[Lionel]

normanstrong wrote:
>>At least the US is a cut above the countries listed above, in that
>
> it
>
>>does not knowingly harbor terrorists. No.. the US goes one better by
>>being actively involved in terrorism.
>
>
> What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.

From a civilized democratic country ? Are you joking ?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
Lionel > wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:

> > Perhaps Iran feels the need for nukes in order to deter a US invasion.
>
> When you have some gas and oil like Iran and when you know the real
> motivations of US today policy you have *very* good reasons to be
> afraid, no ?

Maybe their cheque to Dr. Khan bounced...

[Lionel]

MINe 109 wrote:
> In article >,
> Lionel > wrote:
>
>
>>MINe 109 wrote:
>
>
>>>Perhaps Iran feels the need for nukes in order to deter a US invasion.
>>
>>When you have some gas and oil like Iran and when you know the real
>>motivations of US today policy you have *very* good reasons to be
>>afraid, no ?
>
>
> Maybe their cheque to Dr. Khan bounced...

This crook was selling them outdated technology. ;-)

[Lionel]

George M. Middius > wrote in message >...
> Roger McDodger said:
>
> > >> the US goes one better by being actively involved in terrorism.
> > >
> > >Do tell.
> >
> > Illegal war is terrorism.
>
> That definition is .... interesting.
>
> Have you notified all the lexicographers of the English language so
> they'll know they can dispense with the vast array of words that you've
> apparently declared obsolete?

Middius surely appreciate your judicious juxtaposition since he feels
oblige
to rob a part of its charme in a pseudo-intelligent, laborious and
painful deconstruction.
To make it simple : he is a little bit jealous you word. :-)

George's slogan is "Why to make it simple since I can make it
complicate ?"

[Clyde Slick]

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
news:rJxbd.248352$D%.83422@attbi_s51...
>

>
> What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.
>

So, fighting a war with superior firepower is,
in itself, terrorism.
Perhaps you are right. It is inherently unfair.
It's like starting a chess game where one side
only has half the pieces. Not sporting at all.
We should do something about that.

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>> Illegal war is terrorism.
>>
>>Oh, you mean one that fails the
>>'global test', which of course,
>>we all know is not a veto.
>
> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>

The UN was not a nation,. the last time I looked.
It has no sovereignty and no citizens to protect.

[ScottW]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>> Illegal war is terrorism.
>>
>>Oh, you mean one that fails the
>>'global test', which of course,
>>we all know is not a veto.
>
> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.

Well said. I can think of many examples of atrocity and genocide the UN had
ample reason to act on and did not.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> By the way they
> favorize spontaneous generation of "terrorists" who have only one song
> inallowed the head :
> "I shot the sheriff..."
>
>


Chapuinglish!

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>
> Perhaps Iran feels the need for nukes in order to deter a US invasion.

perhaps they can't reach the US, perhaps they will detonate them on their
own soil. Is that the deterrence?

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Perhaps Iran feels the need for nukes in order to deter a US invasion.
>
> perhaps they can't reach the US, perhaps they will detonate them on their
> own soil. Is that the deterrence?

North Korea seems to be working on the same principle.

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Perhaps Iran feels the need for nukes in order to deter a US invasion.
>>
>> perhaps they can't reach the US, perhaps they will detonate them on their
>> own soil. Is that the deterrence?
>
> North Korea seems to be working on the same principle.

a REALLY good strategy.

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>>>> Illegal war is terrorism.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, you mean one that fails the
>>>>'global test', which of course,
>>>>we all know is not a veto.
>>>
>>> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>>
>>The UN was not a nation,. the last time I looked.
>>It has no sovereignty and no citizens to protect.
>
> Why do I feel like I'm communicating with a four year old?
>
> The UN is about COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.
>
Well, 'you' brought up the fact that the UN doesn't bomb countries.
I am entitled to point out the fact that the UN is not a nation, and
has no citizens to protect. It is not comparable to a nation.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
> >
> >> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Perhaps Iran feels the need for nukes in order to deter a US invasion.
> >>
> >> perhaps they can't reach the US, perhaps they will detonate them on their
> >> own soil. Is that the deterrence?
> >
> > North Korea seems to be working on the same principle.
>
> a REALLY good strategy.

Maybe an oil-for-nukes deal will put an end to it.

We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
Bush pretty good.

[ScottW]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" emitted :
>
>>> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>>
>>Well said.
>
> Thank you. The main reason being, of course - violence rarely solves
> anything. It should only be used as the last resort. Very last resort.
>
>>I can think of many examples of atrocity and genocide the UN had
>>ample reason to act on and did not.
>
> You support a regime that *selectively* targets and terrorizes other
> countries.. completely out of self interest. Hypocrite.

You call deposing Hussein and the Taliban terrorizing? Was there ever a
just cause to forcibly remove someone from power?

You are the reason Kerry's global test is ludicrous.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in >

> Maybe an oil-for-nukes deal will put an end to it.
>
> We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
> Bush pretty good.

Check the history. Clinton was the one played. He signed that oil for nukes
deal and the Koreans left the fuel alone while they developed their
enrichment capability in violation of the deal. It was Bush admin who
called them on their violation.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>>>> Illegal war is terrorism.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, you mean one that fails the
>>>>'global test', which of course,
>>>>we all know is not a veto.
>>>
>>> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>>
>>The UN was not a nation,. the last time I looked.
>>It has no sovereignty and no citizens to protect.
>
> Why do I feel like I'm communicating with a four year old?
>
> The UN is about COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

Like a mass of soccer fans crushing each other to get through the gates.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "George M. Middius" emitted :
>
>>> >> >> the US goes one better by being actively involved in terrorism.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >Do tell.
>>> >>
>>> >> Illegal war is terrorism.
>>> >
>>> >That definition is .... interesting.
>>> >
>>> >Have you notified all the lexicographers of the English language so
>>> >they'll know they can dispense with the vast array of words that you've
>>> >apparently declared obsolete?
>>>
>>> Not sure what you mean by that, but my answer is a condensed version.
>>
>>Well, here's what I mean. I mean your statement is silly. Because
>>"terrorism" has a meaning, and its meaning is distinct from that of
>>"war", and for you to conflate the two is silly. Unless, as I
>>sarcastically implied, you're campaigning to redefine one or both words.
>
> I was using the word in a loose sense, like George Dubya does when he
> speaks of the 'War On Terrorism'. That's pretty ****ing loose, IMO.
>
> Didn't Mr Potato Head spurn International Laws when he kicked off the
> firework display? Kofi Annan says yes.

Kofi is sweating that his corrupt involvement in the oil for food scandal
will be revealed.

ScottW

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
>
> We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
> Bush pretty good.

uuuh, it was CLINTON they played really well.

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...

>
> The UN does a ****load more to protect citizens than Bush ever did!
>
> It's like.. one of their goals...
>

Do you mean the citizens who got rich off the oil for
food program graft, or do you mean the ones who were supposed
to get the food, but didn't?

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
news:DcHbd.6155$bk1.2293@fed1read05...
>
> Kofi is sweating that his corrupt involvement in the oil for food scandal
> will be revealed.
>
His son is suspected of being one of the graft recipients.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
"Clyde Slick" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
> > Bush pretty good.
>
> uuuh, it was CLINTON they played really well.

Things were going fine until the Republicans threw a wrench in the
machinery by blocking the US contribution to the agreement. Bush gave
them no incentive not to continue.

[MINe 109]

In article <l8Hbd.6105$bk1.4908@fed1read05>,
"ScottW" > wrote:

> "MINe 109" > wrote in >
>
> > Maybe an oil-for-nukes deal will put an end to it.
> >
> > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
> > Bush pretty good.
>
> Check the history. Clinton was the one played. He signed that oil for nukes
> deal and the Koreans left the fuel alone while they developed their
> enrichment capability in violation of the deal. It was Bush admin who
> called them on their violation.

The violations followed the US not living up to the initial agreement.
With Clinton there was a deal and no nukes. Under Bush, no deal and
they've got nukes.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MINe 109 said:
>
> > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
> > Bush pretty good.
>
> You don't think Bush's saber-rattling might have inflamed
> what's-his-name's natural paranoia?

Being named to the axis of evil probably didn't instill hope of a quick
rapprochement.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
>> > Bush pretty good.
>>
>> uuuh, it was CLINTON they played really well.
>
> Things were going fine until the Republicans threw a wrench in the
> machinery by blocking the US contribution to the agreement. Bush gave
> them no incentive not to continue.

Oh yeah, it was great. Here's a report to congress in Nov. '99 on N. Korea
warning that "there is significant evidence that undeclared nuclear weapons
development activity continues, including efforts to obtain uranium
enrichment technologies and recent nuclear related high-explosives tests."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB87/nk21.pdf

I love this paragraph.

"Through the provision of two light water reactors (LWR) under the 1994
agreed framework, the United States, through KEDO, will provide North Korea
with the capacity to produce anually enough fissile material for nearly 100
nuclear bombs, should the DPRK decide to violate the Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT).

Want to reconsider that deal Clinton made?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article <l8Hbd.6105$bk1.4908@fed1read05>,
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in >
>>
>> > Maybe an oil-for-nukes deal will put an end to it.
>> >
>> > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
>> > Bush pretty good.
>>
>> Check the history. Clinton was the one played. He signed that oil for
>> nukes
>> deal and the Koreans left the fuel alone while they developed their
>> enrichment capability in violation of the deal. It was Bush admin who
>> called them on their violation.
>
> The violations followed the US not living up to the initial agreement.
> With Clinton there was a deal and no nukes. Under Bush, no deal and
> they've got nukes.

They worked on uranium enrichment the entire time in violation of the
agreement. This information is well known. In fact N. Korea admitted it in
'02.

ScottW

[Lionel]

Middius' lackey wrote:

> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> By the way they
>>favorize spontaneous generation of "terrorists" who have only one song
>>inallowed the head :
>>"I shot the sheriff..."
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Chapuinglish!



You shouldn't run on my post like that and wait for the corrected version :

"USA have promoted themselves world "Sheriff", over U.N. By the way they
favorize spontaneous generation of "terrorists" who have only one song
in the head :
"I shot the sheriff..."

At least *I* try to correct my English errors. ;-)

(I note that you have understood what I meant. In term of communication
it is a 100% of efficacy)

[Lionel]

Roger McDodger wrote:
> "Lionel" emitted :
>
>
>>Middius surely appreciate your judicious juxtaposition since he feels
>>oblige
>>to rob a part of its charme in a pseudo-intelligent, laborious and
>>painful deconstruction.
>>To make it simple : he is a little bit jealous you word. :-)
>>
>>George's slogan is "Why to make it simple since I can make it
>>complicate ?"
>
>
> I surely appreciate your fractured dialect.. "..since I can make it
> complicate?" LOL! ;-)
>

No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want
with it.

>
> --
> S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

[Clyde Slick]

"MINe 109" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote:
>
>> "MINe 109" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've played
>> > Bush pretty good.
>>
>> uuuh, it was CLINTON they played really well.
>
> Things were going fine until the Republicans threw a wrench in the
> machinery by blocking the US contribution to the agreement. Bush gave
> them no incentive not to continue.

Wrong

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> MINe 109 said:
>
>> > > We give North Korea too much credit for wiliness. OTOH, they've
>> > > played
>> > > Bush pretty good.
>> >
>> > You don't think Bush's saber-rattling might have inflamed
>> > what's-his-name's natural paranoia?
>>
>> Being named to the axis of evil probably didn't instill hope of a quick
>> rapprochement.
>
> So we agree, then -- Kim Jong Il's increased irrationality is a direct
> result of Dubya's ranting.
>
next thing ya know W will be starving 50% of us

[paul packer]

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:22:48 GMT, "normanstrong"
> wrote:

>
>>
>> At least the US is a cut above the countries listed above, in that
>it
>> does not knowingly harbor terrorists. No.. the US goes one better by
>> being actively involved in terrorism.
>
>What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.


Er.....a military strategy?

[paul packer]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:30:30 +0200, Lionel >
wrote:

>>>What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.
>>
>>
>>
>> Er.....a military strategy?
>
>Exactly a *military strategy*.
>One of the first times USA have used this "military strategy" was in at
>the battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 when the courageous US soldiers have
>massacred Sioux women and children.
>This tactic has been improved during all the WWII in Hambourg, Dresden
>to reach is top perfection in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


How lucky is it that the Japanese didn't think of it in WW11. They
might have attacked Pearl Harbor or something like that. Hey, hang
on...

[Clyde Slick]

>>
>
> No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want with
> it.
>

Are you French, also?

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
>
> American Civil War!!!
>

Red states vs blue states

[Lionel]

paul packer wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:30:30 +0200, Lionel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Er.....a military strategy?
>>
>>Exactly a *military strategy*.
>>One of the first times USA have used this "military strategy" was in at
>>the battle of Wounded Knee in 1890 when the courageous US soldiers have
>>massacred Sioux women and children.
>>This tactic has been improved during all the WWII in Hambourg, Dresden
>>to reach is top perfection in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
>
>
>
> How lucky is it that the Japanese didn't think of it in WW11. They
> might have attacked Pearl Harbor or something like that. Hey, hang
> on...


It's easy now to rationalize US crimes.
I don't want to excuse Japanese's felony in Pearl Harbor but at least
their target was a military one and they haven't burned more than
150,000 innocents. Who's wrong ? Who's right ?

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
>>No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want with
>>it.
>>
>
>
> Are you French, also?

Yes I am. Today it's a kind of privilege.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>American Civil War!!!
>>
>
>
> Red states vs blue states

Why are you trying to exacerbate the existing passions since anyway you
wouldn't take any position nor engagement in such conflict ?
In case of American civil war I'm sure you would leave the country in
less than 2 days. ;-(

[Lionel]

ScottW "The Môron" wrote:
> "Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"George M. Middius" emitted :
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>the US goes one better by being actively involved in terrorism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do tell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Illegal war is terrorism.
>>>>>
>>>>>That definition is .... interesting.
>>>>>
>>>>>Have you notified all the lexicographers of the English language so
>>>>>they'll know they can dispense with the vast array of words that you've
>>>>>apparently declared obsolete?
>>>>
>>>>Not sure what you mean by that, but my answer is a condensed version.
>>>
>>>Well, here's what I mean. I mean your statement is silly. Because
>>>"terrorism" has a meaning, and its meaning is distinct from that of
>>>"war", and for you to conflate the two is silly. Unless, as I
>>>sarcastically implied, you're campaigning to redefine one or both words.
>>
>>I was using the word in a loose sense, like George Dubya does when he
>>speaks of the 'War On Terrorism'. That's pretty ****ing loose, IMO.
>>
>>Didn't Mr Potato Head spurn International Laws when he kicked off the
>>firework display? Kofi Annan says yes.
>
>
> Kofi is sweating that his corrupt involvement in the oil for food scandal
> will be revealed.

More corrupt than Dick Cheney ?
When do you think that this scandal will be revealed ? Before of after
Halliburton's one ?

Why do you think that it haven't been "revealed" before US election, eh
Môron ?

If you really want to look intelligent, you shouldn't hesit to whip your
lonely neuron a little bit harder. :-)


> ScottW
> "The Môron"
>

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> I surely appreciate your fractured dialect.. "..since I can make it
>> complicate?" LOL! ;-)

>No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want
>with it.

Are you the Halliburton of RAO? ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Sander deWaal]

"Clyde Slick" > said:

>Note, the z isn't anywhere near the t.

In France, they have the AZERTY keyboard.
Still 4 buttons away though.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>>>>>> Illegal war is terrorism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, you mean one that fails the
>>>>>>'global test', which of course,
>>>>>>we all know is not a veto.
>>>>>
>>>>> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>>>>
>>>>The UN was not a nation,. the last time I looked.
>>>>It has no sovereignty and no citizens to protect.
>>>
>>> Why do I feel like I'm communicating with a four year old?
>>>
>>> The UN is about COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY.
>>>
>>Well, 'you' brought up the fact that the UN doesn't bomb countries.
>>I am entitled to point out the fact that the UN is not a nation, and
>>has no citizens to protect. It is not comparable to a nation.
>
> The UN does a ****load more to protect citizens than Bush ever did!
>
> It's like.. one of their goals...
>
>
> --
Too bad they never actually DO anything.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" emitted :
>
>>> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>>
>>Well said.
>
> Thank you. The main reason being, of course - violence rarely solves
> anything. It should only be used as the last resort. Very last resort.
>
>>I can think of many examples of atrocity and genocide the UN had
>>ample reason to act on and did not.
>
> You support a regime that *selectively* targets and terrorizes other
> countries.. completely out of self interest. Hypocrite.
>
>
> --
Self interest in this case being not wanting to get targeted or terrorized
ourselves.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> ScottW "The Môron" wrote:
>> "Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"George M. Middius" emitted :
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>the US goes one better by being actively involved in terrorism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Do tell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Illegal war is terrorism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That definition is .... interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Have you notified all the lexicographers of the English language so
>>>>>>they'll know they can dispense with the vast array of words that
>>>>>>you've
>>>>>>apparently declared obsolete?
>>>>>
>>>>>Not sure what you mean by that, but my answer is a condensed version.
>>>>
>>>>Well, here's what I mean. I mean your statement is silly. Because
>>>>"terrorism" has a meaning, and its meaning is distinct from that of
>>>>"war", and for you to conflate the two is silly. Unless, as I
>>>>sarcastically implied, you're campaigning to redefine one or both words.
>>>
>>>I was using the word in a loose sense, like George Dubya does when he
>>>speaks of the 'War On Terrorism'. That's pretty ****ing loose, IMO.
>>>
>>>Didn't Mr Potato Head spurn International Laws when he kicked off the
>>>firework display? Kofi Annan says yes.
>>
>>
>> Kofi is sweating that his corrupt involvement in the oil for food scandal
>> will be revealed.
>
> More corrupt than Dick Cheney ?
> When do you think that this scandal will be revealed ? Before of after
> Halliburton's one ?
>
When and only IF one actually exists.

> Why do you think that it haven't been "revealed" before US election, eh
> Môron ?
>
Lack of evidence, you dunce.

> If you really want to look intelligent, you shouldn't hesit to whip your
> lonely neuron a little bit harder. :-)
>
>
If you really want to look intelligent, you would shut up.
>> "The Môron"
>>

[Sander deWaal]

Lionel > said:

>> Congratulations for finding somone who
>> speaks English just like you. Now you have somebody
>> to tlak to.

>To what ?

Tlak! is Klingonese.
Art speaks that fluently :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Michael McKelvy]

"normanstrong" > wrote in message
news:rJxbd.248352$D%.83422@attbi_s51...
>
>>
>> At least the US is a cut above the countries listed above, in that
> it
>> does not knowingly harbor terrorists. No.. the US goes one better by
>> being actively involved in terrorism.
>
> What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.
>
It's what you do when you want to win against somebody who would do it to
you if they could.

[Lionel]

Sander deWaal wrote:
> Lionel > said:
>
>
>>>I surely appreciate your fractured dialect.. "..since I can make it
>>>complicate?" LOL! ;-)
>
>
>>No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want
>>with it.
>
>
> Are you the Halliburton of RAO? ;-)

Yes but I haven't an army of sanguinary crusaders devoted to promote my
fishy business. :-)

[MINe 109]

In article >,
The Devil > wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:52:38 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >Gosh, if the deal was to give them reactors with nothing in return, that
> >would be a bad idea! Fortunately, the deal included safeguards. If the
> >US had followed through, NK would be less of a threat than it is now.
>
> Gee, obviously another traitor!
>
> Watched *Outfoxed* yesterday. Good heavens! It was also scary just
> *how similar* Mikey's patterns of speech--in a manner of, um,
> speaking--were to those of the Fair & Balanced brigade.
>
> Joking aside, I found it *really*, *REALLY* hard to watch it with a
> straight face. Fox over here would be considered parody. I joked with
> my wife about Channel Four News taking the Fox Fair & Balanced
> approach to news--it was just so ridiculous we both laughed for ages.
> How utterly ridiculous.

Search google news for "falafel".

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> It's easy now to rationalize US crimes.
> I don't want to excuse Japanese's felony in Pearl Harbor but at least
> their target was a military one and they haven't burned more than 150,000
> innocents. Who's wrong ? Who's right ?

who's right? the ones who saved even more lives by bringing the war
to a quicker end.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Are you French, also?
>
> Yes I am. Today it's a kind of privilege.

Only for the downtrodden Muslim immigrant.

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>> "Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>American Civil War!!!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Red states vs blue states
>
> Why are you trying to exacerbate the existing passions since anyway you
> wouldn't take any position nor engagement in such conflict ?
> In case of American civil war I'm sure you would leave the country in less
> than 2 days. ;-(

Sure thing, I'll be an illegal immigrant in Mexico

[Clyde Slick]

"The Devil" > wrote in message
news:2atvm0l9o2pg8nq0eo3n2r64mrkhil06m3@rdmzrnewst xt.nz...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:00:23 +0200, Sander deWaal >
> wrote:
>
>>Art speaks that fluently :-)
>
> Art speaks dirty to dirty old men. He has a PO box set up for them to
> send in their 'gym socks'.
>

Youo forgot to tell everyone that I will eat their young.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> > innocents. Who's wrong ? Who's right ?
>
>> who's right? the ones who saved even more lives by bringing the war
>> to a quicker end.
>
> You do realize that's only an hypothesis, right? Right?
>

Yes, based on estimates, of course, and if we had not dropped the bombs and
continued fighting, we would have known the eventual amount of casualties.
But then again, we wouldn't have known about the number of
abomb deaths, That would have been a hypothesis.
Ain't hindsight great?

[Michael McKelvy]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>>>No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want with
>>>it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you French, also?
>
> Yes I am. Today it's a kind of privilege.

Just think of the money you save on soap.

[Lionel]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>>>No problem, I just deliver the material, you can built what you want with
>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you French, also?
>>
>>Yes I am. Today it's a kind of privilege.
>
>
> Just think of the money you save on soap.

In a country where obesity is the rule it is normal to use more soap.
All this adipose matter to clean, these tons of fat flesh... Berk !

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> Youo...

This starts like a tyrolean song.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Are you French, also?
>>
>>Yes I am. Today it's a kind of privilege.
>
>
> Only for the downtrodden Muslim immigrant.

I prefer them to fascist sionists.

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>It's easy now to rationalize US crimes.
>>I don't want to excuse Japanese's felony in Pearl Harbor but at least
>>their target was a military one and they haven't burned more than 150,000
>>innocents. Who's wrong ? Who's right ?
>
>
> who's right? the ones who saved even more lives by bringing the war
> to a quicker end.

LOL, this coming from a guy who took 3 days to falsely interpret a
simple series...
You are a fraud Sackborg.

[UnionPac2004]

"Clyde Slick" wrote:


>He can write in French, Sanskrit or Chinese for all I care.
>But if he wants to be understood here, he needs to
>write better English. Some of his writings are so structurally
>and idiomatically convoluted that they are uncomprehensible
>jibberish.

FWIW, that would be "incomprehensible". : )

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>> What is "shock and awe" but a form of terrorism.
>>
>>So, fighting a war with superior firepower is,
>>in itself, terrorism.
>>Perhaps you are right. It is inherently unfair.
>>It's like starting a chess game where one side
>>only has half the pieces. Not sporting at all.
>>We should do something about that.
>
> When the power shifts from your turf to the Middle East and China etc
> (as it's going over the next few years) you'll be wiping the smug grin
> off your face. Possibly peeling.. ;-(
>

Whomever we might fight, I don't expect them to come at us
with one hand tied behind their back, unless I put it there first.

[Clyde Slick]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" emitted :
>
>>> It's easy now to rationalize US crimes.
>>> I don't want to excuse Japanese's felony in Pearl Harbor but at least
>>> their target was a military one and they haven't burned more than
>>> 150,000
>>> innocents. Who's wrong ? Who's right ?
>>
>>who's right? the ones who saved even more lives by bringing the war
>>to a quicker end.
>
> I didn't know you had supernatural powers!
>

Just because logic and common sense are beyond your ken,
don't trick yourself into thinking they are "supernatural powers".

[Michael McKelvy]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>>>> The UN don't go rushing around bombing countries for good reason.
>>>>
>>>>Well said.
>>>
>>> Thank you. The main reason being, of course - violence rarely solves
>>> anything. It should only be used as the last resort. Very last resort.
>>>
>>>>I can think of many examples of atrocity and genocide the UN had
>>>>ample reason to act on and did not.
>>>
>>> You support a regime that *selectively* targets and terrorizes other
>>> countries.. completely out of self interest. Hypocrite.
>>>
>>Self interest in this case being not wanting to get targeted or terrorized
>>ourselves.
>
> I hope you do get targeted. I mean you specifically.
>
>
Likewise, I'm sure.

[Clyde Slick]

"UnionPac2004" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" wrote:
>
>
>>He can write in French, Sanskrit or Chinese for all I care.
>>But if he wants to be understood here, he needs to
>>write better English. Some of his writings are so structurally
>>and idiomatically convoluted that they are uncomprehensible
>>jibberish.
>
> FWIW, that would be "incomprehensible". : )

U knew that!

[Michael McKelvy]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" emitted :
>
>>> I hope you do get targeted. I mean you specifically.
>>>
>>Likewise, I'm sure.
>
> That's most gracious of you, Michael. A true honour indeed. However I
> must stress, and I am rather old fashioned about this, the lady should
> *always* go first. So, when you're ready...
>
>
I was figuring children first. Let me know.

[ScottW]

"Roger McDodger" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" emitted :
>
>>> Thank you. The main reason being, of course - violence rarely solves
>>> anything. It should only be used as the last resort. Very last resort.
>>>
>>>>I can think of many examples of atrocity and genocide the UN had
>>>>ample reason to act on and did not.
>>>
>>> You support a regime that *selectively* targets and terrorizes other
>>> countries.. completely out of self interest. Hypocrite.
>>
>>You call deposing Hussein and the Taliban terrorizing?
>
> Spokesman from the Pentagon yesterday said if they knew what they knew
> now about WMD and Al Qaeda links, they would have left Saddam in
> power.
>
> Suck on that!

I think that would be rather significant news yet I can't find a mention of
it anywhere. Care to provide a reference or shall we just assume you play
the volume a bit too loud?

ScottW

[Lionel]

George M&M > wrote in message >...
> Slut stuped:
>
> > > "At least" you are learning to KISS
>
> > Such a nice word in your soiling libidinous ****ty mouth
>
> Let's check the dictionary.
>
> SLUT: Syphilitic Licentious Ugly Tramp
> SALOPE: Sycophantic Adorer and Licker of Offal and Putrid Excrement
> LIONELLA: see above

Found in the same dictionnary :

GEORGE M&M : an innofensive depressive old fag. ;-)