Conference back40::soapbox

    Why not...!
    
    Provides jobs, provides security, everyone else has one or two,
    provide insentive..and esnures that the Spanish won't try and
    screw with the Royal Navy again!
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    
    utterly foolish expense, they should have kept the Guards
    and Gurkha regiments recentlyu stood down by the MoD.
    
    a march-past of the hill men to the tune of their bands
    would sooner stay an agressor. 

    
    re -2 .. creats jobs etc...
    
    Couldn't the billions of tax collected pounds have been be used to create
    even more jobs than were actually created by the Trident project.
    
     

    Re- last one...
    
    Yep...
    
    But what the heck...Everyone needs another nuke...( sarcasm )
    
    Look at the Billions and Billions that the US Govt. wastes,
    but as I have been told many a time....I don't see the 
    BIG picture.....
    
    Screw the big picture.... Could be real UGLY!!!
    
    
    Sin-te-da

    There is a secondary question.  If the UK is to have nukes, why
    trident?  Why something guides by US controlled sat's.  Why not the
    original proposal of comparitivly cheap sea launched cruise?  They are
    even capable of conventional warhead delivery.
    
    Old Maggie wanted to sit at the big table, bless her.
    
    
    R. Michael.

    Our brother Andy Krawiecki regards your nukes as a threat to the US.
    If you don't launch them at us directly, you may sell them to someone
    who will, or the IRA may steal them and hurl them at us.
    
    What do you think of *that*?

    
    <----
    
    Cranial-Rectal Inversion
    

    Andy, I think I reported your views quite accurately.  What's your
    problem?

    
    Evidently you have a problem with the word "feasible"...
    
    Why don't you go and look it up?
    
    If you go back and change your statement to "Andy thinks it's
    feasible", then your inversion might diminish some ( I doubt it though,
    as your rat-hole techniques are some of the best I've seen)
    

    So you don't stand on your opinions, then, Andy?  Never mind.

    
    First this:
    
    > Don't wuss out now, it's just getting interesting!
    
    Then this:
    
    >So you don't stand on your opinions, then, Andy?  Never mind.
    
    The "never mind" musta come after he looked in the dictionary for
    feasible.

    Listen, Andy, you cited the nuclear threat of South Africa as a reason
    for increasing DoD funding.  When I asked you about England and France,
    you added them to the list.  Now, when I point this out here, you wuss
    out and say you only meant the threat was "feasible," as if you didn't
    take it as a serious threat.
    
    Maybe I wouldn't have to "rathole" so much if you wouldn't run down
    that rathole when your statements are held up to scrutiny.
    
    If you don't have the courage to see your views exposed here, don't try
    using them as a justification for spending more tax monies on defense.
    Don't waste my money *or* my time!

    RE: .12
    
>    Listen, Andy, you cited the nuclear threat of South Africa as a reason
>    for increasing DoD funding.  When I asked you about England and France,
>    you added them to the list.  Now, when I point this out here, you wuss
>    out and say you only meant the threat was "feasible," as if you didn't
>    take it as a serious threat.
 
       I stated that, yes, S.A. can be considered a possible threat because
    as far as I can see, they are NOT as stable as other "allies". Go back
    and read what I inputed. I never stated that this should be a reason
    for increasing DOD funding. I tried to show a possible threat... NEVER
    did I say that spending should be increased!! You took it and flew with
    it (as you usually do). I made an inference of plausibility. You
    ASSUMED!!! You call me a "wuss" because I wouldn't play your game? get
    real!!
         
  >  Maybe I wouldn't have to "rathole" so much if you wouldn't run down
  >  that rathole when your statements are held up to scrutiny.
   
     Your "scrutiny" is shallow at best....
    
     
   > If you don't have the courage to see your views exposed here, don't try
   > using them as a justification for spending more tax monies on defense.
   > Don't waste my money *or* my time!
    
      What has courage got to do with this? My views "exposed"???? You
    ASSUME again!! I don't really have the time to spend "defending" myself
    in the box... If you want, we can get together face to face and I'll
    rub your nose in your innuendo and rat-holing!!! Till then, why don't
    you be like Meowski and pick up the "towel" you'll think you've won and
    grow up a bit...
    
      "don't waste my time"???? You give yourself much more credit (in your
    own mind) than you're due...
    

    
    wait till Mexico get the bombe. they'll want Texas and kaliph back
    for sure.

	and then there's Alabama to worry about too

    Gee, Andy, .13 sounds like a physical threat...

    
    oh dear.

    <- don't worry, innuendo and opinion are intangables... You feel
       a thing :-)

    
    RE: 16
    
    
    > Gee, Andy, .13 sounds like a physical threat...
    
    Only you Wordy.... only you would see it that way...
    
    
    and they say conservatives are paranoid???
    
    
      Tell you what Wordy..... you find a physical "innuendo" and a
    physical "rat-hole"... and then I'll think of physically rubbing your
    nose in it.... till then... grow up....
    
    
    BTW... don't forget to check under your bed tonight for monsters...
    

    Anent .19: No, Andy, not only me.

    
    
    Fine... somebody else is paranoid besides you...
    
    Somebody else doesn't know that innuendo and rat-hole are
    intangibles...
    
     So... grab your paranoid cronies and start hunting for them physical
    innuendos and rat-holes... I'm sure y'all will come up with something!
    
    When you do.... I'll be sure to rub their noses in it too!!!
    

    Try decaf.

    Now, now boys, be nice!
    

    RE: .22
    
    Try intelligence...
    
     Even though it's a colloquialism, "In your face" can be considered
    confrontational and possibly physical...
    
    
     Face to face is exactly that.... person to person....
    
    Oh but how silly of me!!! Now I'm back pedaling again!!
    

    "In your face" is confrontational, but "face to face" is not?
    Marvelous squirm!

    
    RE: .25
    
    >Marvelous squirm!
    
    First he implies (asks?) that I physically threatened him. His
    ignorance is dispelled(?) when shown that it could not have possibly
    been  physical due to the fact that "innuendo" and "rat-hole" have
    absolutely no physcial connotation...
    
     Then he suggests that a "face to face" meeting, which I suggested
    because I wouldn't waste my time trying to get around exactly the
    stuff he's pulling here, is "physical" and HIS "implication" is that
    I'd box his ears (or at least rub his nose in his ears)
    at that meeting...
    
      and he has the nerve to tell me I'm squirming???
    
    You truly have earned your monicker, Wordy....
    

    This is why we have note 16.  You can move it there voluntarily or you
    can take your chances.

	Well, he shouldn't worry about you boxin him or anything. You are a
Born Again Christian..... maybe that's what he is afraid of?

    RE: .27

RE             <<< Note 107.5 by BRUMMY::WILLIAMSM "Born to grep" >>>

>    There is a secondary question.  If the UK is to have nukes, why
>    trident?  Why something guides by US controlled sat's.  Why not the
>    original proposal of comparitivly cheap sea launched cruise?  They are
>    even capable of conventional warhead delivery.
    
  The Trident is a good choice because it is such a superior weapon system.
The Trident submarine is the size of a cruiser and can operate in any part
of the world for long periods of time while being based close to home. That
removes the need for supporting expensive bases over seas.

  As for the Trident missile controlled by those U.S. satellites, unlike other
submarine launched ballistic missiles the Trident is accurate to within a
few feet. And it's MERV capability makes it a devastating weapon.

  Also having the Trident does not take away the ability of the U.K. to have
conventional cruise missiles for other purposes.

  The Trident is one 1st class weapon system, why not pick that as your weapon
of choice?

  George

    
    pretty hard to get a BATF license for a Trident though..

    Don't capitalize the name and it'll go right through...
    
    
    ..............
    .            .
    .            .
    . trident    .
    .            .	         | /
    .            .	         \/_ /
    .            .	???      /
    .            .	        /
    .            .	       /
    .            .	      /
    .            .	     /
    .            .	    /
    .            .
    ..............

    DOOM!