In a message dated 5/18/05 10:28:38 AM Central Daylight Time,
> derkgroe@xs4all.nl writes:
> What part of 'but we'd have to kill you' wasn't clear? ;->=
The "we" part. Is this a confirmation you're part of that "we"?;)
Hmm. Doesn't this fly directly in the face of existing treaties on
space-based weapons? At least I thought those treaties were in place.
Cheers,
Derk
Treaties are in place until a nation deems them detrimental to their goals,
purposes, or perceived needs.
Gracias,
> Hmm. Doesn't this fly directly in the face of existing treaties on
Me blithering:
> Such treaties are painfully complicated in wording...
*ahem* Sorry, I mistook actual memory for deja vu. President Bush pulled the
US out of the main treaty something like two years ago. I had to have a TV
report remind me... *blush*
The_Beast
> On Thu, 19 May 2005, Doug Evans wrote:
> >> Hmm. Doesn't this fly directly in the face of existing treaties on
Good ol' George W. "Treaty? What Treaty" Bush.
Avoiding further politics,
In a message dated 5/19/05 12:25:25 PM Central Daylight Time,
> yh728@victoria.tc.ca writes:
<snip>
Good 'ol George W. "Treaty? What Treaty" Bush.
Avoiding further politics,
Brian.
www.warbard.ca/games.html
Oh no you don't "hit and run..."
Either don't "hit" or stay and act like a man. The former would be better but
since you chose NOT to do the proper thing to avoid the dreaded "P" word then
I will reply. At least you didn't work the "R" word in too.
Only ONLINE comment is that ALL countries have a history of abandoning
treaties when the perception that it is counter to their higher national
priorities/desires/greeds.
And "sometimes sooner," or so my Cherokee Grandmother used to say.
Feel free to reply off list.
Gracias,