On 9/21/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're having
gastrointestinal issues, try just a BRAT diet until you're doing better.
I work at a school now. Trust me, if we tried to eat any of the little
brats, our gastrointestinal issues would be *much* worse...
--
Mauro
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 10:32 AM Thursday 9/21/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did?
'Cuz a cave somewhere
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have less
to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did?
'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan is harder to program
into the nav system of a
At 10:32 AM Thursday 9/21/2006, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did?
'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or
Charlie said:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Somewhere
On 20/09/2006, at 6:04 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM,
Charlie wrote:
But I wrote none of the lines you quoted. The first bit is
Nick's. :)
Well, why didn't you say that then? :p
Because I expect the primary attribution to relate directly to the line
one is responding to... :p
Ritu
___
On Sep 19, 2006, at 5:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and
boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of
food, clothing, and boots?
That has nothing to do
JDG wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there is an economic formula in existence
that justifies
making money in a cause for which people are giving their
very lives.
Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you suppose that armies should get their food, clothing, and
boots - if not by purchasing them, at profit, from producers of
food,
clothing, and boots?
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Somewhere the person who
On 20/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
On 9/15/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15 Sep 2006 at 6:39, Nick Arnett wrote:
And there are people out there who use that argument to say any game
involving violence shouldn't make a profit either. Or gun makers for
the civilian market. Or...
For what it's worth, I try to
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies
making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives.
Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an
all-volunteer army, lest
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is not the logical conclusion of this that we should have an
all-volunteer army, lest soldiers make money in a cause for which people
are giving their very lives?Or at least to only pay a death stipend?
No, that's not a logical conclusion at
On Sep 14, 2006, at 9:21 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That you can phrase the question as should a defense company be making
sub-standard profits - whatever that means in this realm - is amazing
to read. If you have any direct experience I'd like to hear about it.
They've always
JDG wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck
out of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the
troops to make sacrifices for the current wars.
What is huge
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is huge profits? Is there some level of profits for these
companies that you would accept as not being huge? Particularly
after accounting for the fact that companies which provide services to
the military naturally find their services to
At 08:39 AM Friday 9/15/2006, Nick Arnett wrote:
I don't think there is an economic formula in existence that justifies
making money in a cause for which people are giving their very lives.
And yet for most of the world's history that has been a very real
part of the economic system. It
On 9/15/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I am not mentioning this to make light of your argument about the
current war, but just to point out that in many other cases we accept
a human cost as necessary part of the cost of getting a job done.)
Accepting it and quantifying it are
On Sep 15, 2006, at 4:56 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
That you can phrase the question as should a defense company be making
sub-standard profits - whatever that means in this realm - is amazing
to read. If you have any direct
On 15 Sep 2006 at 6:39, Nick Arnett wrote:
I hope and pray that the vast majority of people still believe that
making profits from death and destruction is wrong, that every red
cent is tainted with the blood of the fallen, even if it can be
justified by economics.
And there are people out
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out
of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops
to make sacrifices for the
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of
this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve
the drug problem, I think I would accept this price.
Easy for you to say. Make
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath
On Sep 14, 2006, at 8:54 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out
of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to radioactive dust.
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters
On Sep 12, 2006, at 5:29 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Nuclear Islamic Terrorism is far more dangerous than Nuclear
Communism. They had something to lose, while the islamic fanatics
don't - not even if the retaliation would reduce every sacred
islamic place to
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How
On Sep 8, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
my fears head on. It's the
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath
of enormous proportions for decades w/o erosion of
On Sep 11, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Because the USA may be the target of nuclear terrorism. OTOH,
nuclear terrorists might explode a bomb anywhere they can, just
to show they have it.
OK.
How does this make any difference? We faced nuclear megadeath
Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily
pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be
about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was
projecting through to the end of the war.
It wasn't me, it was the article I quoted... but
At 12:24 PM Monday 9/11/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did?
'Cuz a cave somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan is harder to
program into the nav system of a cruise missile than the GPS
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Nonesense. Why do the puppetmasters pushing suicide bombers have
less to lose than the soviet aparatchniks did? There are any
number off technical, political, cultural, etc, reasons for a
ffoolish leadership to intentionally, or by
On 11 Sep 2006 at 10:39, Nick Arnett wrote:
Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily
pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be
about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was
projecting through to the end of the
On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:24 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Is it starve a cold and feed a fever, or other way around?
I believe the old saying is starve a cold, feed a fever.
The logic is that by starving a cold, you don't give it a
bunch of gunk from which to make mucous (Mmm, tasty) and by
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote:
researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
No, not really - it's disputed.
Cite, please.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
Who was
On 10 Sep 2006 at 10:45, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote:
researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
No, not really - it's disputed.
Cite, please.
On Sep 10, 2006, at 5:37 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 10 Sep 2006 at 10:45, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote:
researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
No, not really -
At 11:39 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to
At 09:44 AM Friday 9/8/2006, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the
On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote:
researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
No, not really - it's disputed.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
Who was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day a rate which
excluding the war
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A while ago, somebody said This country isn't at war, only our
military is at war. I think that was profound. It bugs the heck out
of me, to put it mildly, that our leaders ask no one except the troops
to make sacrifices for the current wars. Although I
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now. And probably yours too - but a difference furnace, one
Nick Arnett wrote:
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body count of a tyranny? Argentina's military
dictatorship of the 70s had a body count like that.
And Iraq is so much better off now?
I don't know. _I_ am much better now [without Saddam] than I
On Sep 8, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
I assume you'll toss your own family into the furnace first
just to be sure we have enough to cover your ethically
challenged accounting methods.
The problem is that my own family _is_ into the furnace right
now.
On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:44 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Nick Arnett quoted:
(...) researchers will inevitably say that the body count
has crossed 100,000.
All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein.
I think it's a small price to pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is the body
Jonathan Gibson wrote:
Who's arguing absolute pacifism?
I operate on the Fight end of the Spectrum and not Fear, but that
doesn't mean I need to reduce everything to fisticuffs. I simply face
my fears head on. It's the only way that works for me.
I don't understand your ref to atomic
Dave Land wrote:
Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of
this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve
the drug problem, I think I would accept this price.
Easy for you to say. Make sure you're number 1 of 100,000, if
you want your bravado to mean
On Sep 8, 2006, at 2:52 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Dave Land wrote:
Brazilian's current drug civil war may have a body count of
this magnitude. If there was a way to trade 100,000 and solve
the drug problem, I think I would accept this price.
Easy for you to say. Make
55 matches
Mail list logo
