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 Diotall
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
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 Pakista
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 crui
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
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
___
http:/
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, jdieb
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
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:
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:
>
> >
> > Somewhe
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 havi
--- 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
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
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 a
--- 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, les
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
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 ou
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 ex
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 ar
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 sti
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 servic
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
--- 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 a
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 an
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
--- 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
--- 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
--- 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
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 does
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 radioactiv
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 puppet
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
feed
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
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 blen
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
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... bu
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
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 er
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 only
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 - it's
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 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 killin
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
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 th
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 p
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 sure
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 mea
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
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
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. And
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 Sadda
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,
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 pay for the removal of a tyrant.
What is
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
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
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
dicta
some idea that corporations were making huge profits off the war, this
editorial offers facts... although it's certainly not just the CEOs
who are making all the money.
Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
By Derrick Z. Jackson
The Boston Globe
Wednesday 30 August 2006
More than 2,600 US soldie
57 matches
Mail list logo
