Bill Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq,
which is manifestly false.
Since this chain started by ragging on RAH about it being a
_geodesic_ neo-{Khan, con-men} empire, you're both correct -
there isn't a
At 8:29 PM + 11/1/04, ken wrote:
Read up on Lord Lugard.
Oh. I get it. September came two months later this year across the pond...
Cheers,
RAH
Foghorn-LeghornNow, *that*, I say, *that*, son, is an ad hominem.../F-L
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet
--
On 29 Oct 2004 at 10:20, Tyler Durden wrote:
We're not reducing the quantity of government, just
consolidating under a single growing Borg-like government,
namely the US.
This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq,
which is manifestly false.
--digsig
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
On 29 Oct 2004 at 10:20, Tyler Durden wrote:
We're not reducing the quantity of government, just
consolidating under a single growing Borg-like government,
namely the US.
This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq,
which is
On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 09:24:20PM -0500, J.A. Terranson wrote:
Agreed. Our interest in not in Afghanistan/Iraq per se. Our interest is
in ruling the *planet*, rather than any individual pissant player.
Empires never last, and if there's going to be a new one, it's going to be
Chinese. (Of
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, James A. Donald wrote:
This presupposes the US intends to rule Afghanistan and Iraq,
which is manifestly false.
Since this chain started by ragging on RAH about it being a
_geodesic_ neo-{Khan, con-men} empire, you're both correct -
there isn't a conflict between ruling
For the most part, I'm going to answer this (mostly) seriously, though I
expect it wasn't asked in the same fashion.
At 9:17 PM -0700 10/28/04, Major Variola (ret) wrote:
Is this geodesic neo-conservativism? Where can I start
bearer-document goose-stepping?
Impedance mismatch. You're using a
At 10:07 PM 10/24/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
If the only way
to kill barbarians is to kill barbarians in their bed before they
kill you in yours, to pave over nation-states that support them,
starting with the easiest first, it can't happen fast enough, as far
as I'm concerned, and I'll
Sounds good, but there's a little flaw in the logic:
At 10:07 PM 10/24/04 -0400, R.A. Hettinga wrote:
If the only way
to kill barbarians is to kill barbarians in their bed before they
kill you in yours, to pave over nation-states that support them,
starting with the easiest first, it can't happen
At 4:16 PM -0400 10/29/04, John Kelsey wrote:
looks like a waste of time and money
I suppose we'll find out sooner or later.
I'm not going to piss in the wind here on this anymore.
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting
From: R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Oct 29, 2004 7:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Geodesic neoconservative empire
..
It has always amused me that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists insist on
using the language of the left to describe the things they don't like. One
11 matches
Mail list logo
