Then we will have to practically police the world. I don't think that is
appropriate. Why weren't we sending money overseas to help the people in
those countries make better lives instead of trying to make huge profits in
this country as businessmen?
Stacy.
At 06:37 PM 11/08/2002 -0600, you
Whaddya mean "we"? Actually the UN and European aid agencies from Sweden, Norway
and the Netherlands in particular are the ones who have been building the schools
and training doctors. And Medecins sans Frontieres is not a US agency so far as I
know. You're helping, yes, but spread a bit of credi
True, but they were well-based culturally and industrially after the North German
Confederation under Bismarck (the so-called Second Reich). The people were also
relatively homogeneous, too, although of course the Nazis exaggerated that. But
with the EU now moving east to admit about 8 new countrie
After much pondering, Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Indeed. The article says it may well take a century for the neo-Europe to
rise.
It didn't take that long for the Third Reich. --JWR
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Ple
Indeed. The article says it may well take a century for the neo-Europe to rise.
Jon Spencer wrote:
> I expect that sometime in the future, sooner or later, the power of the US
> will dwindle and someone else will rise to preeminence. That will clearly
> be a hard pill to swallow.
>
> But it hasn
You sexist pig! That should have been "she he"
Jon
Paul Osborne gloatingly wrote:
> he he
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
>I just listened to the speeches concerning the passage of the UN
>resolution against Iraq
I just heard it too. I appreciate having a powerful President in office
that means what he says. I support a war with Iraq unless they bow their
knees and completely comply to the demands of the UN.
I also
I expect that sometime in the future, sooner or later, the power of the US
will dwindle and someone else will rise to preeminence. That will clearly
be a hard pill to swallow.
But it hasn't happened yet, so let's not worry too much about it.
Jon
Marc A. Schindler wrote in part:
There's an arti
Just to be clear, I was making fun of your statement. You say that we are
the laughingstock of the world, and I just laugh at that (Ha ha! :-). The
US is in a very difficult position of having sufficient power to destroy
most any enemy, but having no desire to simply crush an entire country (and
I don't think so. This is something George III inherited from his Daddy, I'm
afraid. After all, the Clinton presidency pursued the USS Cole case with as much
vigour as any Republican president would have. But Clinton didn't need to turn it
into a domestic election issue.
Dan R Allen wrote:
> Stac
Stacy:
The thing that gets me is this: If we're all of a sudden so concerned
about Saddam's nuclear and biological weapons abilities, why weren't we as
concerned in 1992?
Dan:
Clinton
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please
Jon Spencer wrote:
> Ahem, it is embarrassing when you dissimulate. We bought oil through the
> oil for food program, wherein the money is carefully tracked.
By the U.N., which you seem not to trust.
> And you are
> not so stupid as to not know that I am talking about the other type of
> tran
I wouldn't say laughingstock, but when you're an elephant in a world of mice, the
mice get nervous, even when the elephant is kindly disposed towards them.
There's an article in the latest Atlantic Monthly that is kind of related to this.
I don't go as far as the author does in his theme, which is
No, I am not laughing at LDS as you suppose. I am laughing at American
leadership.
Stacy.
At 09:35 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Of course! I understood you completely. My statement still stands. What a
narrow view of the charter of our church to think that we only desire to
bring happine
After much pondering, Stacy Smith favored us with:
We are surely the laughingstock of the world and also many Americans,
including me.
It is hard to imagine who our dignity could be any further ravaged than it
already is, thanks to Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.
John W. Redelfs
And as we are taught by the Lord, I am turning that scorn into a blessing to
the world!
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
> P.S.: I meant that remark rather scornfully.
>
> Stacy.
>
> At 07:43 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Then there is ample justification in doing what we do! After all,
bringing
Of course! I understood you completely. My statement still stands. What a
narrow view of the charter of our church to think that we only desire to
bring happiness to the select few! :-)
Jon
Stacy Smith wrote:
> I didn't mean LDS; I meant us as a larger part of Americans.
>
> Stacy.
>
> At 07:
P.S.: I meant that remark rather scornfully.
Stacy.
At 07:43 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Then there is ample justification in doing what we do! After all, bringing
happiness to the world is an important role.
Jon
Stacy Smith said with great mirth:
We are surely the laughingstock of the
I didn't mean LDS; I meant us as a larger part of Americans.
Stacy.
At 07:43 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
Then there is ample justification in doing what we do! After all, bringing
happiness to the world is an important role.
Jon
Stacy Smith said with great mirth:
We are surely the laugh
Then there is ample justification in doing what we do! After all, bringing
happiness to the world is an important role.
Jon
Stacy Smith said with great mirth:
We are surely the laughingstock of the world and also many Americans,
including me.
Stacy.
///
Ahem, it is embarrassing when you dissimulate. We bought oil through the
oil for food program, wherein the money is carefully tracked. And you are
not so stupid as to not know that I am talking about the other type of
transactions that these countries agreed not to do. Or am I incorrect in
that
NOW we're in the spirit of things! :-)
Noj
Stacy Smith wrote:
> Maybe not so rhetorical as really sarcastic.
>
> Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html
We are surely the laughingstock of the world and also many Americans,
including me.
Stacy.
At 01:13 AM 11/07/2002 -0700, you wrote:
Jon Spencer wrote:
> We didn't want to upset the UN, now, did we?
>
> Actually, we did have an agreement with Iraq to implement full inspections,
> and he did a
Jon Spencer wrote:
> We didn't want to upset the UN, now, did we?
>
> Actually, we did have an agreement with Iraq to implement full inspections,
> and he did agree to get rid of all of the Iraqi WoMM, although I can't tell
> you why we believed him. But certainly, we can't now.
>
> We are now
Maybe not so rhetorical as really sarcastic.
Stacy.
At 01:49 AM 11/07/2002 -0500, you wrote:
We didn't want to upset the UN, now, did we?
Actually, we did have an agreement with Iraq to implement full inspections,
and he did agree to get rid of all of the Iraqi WoMM, although I can't tell
you
We didn't want to upset the UN, now, did we?
Actually, we did have an agreement with Iraq to implement full inspections,
and he did agree to get rid of all of the Iraqi WoMM, although I can't tell
you why we believed him. But certainly, we can't now.
We are now more concerned because he has had
The thing that gets me is this: If we're all of a sudden so concerned
about Saddam's nuclear and biological weapons abilities, why weren't we as
concerned in 1992?
Stacy.
/
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at //
27 matches
Mail list logo
