|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... More weasel-words. ================= No, they are not. Can I have your full list of exactly which types of actions constitute "interfering" because I think it's going to reveal that every single nation in the world is at war. Depressing news! ======================= Again, your strawmen have nothing, fool. try reading for comprehension. And, according to you, I guess George W Bush is lying again, because before he left Canada after his little visit earlier this week, and he said that our two nations were best of friends. But the US is (according to you) currently taking war against Canada by restricting trade of softwood lumber and preventing the sale of Canadian beef. ==================== Nope. Never said that, never implied that. YOU are too stupid to read english for comprehension. Who is Canada at war with, and that we are supplying? Either George W is lying, or you have a strange definition of war. ================ No, you have no idea of the term... Too bad you are so ignorant and stupid as to not understand, or are just too full of hate to want to understand. What have I said that even approximates hate? ================= ROTFLMAO Everything you've written, fool. That is the question at hand with your bizarre theory. ================== It's not theory you ignorant dolt. If I were you i'd demand an immediate refund from whatever scgools you went to. They obviously failed you. Mm. Well, they certainly never prepare me for illogic of such a grand scale as you have managed here. ==================== Nope, the logic is perfect, you are the failed example of hate and ignorance... Does New Zealand simply announce that Canada is interfering, and thus Canada is deemed to be at war? What constitutes interference...trade restrictions...refusing to participate in a summit on sheep...? Canada and the US intefere with each other in a thousand different ways...the US interferes with just about every nation on the planet. Does that mean they are all at war?!? This is totally nonsensical. ==================== Yes, your idiocy is nonsense. The problem with *your* bogus analogies(you really have a hard time with them don't you fool) is that the discussion at hand is the country you are intervering with is already at war, and you are taking actions that side with their foes, while trying to declare neutrality. It doesn't work that way, and you are morally and legally at war with that country when you help the foes, or punish that country. Man, you really are just too stupid for this, aren't you? That's one possibility. ===================== Exactly the right possibility. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... |
in article et, rick etter
at wrote on 12/2/04 10:50 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "rick etter" wrote in message link.net... "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD4050D.12D50%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article et, rick etter at wrote on 12/1/04 10:10 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 30-Nov-2004, Keenan Wellar wrote: in article et, rick etter at wrote on 11/30/04 5:26 PM: Japan invaded mostly on the basis of *US* actions in the Pacific. Actions that are taken by agressors, not neutrals. That's interesting logic. Are you saying that any nation that is attacked by another nation was at war with them prior to the attack? Actually, on this point he's right. The US had embargoed oil and other trade with Japan as the latter was at war in China, Korea etc (since '37... and the US was a major oil exporter in those days). They also moved the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor and upgraded their bases in the Philippines. Japan wanted to secure oil supplies in Indonesia and the US had been beating the war drum about protecting the Pacific. To the Japanese, it looked like direct threats and the embargo was interpreted as a war-like action. Hence the attacks on Pearl Harbour and Clarke. Yes, I fully understand and have prior knowledge of these pre-war circumstances. ======================= No you don't. You prove that with your ignotrant posts. I am disputing the notion that when one nation attacks another nation with force, the nation that has been attacked is thereby deemed to have already been at war, simply because they were attacked. ======================== Nice strawman fool, but that wasn't what I stated, nor was it the case. Again, go back to your own stupid anaology about NZ and Canada. If Canada had taken no actions that interfered with NZ prior to the invasion BUT WHO DECIDES WHAT CONSTITUTES INTERFERING ================================= You shouldn't be imposing bloakades, embargos, confiscating assets, delivering arms/supplies to their foes. All those actions are considered to be non-neutral, and morally and legally war-like actions. Ohhhh, now it is called "war-like actions." ==================== Always has been fool. I'm trying to get you into words you might understand, for a change... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance. Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your elevated self-image. That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... You've really outdone yourself this time. Traducción, por favor? The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being "morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference because in the case of the former, people get shot. |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD551A5.1305D%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... snippage... So what is the argument about? You acknowledge that there is a difference between "war" and your self-described "war-like actions." When you are at war, you are at war. Everyone knows what this means - you are shooting at them and they are shooting at you. ============================= Keep telling yourself that fool. Try to get an education someday... Can you please rephrase that in simple terms? I'm having a hard time keeping up. I'm sure you are used to people being in awe of your brilliance. Frankly, I don't know how (or if) you have remained sane, given your elevated self-image. ================= I have no elevated self image, I just know the ignorance that you are spewing.... Try again little boy... That is not the same as "war-like actions" the differences being obvious. ================ No, there still put a country morally and legally at war.... You've really outdone yourself this time. Traducción, por favor? The difference quite simply, is being "at war" is not the same as being "morally at war" or "legally at war" and everyone knows the difference because in the case of the former, people get shot. ======================= And people die for those others reason and actions too you ignorant dolt. Are you really this stupid, or just this big a troll? Again, you don't have to shoot people to kill them, or to be at war.... |
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... snippage.... ======================== No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't understand english, eh? Yawn. ================ typical level of the discussions you have.... snippage.... |
|
"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message news:BDD6B772.13107%UseAddressOnWebPageProvided@ho tmail.com... in article , rick etter at wrote on 12/3/04 6:43 PM: "Keenan Wellar" wrote in message ... snippage.... ======================== No, but since you cannot read for comprehension, maybe you just don't understand english, eh? Yawn. ================ typical level of the discussions you have.... It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have managed. Oh, wait, let me formulate it in the style that you seem to most appreciate: It's actually pretty rare that someone bores me to the extent that you have managed, fool. ============================ Actually, anybody that can put 2 sentences together bores you because they're over your head right away. If you weren't so stupid maybe you could hang in there longer. |
Subject: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!
__________==___ From: Warren Date: 11/28/04 6:33 PM Mountain Standard Time Message-id: In article , Paddlec1 wrote: No, but unlike you, my life doesn't revolve around scouring the internet for bad news that I can whine about. I have a life to live. It's your "doom and gloom". It belongs to you and the rest of the neocon cheeleaders for death. Don't blame the messenger. Have fun paying down that seven and a half trillion dollar debt... Not a problem, unless you live in Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. Ah, that must be your problem. Let's see, Germany, France, Russia, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand are in trouble because of the 8 trillion $ US debt. Nice fantasy you have going there Warren. Dennis |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com