Crew Excursion Vehicle and Military Space Tug.

Dale wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:44:12 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:

"Information systems will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated
American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can
“target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

Sit back and realize what you just read...the idea is to make germ
warfare microbes that target specific species, races, and
peoples....nifty, huh?

Are they declaring this as a goal for the US to attain, or as a probable
event to occur somewhere in the world?


So, with thinking like this, could somebody remind me just why
we should be on the winning side in any future global conflict?


You're right. Cheney & Co. are evil. Please shoot yourself.

Sigh.



Some people... so friggen' stupid...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:01:20 -0800, Dale wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:44:12 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:

"Information systems will become an important focus of attack,
particularly for U.S. enemies seeking to short-circuit sophisticated
American forces. And advanced forms of biological warfare that can
“target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the
realm of terror to a politically useful tool."

Sit back and realize what you just read...the idea is to make germ
warfare microbes that target specific species, races, and
peoples....nifty, huh?

Yeah- genocide without the need to build all those death camps.

So, with thinking like this, could somebody remind me just why
we should be on the winning side in any future global conflict?

Dale


Would you prefer to be on the losing side?

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:01:20 -0800, Dale wrote:


Yeah- genocide without the need to build all those death camps.

So, with thinking like this, could somebody remind me just why
we should be on the winning side in any future global conflict?

Do us all a favor and move to North Korea.

Report back in a year how much you enjoy life there. Oh, wait, they
won't let you use the internet, send a letter instead, oh wait...

Brian

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:25:26 -0600, Brian Thorn wrote:

Do us all a favor and move to North Korea.

Report back in a year how much you enjoy life there. Oh, wait, they
won't let you use the internet, send a letter instead, oh wait...

I'd rather try to make this country live up to its ideals.
You don't seem to tolerate opposing points of view.
Oh well.

And to Scott- no. I don't want to be on the losing side.
I don't want my loved ones to be on the losing side.
I just think it's dangerous to always accept that our
government is on the side of good, without question.

Dale

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 18:08:45 -0800, Dale wrote:


I'd rather try to make this country live up to its ideals.
You don't seem to tolerate opposing points of view.
Oh well.

I don't tolerate fools who refuse to live in the real world.

Brian

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 21:30:22 -0600, Brian Thorn wrote:

I'd rather try to make this country live up to its ideals.
You don't seem to tolerate opposing points of view.
Oh well.

I don't tolerate fools who refuse to live in the real world.

The real world is what we make it. I think it would be better
off without biological weapons so narrowly focused as to
make them "useful political tools".

If you don't find the thought that the US is contemplating such
ideas patently offensive, fine. I do. I think this country should
be better than that. If we find out that another country is working
on such a thing, I'd support using all our precision means of
attack to go take it out.

Please note that I haven't called you a "fool", nor responded
with a bumper sticker like "Do us all a favor and move to North
Korea."

Dale

Dale wrote:

Yeah- genocide without the need to build all those death camps.

So, with thinking like this, could somebody remind me just why
we should be on the winning side in any future global conflict?




I think the key is the Thomas Jefferson approach; whereas all men have
certain inalienable rights- and among them life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness...one has to be selective as to what we define
"men" as. There are "men"...and then there are "them".
You know...property.

Pat

Scott Lowther wrote:

Are they declaring this as a goal for the US to attain, or as a probable
event to occur somewhere in the world?

when I ran into it the first time in the report, I took it as a
warning about what somebody might try it on us.. but the turn of phrase
made me suspect it was something we are intending to inflict on others.





So, with thinking like this, could somebody remind me just why
we should be on the winning side in any future global conflict?




You're right. Cheney & Co. are evil. Please shoot yourself.


"Scott Lowther...Emperor of Australia!" =-O

Zod






Sigh.



Some people... so friggen' stupid...

Scott Ferrin wrote:


Would you prefer to be on the losing side?


"We are coming up on target...get your medpatches on, check your
powersuit's systems, spool up your homopolar generators, and get ready
to drop.... Hit 'em hard- and hit 'em the bounce!
ROGER YOUNG!!!!"

Patrick Valentine Flannery

Brian Thorn wrote:




I'd rather try to make this country live up to its ideals.
You don't seem to tolerate opposing points of view.
Oh well.



I don't tolerate fools who refuse to live in the real world.


"Yours can be an important voice in the new world order...join us, Brian!''

Zod