On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 05:45 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Heck, go read some Patrick O'Brien Jack Aubrey Books. The Royal Navy
earned its own keep with prizes, etc., until long after the
Napoleonic wars...
Come to think of it, the rise of book-entry settlement cooincides
nicely with
At 10:28 AM -0500 on 2/14/03, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
How would you distinguish the actions of the Royal Navy from those of
ordinary pirates? Just prettier uniforms, better weaponry, and a bitch
back in London with a crown on her head, or what?
Sounds about right to me.
:-)
Seriously,
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 05:45 PM, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
Heck, go read some Patrick O'Brien Jack Aubrey Books. The Royal Navy
earned its own keep with prizes, etc., until long after the
Napoleonic wars...
Come to think of it, the rise of book-entry settlement cooincides
nicely with
These guys were probably CIA. Now, since they are non-uniformed
and not carrying arms visibly, and not engaged in hostilities
qualifying under the Geneva Convetions, they are enemy
combatants. They don't fall under the Geneva Conventions since
they were not in qualifying hostilities. The
At 10:28 AM -0500 on 2/14/03, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
How would you distinguish the actions of the Royal Navy from those of
ordinary pirates? Just prettier uniforms, better weaponry, and a bitch
back in London with a crown on her head, or what?
Sounds about right to me.
:-)
Seriously,
I've been amazed that Bush's handlers didn't straighten him out on
nuculur long ago. Why are they trying to keep him looking ignorant?
Are you sure they didn't try? :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 10:05 AM -0500 on 2/13/03, Patrick Chkoreff wrote:
Is it possible to pull off a project like this in a
crypto-anarcho-capitalistic society?
It's easy to imagine, whether it's possible, maybe you need bearer
transactions :-), a swarm of
These guys were probably CIA. Now, since they are non-uniformed
and not carrying arms visibly, and not engaged in hostilities
qualifying under the Geneva Convetions, they are enemy
combatants. They don't fall under the Geneva Conventions since
they were not in qualifying hostilities. The
By PAUL KRUGMAN
George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein
as Churchillian.
Short, rude, drunk? As far as that goes, sure, he's Churchillian.
But he's not even up to the standards of meet the new Bush,
same as the old Bush, fool me...ummm...can't get fooled again;
the
countries they beat in war) to the present day. Actually, it occurs to me
that the only people who still believe this may be Americans.
From: Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The Wimps of War
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:21:18 -0800
Steve wrote quoting
And this matters how? Why would Bush, or for that matter the Europeans,
care about rebuilding (what?) in Iraq? Other than the minimum
investments required to prevent the population from rising up against
their future leaders, why should the U.S. concern itself with making
investments in Iraq
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 08:39 AM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
And this matters how? Why would Bush, or for that matter the
Europeans,
care about rebuilding (what?) in Iraq? Other than the minimum
investments required to prevent the population from rising up against
their future leaders,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 1:21 AM -0800 on 2/12/03, Lucky Green wrote:
And this matters how? Why would Bush, or for that matter the
Europeans, care about rebuilding (what?) in Iraq? Other than the
minimum investments required to prevent the population from rising
up
--
Steve wrote quoting: PAUL KRUGMAN
And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media,
a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power a fear that
he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do
what is needed to rebuild Iraq is a large factor in the
growing rift
Steve wrote quoting:
PAUL KRUGMAN
And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media, a
lack of faith
in Mr. Bush's staying power a fear that he will wimp out in
the aftermath
of war, that he won't do what is needed to rebuild Iraq is
a large factor
in the growing rift
the
countries they beat in war) to the present day. Actually, it occurs to me
that the only people who still believe this may be Americans.
From: Lucky Green [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: The Wimps of War
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 01:21:18 -0800
Steve wrote quoting
On Wednesday, February 12, 2003, at 08:39 AM, Thomas Shaddack wrote:
And this matters how? Why would Bush, or for that matter the
Europeans,
care about rebuilding (what?) in Iraq? Other than the minimum
investments required to prevent the population from rising up against
their future leaders,
And this matters how? Why would Bush, or for that matter the Europeans,
care about rebuilding (what?) in Iraq? Other than the minimum
investments required to prevent the population from rising up against
their future leaders, why should the U.S. concern itself with making
investments in Iraq
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 1:21 AM -0800 on 2/12/03, Lucky Green wrote:
And this matters how? Why would Bush, or for that matter the
Europeans, care about rebuilding (what?) in Iraq? Other than the
minimum investments required to prevent the population from rising
up
--
Steve wrote quoting: PAUL KRUGMAN
And though you don't hear much about it in the U.S. media,
a lack of faith in Mr. Bush's staying power a fear that
he will wimp out in the aftermath of war, that he won't do
what is needed to rebuild Iraq is a large factor in the
growing rift
[use login: cyberpunks/cyberpunks]
By PAUL KRUGMAN
George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein
as Churchillian. Yet his speeches about Iraq and for that matter about
everything else have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil,
tears and sweat. Has
On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 03:53 PM, Steve Schear wrote:
[use login: cyberpunks/cyberpunks]
By PAUL KRUGMAN
George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam
Hussein as Churchillian. Yet his speeches about Iraq and for that
matter about everything else have been
[use login: cyberpunks/cyberpunks]
By PAUL KRUGMAN
George W. Bush's admirers often describe his stand against Saddam Hussein
as Churchillian. Yet his speeches about Iraq and for that matter about
everything else have been notably lacking in promises of blood, toil,
tears and sweat. Has
23 matches
Mail list logo
