Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Marc-
> > I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just
> > one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or
> > most of us).
>
> I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote:
>
> > and Elder Nelson's words were, a
http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=021009
Stephen
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
///
Well, the Yemenis are still saying it was an accident, but from the article in
the latest Economist, according to an eye witness ship's officer, and the
preliminary comments by some experts, it's going to be very difficult to show
that it was an accident. The ship's officer saw a small boat headin
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Marc-
> > Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If
> > the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other
> > countries in the area, a much better case could be made for
> > invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions i
-Marc-
> I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just
> one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or
> most of us).
I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote:
> and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear
> and
Marc Schindler:
... what made me think about this was the attack on the
French supertanker that's spilled thousands of litres of oil
into the waters of the coast of Yemen; almost certainly an
act of deliberate terrorism. Why attack a French
supertanker? Why not a U.S. one? Ahinteresting
-Marc-
> Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If
> the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other
> countries in the area, a much better case could be made for
> invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military
> aid for Pakistan. Why
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Marc-
> > Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here.
> > Life's too short,
>
> Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you
> feel, why are you so willing to engage in "point-by-point games" at
> other times?
>
I'm human.
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Marc-
> > Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If
> > the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other
> > countries in the area, a much better case could be made for
> > invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions i
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Stephen-
> > Nowhere in here is found an explicit or implicit condemnation of
> > the US actions against Iraq.
>
> -Marc-
> > Something neither John nor I said, incidentally.
>
> Sure you did. You wrote, regarding your criticisms of US actions against
> Iraq:
>
>
As a follow-on to my post about The Economist, one of my favourite
articles, an opinion piece (and therefore "biased", I'll admit that up
front), about what the US should do to avoid getting even more entangled
in the Middle East and inviting even worse reprisals than it already has
is an article
This post has nothing to do with any other threads except one, some time
ago, in which John asked where people got their information and I
mentioned I liked The Economist. Just by coincidence, after being so
puffed up with pride that I got a letter published in the Economist (and
not just a little
-Stephen-
> Nowhere in here is found an explicit or implicit condemnation of
> the US actions against Iraq.
-Marc-
> Something neither John nor I said, incidentally.
Sure you did. You wrote, regarding your criticisms of US actions against
Iraq:
"I myself have a difficult time seeing how p
-Marc-
> Let me ask you the same question I've been asking others, than. If
> the criteria that the U.S. are using were to be applied to other
> countries in the area, a much better case could be made for
> invading Pakistan. Yet instead the US pours billions into military
> aid for Pakistan. Why
-Marc-
> Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here.
> Life's too short,
Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you
feel, why are you so willing to engage in "point-by-point games" at
other times?
> and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm conc
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> RE: Iraq and war
>
> -John-
> > I felt that it should throw a bucket of cold water on some of those
> > saints who are in favor of a war with Iraq. He said that as a Church
> > we have to remain neutral and our members have to obey the laws of
> > the land even if that
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Stephen-
> > The US maintains that the actions against Iraq do not constitute
> > a war of aggression, but are a defense of family and freedoms.
>
> -Mark-
> > Saying it doesn't make it so.
>
> That's beside the point, which is that an argument can be made to
> justif
Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here. Life's too short,
and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear and
unamibiguous. Dan, in the course of his discussion, which wasn't just about Elder
Nelson's talk, has used two sources. I criticized the first one
Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> -Marc-
> > I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two
> > respected reports now to support my claim that the tests were
> > a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm going to drop it.
> > If you want a last word, be my guest.
>
> And Dan has brought up
Excuse me, Dan. Are you calling me a liar? Has the emotion of this issue brought
you to such a depth?
I hope you are calling a 3rd-party print source a liar. I don't know the list
rules, but in many lists you'd be risking your membership with a personal slur
like that.
Dan R Allen wrote:
> Marc
-Marc-
> Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the
> Ensign. I myself have a difficult time seeing how people can
> still, with all due respect, "not get it" after hearing this talk.
And I have a difficult time seeing why people are so eager to twist an
apostle's words into sup
September 11th was a defining moment in history, it showed that America could be
attacked within her own borders; it didn't need an ICBM as has been the thinking.
It would be tragic that when (not if) it happens again; and what could be the outcome
(will cities not buildings lay waste)?
Lastel
-Stephen-
> The US maintains that the actions against Iraq do not constitute
> a war of aggression, but are a defense of family and freedoms.
-Mark-
> Saying it doesn't make it so.
That's beside the point, which is that an argument can be made to
justify the US actions. The US government is no
Letter to the editor published -- in 4th position -- in the 05/10/02
issue of The Economist under the heading "Fuelling America":
Sir --
You say that America's dependence on oil imports from Saudi Arabia
forces it to obtain supplies from "uneconomic" sources ("Don't mention
the O-word", September
> The US maintains that the actions against Iraq do
not constitute a war of aggression, but are a defense of family and
freedoms.
Saying it doesn't make it so. Individuals are free to decide for themselves the
justice of a particular action. If an American member feels that the governm
Marc:
I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports
now to
support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree,
but I'm
going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest.
Dan:
Here's your word Marc. "Liar"
RE: Iraq and war
-John-
> I felt that it should throw a bucket of cold water on some of those
> saints who are in favor of a war with Iraq. He said that as a Church
> we have to remain neutral and our members have to obey the laws of
> the land even if that means fighting in a war. But as indivi
Hey, we all hide Twinkies in the back of the fridge for midnight "emergencies."
;-)
Paul Osborne wrote:
> I am liking President Monson more and more. I use to not care for his
> talks too much because his flowery speeches and poems bugged me. Now-- In
> an hour when I don't feel so strong spirit
-Marc-
> I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two
> respected reports now to support my claim that the tests were
> a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm going to drop it.
> If you want a last word, be my guest.
And Dan has brought up evidence that the "respected reports" we
I think there's been enough exposure to reports from two respected reports now to
support my claim that the tests were a failure. You're free to disagree, but I'm
going to drop it. If you want a last word, be my guest.
Dan R Allen wrote:
> Marc:
> You didn't. As I said, this is from my understan
Except for the problem of western militarism.
Gary Smith wrote:
> There is an easy solution to the Iraq problem. Instead of invading, just
> drop a major 20,000 ton bomb on one of his presidential compounds and
> flatten it. Then tell Saddam that every week we'll flatten another
> compound until
31 matches
Mail list logo
