Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
At 2:59 PM -0800 3/19/03, Tim May wrote: The greater threat is that access to one's home is impaired, or a car breakdown occurs, which is why carrying a bag in a vehicle makes so much sense: a shovel for digging out, a few blankets or a sleeping bag, water, a flashlight, flares and other road emergency supplies, maybe a GPS, a transistor radio, spare batteries, simple food rations, a few tools, and some small assortment of extra junk like duct tape, fishing line, wire, etc. And the gun I mentioned. If you go to any of the National Parks with a bear problem (e.g. Sequoia/Kings Canyon and Yosemite in California), be very careful what kind of food you carry. Bears have a very good sense of smell, can recognize food packages, and have been known to tear the doors off cars to get to food. More annoyingly, they will check out anything that smells, including hand lotion and toothpaste. I don't think that canned food smells enough to cause a problem, but it must be kept out of sight. (The rangers may disagree with me here. If any of these kinds of things are in sight, you will get a notice on your car (if you are lucky), or a ticket. Cheers - Bill - Bill Frantz | Due process for all| Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | used to be the | 16345 Englewood Ave. [EMAIL PROTECTED] | American way. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA
FBI discovers missing original copy of the Bill of Rights
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/19/bill.of.rights/ http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/5432311.htm http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/5431087.htm In 1789, after the Bill of Rights was ratified, George Washington commissioned 13 handwritten parchment copies to be sent to the 13 states. Most have disappeared over the years. In 1865, at the end of the War Between the States, some carpetbagging Union soldier stole North Carolina's copy. A collector recently tried to sell it to a museum, and the FBI ran a sting to seize it using a civil seizure warrant, from a federal judge in North Carolina whose court will rule on whether it should be returned to the state or the collector. The value of the copy is estimated at $20-30 million, with one official saying it was priceless. The museum director said the copy is faded but in reasonable condition. Fortunately, the FBI was able to take custody before it was noticed that the seized copy contains First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, unlike current government practice, and the enforcement of the Third was of course moot during the war.
HAVENCO shut down?
Has anyone noticed all the sites hosted at havenco (www.seagold.net, i www.thegoldcasino.com, lists.havenco.com) seem to be down? Is this suspiciously due to the war in iraq, or just routine outage?
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 01:54 PM, Thomas Shaddack wrote: The design of current glass-tower skyscrapers encourages glass fragment blowthrough by the shockwave, which will result in massive injuries (simulated on pigs in wind tunnels it abraded flesh to the bone in seconds, it would certainly kill you by blood loss or at least maim badly). ARGH! Taking back my previous comment about light injuries by flying glass. Thought about the typical downtown brick-and-mortar buildings that have more robust construction with real inner walls. (Don't ask me what I think about the glass towers.) I don't think either of you Europeans is familiar with the architecture of the Washington, D.C. inner government core, extending out a few miles. To wit, there are no tall glass boxes. The nearest major ones may be the Watergate complex to the west, near the river, the Lafayette apartment/shopping complex to the southwest (as I recall the geography), and of course the Crystal City, Pentagon City (or whatever they call it), etc. complexes across the river, in Arlington. The reason for this is that D.C. has a strict building code, requiring that no buildings overshadow those of the Emperor. (The Official Reason is about heights not being more than some number of floors.) Also, many of the existing buildings are either museums or brownstone apartments or federal buildings of one sort or another. Or embassies, up near Dupont Circle and Kalorama. (I'm just going by memory, from living there more than 32 years ago and from a couple of return visits. And from looking at maps over the years. Don't quote me on the exact geography.) In other words, D.C. is not like downtown New York City, Frankfurt, etc. It's more like Paris. Think about pictures you have seen of the D.C. skyline and you will know that tall glass boxes are not common. There are glass windows of course in many apartment buildings and homes, and of course in many office buildings, but not the walls of glass associated with modern, Bauhaus-type boxes. If you're paranoid, a small cheap terror kit stored in office/car trunk/home could considerably enhance your survival chances, and minimize subsequent health risk. Or in each of the places. If it's small and cheap, it can be multiplied. It's a bit stupid to spend time and effort preparing a terror kit and then have it in the car when you need it in the office. Yes, but many offices don't allow handguns inside, even if locked in a case or backpack. (And many places don't even allow handguns or rifles if locked inside car trunks. Despite the historical intent of laws having people lock up their firearms, in many places but not all places, most of the gun laws now have untested language about how a firearm may only be in a vehicle when traveling to or from a legal shooting area. In other words, the proles are not supposed to keep guns in their trunks/boots or truck boxes, even if locked up. I say untested because I don't know of any cases where someone was charged with not being in transit to a legal shooting area. Having thought for a few minutes about this, I have figured that if I were asked why I have a handgun or rifle locked in my trunk I would say I was planning to travel to another part of the state and do some shooting there. No way could they ever disprove that this was my plan, or that I had planned to go shooting during a trip someplace else but then changed my plans, etc. It helps that my Go Bag has some camping supplies in it. Of course, now that I say here I routinely have a handgun in my Go Bag, I guess the jig is up should some DA spend enough time Googling.) Carrying a backpack or duffel bag every day to an office gets old real fast. A bag can be kept locked in a drawer in an office. I suppose if I were working I might have some minimal set of survival supplies with me, but not very much. I would take my chances. The odds of a 911-type building collapse making my car inaccessible would be small. Were I working in a building with up to 4 stories (floors), I might have a rope ladder in my desk drawer. And maybe a Kapton smoke hood. (I heard that some airline passengers were carrying them, until the airlines started treating them as devices which might scare the other passengers.) And even in a 911-type event, getting out of the building is 99% of the battle. Getting home after such an event should be straightforward. (Hence the rope ladder for small buildings and the Kapton hood.) The greater threat is that access to one's home is impaired, or a car breakdown occurs, which is why carrying a bag in a vehicle makes so much sense: a shovel for digging out, a few blankets or a sleeping bag, water, a flashlight, flares and other road emergency supplies, maybe a GPS, a transistor radio, spare batteries, simple food rations, a few tools, and some small assortment of extra junk like duct tape, fishing line, wire, etc. And the gun I mentioned.
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: At 01:37 PM 03/19/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: But as it the only terrorist attack (from non-US citizens, that is), was on 9/11/01. Were there ANY others? Sure. Besides the earlier truck-bombing of the WTC, there were Waco and Ruby Ridge. (Or do you only count terrorism if it's done by enemies of the state?) WTC #1 was a critical example. Yeah, it semi-fizzled and did limited damage, but mainly because of luck. I'm not a building engineer, but those who are have said that had the van filled with high explosives parked where the van owners had planned to park it, it probably would have toppled the tower into the other tower and then both would have toppled. With no chance for evacuation, and with a one-fifth of a mile high building toppling sideways, fatalities might have reached 30,000 or more. Also: -- the attempted simultaneous bombing of a bunch of American airliners, mostly flying between the Far East and the West Coast. (This was thwarted, but was actively planned and might have happened. Anyone saying Were there ANY others? must count this as a credible attempt. Apparently the plan even back then, mid-90s, was to fly a hijacked plane into a target.) -- the truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983...about 300 Marines killed. (Tyler Durden will probably claim that this was not on U.S. soil, but it's a distinction without a difference.) -- the Gander, Newfoundland mid-air explosion of an aircraft carrying U.S. troops ( Arrow Air, DC-8). Much evidence of connections with U.S. troops having been in the Mideast beforehand, Islamic Jihad claiming credit, and other cases where explosives and detcord were found on troop transports. Cf. this site for details: http://www.sandford.org/gandercrash/investigations/minority_report/ html/_5.shtml -- Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. U.S.S. Cole attack. Etc. (It is unclear to me from the section Bill quoted whether Tyler Durden was referring to terrorist attacks in general or only those on U.S. soil. If he meant to exclude European, Canadian, Far Easternor Middle Eastern attacks -- the arrest of the guy at the U.S. border near Vancouver with explosives in his trunk, supposed to use during the Millennium celebrations in L.A. And so on. Tim talked about people driving gasoline trucks into malls. A couple of years ago, somebody drove one into the California state capitol building and got killed; the early reports suggest that he was a parolee with a grudge against the governor. And he also did it at night. And he drove into a doorway, but bounced off a couple of walls. Compared to the average shopping mall with a glass curtain entrance, the California State Capitol Building is a hard target. (BTW, many office buildings are already somewhat hardened against vans loaded with gasoline or explosives. For example, Intel's main building in Santa Clara, the Robert Noyce Building, has extensive barrier blocking a suicide bomber from getting through the glass curtain wall...though there are other places a van or truck could get through.) A movie which I recommend for various reasons is Arlington Road. It's about vengeance, about truck bombs, about conspiracies. Tim Robbins and Jeff Bridges star. It was held back because of one of the terrorist events which that other actor, Tyler Durden, tells us don't happen here in America. And the movie has not been widely publicized. But I recommend it, despite a few flaws. It has a climax which put a huge grin on my face. Short of filming Clancy's Debt of Honor, with its Sato Solution, this is a pretty good substitute. Those who have seen Arlington Road will know what I am talking about. Please, don't give anything away here. Tim also commented on the traffic issues of commuting into DC from the burbs. The Washington Metro takes care of that problem very well; it can get crowded, but it sure beats the Beltway and it has its own parking downtown. And it's high up on the list of soft targets, though the Pentagon Metro station is probably at higher risk than the downtown stations (2600 kiddies take note :-) Yes, they build all of this after I left. I guess the main construction was in the 70s. I rode it once or twice when I visited D.C. in 1991. Two of the outlying stops are near my old high school and near where I used to live. A stop at the Springfield Mall, a couple of miles from high school, Edison, and a stop out on Telegraph Road, not far from where I actually lived. (I later learned that the Coast Guard Station out next to where I lived was actually a SIGINT facility and that a small government Army station was actually the first office of the National Reconnaissance Office, the NRO. And earlier I went to Langley High School, just over the fence and through some woods from the CIA headquarters. I think if I had to work in D.C. I'd
Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
Oh well, so much for diplomacy. :D I wonder if anything good is on TV! ===8==Original message text=== Informer alert: War begins in Iraq 20 March 2003 War has been declared against Iraq by the US President George Bush. Initial air strikes have been launched on Baghdad, which the US said were targeted at senior Iraqi leaders. British forces have not yet been involved and the order to begin a ground war has not been given. Guardian Unlimited will have full coverage of today's events. Go to http://www/guardian.co.uk ===8===End of original message text=== -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Ken Brown wrote: Despite what Eric Cordian and others have said here, I think it unlikely that there will be a big body-bag outcome for the US. The force balance is so overwhelmingly one-way, and most Iraqis really don't want the current Ba'athist government. A lot of them will give up quickly. Could be wrong of course. I agree, I think once the tanks roll it'll be over in 3 days. Just like Afghanistan, there'll always be somebody shooting, but it won't be any militarily organized large scale operation. Large-scale House-to-house fighting unlikely. At least not for any but the head family palaces. Most cities will simply not want to fight. 1) if they really only want to rule Iraq directly for 6 weeks or 2 months that means EITHER they hand over to an international peacekeeping force (bloody unlikely given current PNAC drumbeating in Bushite circles) OR else the new Iraqi government is essentially the successor to the old, with the civil administration and most of the military still intact. Neither, we've already picked out the new dogs from a different kennel. Trained in the US of course :-) Only alternative to that that can preserve an Iraqi state is US (or just possibly UK - after all we've had a lot of practice) direct rule for /years/ We don't just dfeat Iraq, we conquer it. Bush still claims the USA is not an imperialist power. We'll conquer for a few days, then set up a military dictatorship to be replaced by a new dictatorship elected by the people. Then we'll steal all the oil :-) 2) What happens if the US forces liberate somewhere (Basra would be first) and they locals say thanks very much for liberating us, now we are free we are going to declare a Republic and hold elections and have our own constitution modelled on yours... Do the Americans have to say thanks very much for the flattery, but don't you move a muscle until we can get you ragheads back under Baghdad where you belong? No, we'll help put on the show of liberation. We'll tell them who they can elect, and all the choices will be US backed. It'll be great theater, and the US will control everything indirectly. 3) what about the Kurds? What about the Kurds? Does the US force them to rejoin Iraq? Does the US continue to deny them Kirkuk and other cities of their homeland? Does the US allow Turkish troops to invade northern Iraq (i.e. remain in there- there are probably some already) Is this the end for US support for Turkish domination over the area? If the Turks refuse to play ball, is it the end for US support for Turkish membership of NATO? Who knows anything about the Kurds? Who remembers Armenia? Who cares? Nobody in the US. The Kurds will be fucked from all sides and will have to fight a bit harder than before because there won't be anything to balance the Turkish attacks. The US is definitly pissed at Turkey, but it's still too important militarily to ignore. The US needs Turkey in a big way. They were just too stupid in how they went about selling a war. 4) And what about those Iranian People's Mujahideen who supported the wrong side in the first Gulf war and have been camping out in eastern Iraq for 20 years? Their strength is often exaggerated, but they do have tanks and they have no-where else to go. Their backs are really against the wall (OK, the river, but its the same thing). Once upon a time they were better soldiers than any units of the native Iraqi army. Do they fight to the death? Or just surrender? What does the US want with a whole load of heavily armed neo-communist militant Iranian Muslims? Send them back to Iran to face the music? I don't think so. We'll leave them alone. They don't really want to get Daisy Cutter's or MOAB's dropped on them. By staying out of it they'll be effectively neutralized. The next government dictatorship will have to deal with it. But they are far away from the oil, so they don't matter much. Bush would like this to last a long time. He needs the votes in 2004. But that's way to far away, and if the economy stays stagnant because we can't really pay for this mess, all his heroics now won't be too useful a year from now. Fortunatly, he really is an idiot. Unfortunatly too I guess. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
RE: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
Tim May[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but many offices don't allow handguns inside, even if locked in a case or backpack. If people feel the risk is high enough, they could carry concealed. The number of non-governmental places which require staff to go a metal detector is miniscule. Check http://www.packing.org for state level discussion of regulations. (If someone says that escape from a building may be difficult AND getting home may be impaired, I would say this is piling unlikelihood on unlikelihood. Not something I am going to carry emergency supplies for. Except when it happens - remember that within hours of the WTC attack, all the bridges and tunnels to Manhattan were closed to private cars *in both directions*, and remained that way for several days. I'm sure that some of the WTC escapees found themselves stranded in Manhattan, with their cars (and any bugout gear therein) crushed under the wreckage (there was a *big* parking lot underground at the WTC). Peter Trei
Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 04:14 PM, Eric Cordian wrote: Tim Wrote: With no chance for evacuation, and with a one-fifth of a mile high building toppling sideways, fatalities might have reached 30,000 or more. I'm not a structural engineer, but given that lateral structural strength is likely only a fraction of vertical structural strength, it doesn't seem to me that a tower like the WTC can do anything but collapse downwards. One would think that when you began to tip it, it would fall apart long before you got the center of gravity where it didn't lie over the base. Can a skyscraper really tip over intact, and flatten a distance on the ground equal to its height? Perhaps John Young could leap in here with a professional opinion. Like I said, I'm not a structural engineer, either. However, consider a stack of blocks (toy blocks) or cans. (I just did the experiment with a stack of 8 soup cans...the stack tipped and the cans separated, of course, but the top can landed at about the height of the stack away from the base. So, even if the floors fell apart, as you say, the can example suggests the toppling would still extend laterally for quite a ways. In fact, certain conservation laws make it hard for the toppling to be more tightly contained: the sections can't occupy the same space, and there are no forces pushing them in a direction orthogonal to the plane of toppling. In other words, not a lot of places for toppling sections to go except in the direction of the topple. Each section is not truly separated, as when they fall straight down they get in the way of the section below them. Hence the toppling.) If the tower begins to topple (e.g., if a major support is taken out, asymmetrically), the component of force along the building's axis should be _lessened_ (*) as the building tips. If the building was supported at 0 degrees of tilt, its normal position, then removing one side or one corner actually lessens the axial load. (* roughly as the cosine of the angle from the normal, with the building axis force a maximum at 0 degrees and zero at 90 degrees, i.e., when the building is horizontal) I think the nearly perfectly vertical collapse of the WTC towers was because of the pancaking of each floor into the floors below, as shown in the videos. Whether removal of one support triggers pancaking or toppling is more complicated than the blocks example, of course. I freely admit that a more detailed calculation would be needed to determine what actually would happen. There are probably a bunch of calculations already on the Web. Seems like a nice homework problem for Structural Mechanics 1. --Tim May As my father told me long ago, the objective is not to convince someone with your arguments but to provide the arguments with which he later convinces himself. -- David Friedman
terror alert red
Has anyone heard any more about the announcement made by the NJ gov that if we go to the next level -- red -- that everyone is confined to their houses? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey!
Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote: I think the nearly perfectly vertical collapse of the WTC towers was because of the pancaking of each floor into the floors below, as shown in the videos. Whether removal of one support triggers pancaking or toppling is more complicated than the blocks example, of course. The collapse is self-aligning due to the delay occuring at each subsequent segment. I think you'll get a toppling only in small/extremely overengineered structures after at an explosion at the base.
Re: HAVENCO shut down?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:46:37AM -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: www.seagold.net aka sealand.seagold.net and www.thegoldcasino.com both answer tracerts, and seem to be on 217.64.35, which claims to be on Sealand. FWIW I can get to them just fine, both from my *nix server and inside my employer's VPN. -Declan
Re: HAVENCO shut down?
At 07:45 AM 03/20/2003 +, an anonymous write wrote to cypherpunks: Has anyone noticed all the sites hosted at havenco (www.seagold.net, i www.thegoldcasino.com, lists.havenco.com) seem to be down? Is this suspiciously due to the war in iraq, or just routine outage? www.seagold.net aka sealand.seagold.net and www.thegoldcasino.com both answer tracerts, and seem to be on 217.64.35, which claims to be on Sealand. So it must have just been routine flakiness, for whatever values of routine and flaky describe the current sysadmins.
RE: FBI discovers missing original copy of the Bill of Rights
A collector recently tried to sell it to a museum, and the FBI ran a sting to seize it using a civil seizure warrant, Now the question is, will they hunt down all originals and burn them, then claim they never existed, and all other copies have been crafted by terrorist friendly freedom hating unamerican civil liberty activists ? :) -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: terror alert black
I've heard that for terror alert black we're all supposed to down a few 100 milligrams of valium, and stay in our beds, butts-up. That's terror alert Brown.
RE: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Trei, Peter wrote: There are other factors that the Turks have on their minds, aside from the US and NATO. Turkey is anxious to join the European Union, and has been cleaning up its human rights act to gain acceptance. Turkey recently lifted martial law in the Kurdish areas (do they still call them mountain Turks?). Turkish aggression against the Kurds in northern Iraq would scuttle their chances for many years. Yeah, I forgot about that. That's part of the reason they voted to not let the US use their turf - they want to keep the French and Germans happy. That's a damn good reason for them to leave the Kurds alone, pure economics! And if the EU can get a foothold into Turkey to kick the US out, that helps them a lot militarily as well. I don't think the US is looking too far into the future on this one at all! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Thursday, March 20, 2003, Peter came up with this... TP Except when it happens - remember that within hours of the WTC attack, TP all the bridges and tunnels to Manhattan were closed to private cars *in TP both directions*, and remained that way for several days. I'm sure that TP some of the WTC escapees found themselves stranded in Manhattan, TP with their cars (and any bugout gear therein) crushed under the wreckage TP (there was a *big* parking lot underground at the WTC). People who had boats made a fortune, they were charging $20-$100 or even more for a lift to Jersey. That's how my girlfriend's sister got home, she worked at 7 WTC. So, wads of cash are a definite must in your packs too. Also, make sure your pack isn't too big, the boat that took her to NJ refused to allow anything bigger than a woman's purse on the boat. (Not because he was afraid of bombs, but because he was trying to cram as many bodies on the boat as possible. And not out of compassion, he wanted to make money. I guess he also wanted to go back after and get everyone's stuff too. So much for people sticking together in times of crisis. Of course, if you have your gun you can just shoot him in the head and take his boat, so maybe cash isn't all that necessary.) -- stuart Anyone who tells you they want a utopia wants to put chains on the souls of your children. They want to deny history and strangle any unforeseen possibility. They should be resisted to the last breath. -Bruce Sterling-
Re: The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
--- Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote: I think the nearly perfectly vertical collapse of the WTC towers was because of the pancaking of each floor into the floors below, as shown in the videos. Whether removal of one support triggers pancaking or toppling is more complicated than the blocks example, of course. The collapse is self-aligning due to the delay occurring at each subsequent segment. I think you'll get a toppling only in small/extremely overengineered structures after at an explosion at the base. This seems reasonable. As a large structure topples, the sheer stress across the long axis of the building will inexorably increase as the upper floors retard the downward progression of the lower floors (caused of course by gravity). I suspect that a large structure such as a WTC tower would cant no more than a few degrees before loading stresses opposite to the design of the compression structure caused a series of gross structural failures -- which would allow the building to fall mostly `in place'. That is only my intuitive take on the physics of the moments in question. Someone with real knowledge could easily disagree with my naC/ve oversimplification I'm sure. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: FBI discovers missing original copy of the Bill of Rights
Give them some time will you? Rome wasn't built in a day. --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote: A collector recently tried to sell it to a museum, and the FBI ran a sting to seize it using a civil seizure warrant, Now the question is, will they hunt down all originals and burn them, then claim they never existed, and all other copies have been crafted by terrorist friendly freedom hating unamerican civil liberty activists ? :) -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
Quoting Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Interesting point of observation: According to our laws, approving of a crime is a crime (with some more accurate specifications but I am not a stinkin' lawyer). According to international law, the recent Shrubya's desert adventure is quite likely a crime. So our Wise Government, in its act of approval of a hostile aggression, according to their own rules, probably became a bunch of criminals. UK Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security: 1. In Resolution 678 the Security Council authorised force against Iraq, to eject it from Kuwait and restore peace and security. 2. In Resolution 687, which set out the ceasefire conditions after Operation Desert Storm, the Security Council imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction in order to restore international peace and security in the area. Resolution 687 suspended but did not terminate the authority to use force under Resolution 678. 3. A material breach of Resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under Resolution 678. 4. In Resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of Resolution 687. 5. The Security Council in Resolution 1441 gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations and warned Iraq of the serious consequences. 6. The Security Council also decided in Resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and co-operate fully in the implementation of Resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach. 7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of Resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach. 8. Thus, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today. 9. All that 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraqs failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Prosecuting, Defending and Adjudicating National Security Cases
The Judge Advocate's Handbook For Litigating National Security Cases: Prosecuting, Defending and Adjudicating National Security Cases, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Department of the Navy, 2002: http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/jaghandbook.pdf
Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
At 02:36 PM 3/20/03 +, Ken Brown wrote: Despite what Eric Cordian and others have said here, I think it unlikely that there will be a big body-bag outcome for the US. The force balance is so overwhelmingly one-way, and most Iraqis really don't want the current Ba'athist government. A lot of them will give up quickly. Could be wrong of course. ... Large-scale House-to-house fighting unlikely. Iraqis don't have that Bill of Rights bullet item that bars troops in houses. Picture a few tens of K of lone (or paired) well armed RK loyalists holed up in spare rooms with families. Whose job is to impede progress into the city. Who know they are eventual toast if the locals are no longer held by fear. And in a 1-party plutocracy like Iraq, that means with the Ba'ath party still intact, maybe even including Saddam's Tikriti friends relations. They run most military large business organisations huge parts of civil government media. After the city is ours, we let natural tendancies operate for a few months. Ie, payback time. The citizens know who needs to hang better than we do. The blind eye lets the eye-for-an-eye cleanse society. We'll of course save a few of the bigger trophies for wartrial photo-ops.
Re: What shall we do with a bad government...
Quoting Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED]: What bullshit. You just suck right up to those war criminals don't you? Do you work for them too? No, I just refuse to allow lies to go unchallenged by a bunch of bloodthirsty peaceniks who want to see US troops gassed, shot, blown-up, or nuked. The use of force in Iraq is legal. I believe that France, Russia, and Germany are not against this war on principle but due to their ill treatment by Bush's diplomatic style (or lack thereof). Their fear is not Iraqi regime change or civilian casualties but American hegemony. Immediately after September 11th, the world's leaders came together behind the US: I want to express to you my deep condolences and my unlimited solidarity to you and the American people. -- Schroeder In these terrible circumstances, all French people stand by the American people. We express our friendship and solidarity in this tragedy. -- Chirac The entire international community should unite in the struggle against terrorism... this is a blatant challenge to humanity. -- Putin Many of Europe's leading countries backed up their words by invoking the NATO Article V mutual defense clause. Schroeder felt so strongly about the need to aid Germany's friend and ally, he was willing to face a no confidence vote to send German troops to Afghanistan. As thanks for his support, Bush initially refused to accept NATO's help and then refused to share in any decision-making. In less than two months, Bush managed to make a diplomatic enemy out of an ally. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists -- Bush Ever since September 11th, Bush has gone out of his way to tell the world that the US is going to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. At the same time that the US rejects European initiatives like the ICC, it expects Europe to blindly sign any resolution it brings to the UN. Even if a member of the Council were to agree with the US, how could it justify support to its people when the US constantly threatens and marginalizes it? Bush is a cowboy and its high time he was thrown from the horse. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not oppose it
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: George Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Libertarian statement on Iraq invasion Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:38:51 -0500 === NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY 2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100 Washington DC 20037 World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org === For release: March 20, 2003 === For additional information: George Getz, Communications Director Phone: (202) 333-0008 ext. 222 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] === Libertarians express concern for U.S. troops and urge quick end to war in Iraq WASHINGTON, DC - Statement by Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq: On behalf of the Libertarian Party, I wish to express our deep concern for the U.S. troops currently engaged in war in Iraq, and urge the government to end the conflict quickly and with as few casualties as possible. Though it is difficult for Americans who have never fought in battle to imagine a soldier's fear and bravery, it is easy to imagine the anguish that every family will feel for their sons and daughters who never return. For that reason it is essential that the government make every effort to minimize casualties on both sides in this conflict. Libertarians believe that all Americans should give moral support to our troops, and we urge those who are opposed to the war not to blame soldiers for the misjudgments of politicians. Sadly, this war may extract horrific costs not only from governments and soldiers but from American society. More terrorist acts may yet be committed inside our borders; relationships with our friends and allies could be forever diminished; and the financial costs of war could be catastrophic to an already stumbling economy. Because Libertarians believe in limited, constitutional government, we are disappointed that President Bush declined to seek a formal declaration of war as clearly required by Article I, Section 8 of that document. By acquiescing to the president, Congress has abdicated its responsibility as well. The Libertarian Party also urges the administration to abandon its plans for an occupation of Iraq - a policy that would further inflame anti-American sentiment in the region without benefiting the United States in any way. Though Mr. Bush promises that democracy will soon sprout from dictatorship in Iraq, the results of U.S. military involvement in Panama, Haiti, Kuwait, Afghanistan and other nations indicates that such promises are far easier to make than they are to keep. Finally, we would remind the nation that the traditional American values of peace, freedom, and military non-intervention have served this country well in the past and should be embraced again. To that end, we hope that our political leaders can summon the wisdom to bring our armed forces home from Iraq.
Compare the wishy-washy Libertarian statement to the Green Party
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:01:33 -0800 (PST) From: DC Statehood Green Party [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: GREEN PARTY RELEASE Bush, launcing attack, is now indictable on war crimes charges To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] THE GREEN PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES MEDIA RELEASE For immediate release: Thursday, March 20, 2003 Contacts: Nancy Allen, Media Coordinator, 207-326-4576, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, [EMAIL PROTECTED] AS THE INVASION OF IRAQ BEGINS, GREENS CALL BUSH INDICTABLE FOR WAR CRIMES [O]ur position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. -- Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, U.S. Representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, August 12, 1945, speaking on the culpability of German leaders WASHINGTON, DC -- As President Bush gave orders launching the invasion of Iraq, the Green Party of the United States reaffirmed its opposition to the war and demand for the withdrawal of troops, quoting Theodore Roosevelt: To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. (Remarks in 1918 on President Woodrow Wilson's suppression of dissent against U.S. involvement in World War I) Pledging to maintain protests and other nonviolent action, Greens called the invasion a war of conquest and warned that President Bush and White House officials may find themselves indicted for numerous violations of U.S. and international law. Greens and other antiwar activists are organizing emergency responses to the invasion, including a recall campaign, initiated by PeaceEconomy.org, against prowar Congressmembers who violated their oath to uphold the Constitution by surrendering their power to declare war. The success of the U.N. inspections has only proven the need for continued diplomatic efforts undertaken in cooperation with the international community, said Annie Goeke, co-chair of the party's International Committee. Nowhere in Resolution 1441 is there language that requires overthrowing the government of Iraq in a bloody invasion. There is no legal or moral basis for this war. Greens listed several examples of crimes that may make Bush and other White House officials vulnerable to domestic prosecution and to Nuremburg-style international trials: CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS: Military aggression and conquest violate the constitutionally mandated role of U.S. armed forces. (Article I, Section 8; Article IV, Section 4) VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (U.N. Charter; Geneva Convention): Preemptive invasion without proof of an imminent attack is an illegal act of military aggression. The Bush Administration has never proved that an attack by Saddam on the U.S. or any other country is imminent. The mission of the U.N. is to avert war, not to rubberstamp invasions. LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE WORLD: President Bush, Secretary of State Powell, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and other officials have lied about the weapons capability of Iraq, including nuclear, bio, and chemical arms (Iraq has no means to deliver them); about connections between Saddam and al-Qaeda (which seeks to overthrow Saddam); about Saddam's involvement in terrorism against the U.S. (no evidence); about the U.S.'s intention to establish democracy in Iraq. In his January 28 State of the Union address, Bush used a paranoid fantasy scenario to justify war: Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. -- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials, April 18, 1946 RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT: While Bush claims that the war on Iraq is necessary for homeland security, the invasion will result in terrorist retaliation against Americans at home and abroad. While Bush expresses concern for Iraqi civilians, the U.S. plans for a shock and awe campaign, with a massive missile attack on Baghdad, and intends to use cluster bombs and landmines, which will kill and maim thousands of civilians. The U.S. will also use depleted uranium, despite the severe health problems it caused American soldiers and Iraqi civilians in the last Persian Gulf War. The U.S.'s illegal coercive techniques in the treatment of al-Qaeda prisoners, with some prisoners sent to Egypt and other countries that use torture openly, places U.S. soldiers who are captured at grave risk of torture. SUBTERFUGE: U.S. intelligence sabotaged the U.N. inspections in Iraq by withholding crucial information from the inspectors about Saddam Hussein's arsenal -- evident in
When is iraq expected to fall.
hi, how long does US analysts expect iraq to be completely occupied by US and allied troops? Regards Sarath. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Re: Fwd: Informer alert: War begins in Iraq
Stuart writes: War has been declared against Iraq by the US President George Bush. Initial air strikes have been launched on Baghdad, which the US said were targeted at senior Iraqi leaders. British forces have not yet been involved and the order to begin a ground war has not been given. May thousands of AmeriKKKan troops die painfully, along with their handlers on the East Coast, as a deterrent to future illegal wars of aggression. May the world recognize that the UN can perform no other function than to crawl on its hands and knees to kiss AmeriKKKa's ass, and cease to take it seriously. May the anti-war movement paralyze AmeriKKKa with demonstrations and work stoppages, and cause consequences of significance to the economy and standard of living of the world's war-monger. May the AmeriKKKan people cease to send their tax dollars to the Racist Apartheid Zionist Entity, where they are spent to kill Palestinian children with AmeriKKKan weapons, and run over peace activists multiple times with AmeriKKKan bulldozers, and then attack and teargas the memorial service. May Ariel Sharon and George W. Bush be forced to face their victims in an international court of law, and be tried and sentenced appropriately. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
The Mechanics of Skyscraper Collapse
Tim Wrote: With no chance for evacuation, and with a one-fifth of a mile high building toppling sideways, fatalities might have reached 30,000 or more. I'm not a structural engineer, but given that lateral structural strength is likely only a fraction of vertical structural strength, it doesn't seem to me that a tower like the WTC can do anything but collapse downwards. One would think that when you began to tip it, it would fall apart long before you got the center of gravity where it didn't lie over the base. Can a skyscraper really tip over intact, and flatten a distance on the ground equal to its height? Perhaps John Young could leap in here with a professional opinion. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
It was held back because of one of the terrorist events which that other actor, Tyler Durden, tells us don't happen here in America. Well, I wasn't EXACTLY trying to claim there's actually no terrorism here in the US (aside from our exportation of it, that is). BUT, the low numbers do bare investigation. My thought is that the number of militant Muslims actually willing to kill us is very, very minimal, otherwise we'd be seeing it all the time. Rather, our own government has leveraged the small amount of activities to whip us all up into a complete frenzy, so that we'd cower behind our big, protective government. (hum...kind of like Terrorism, except you only need to reap the harvest of someone else's work...didn't someone just post that?) Do I believe this? Tyler Durden is willing to for the sake of argument (and if anybody else puts quote marks around my name I'm gonna come grab you and make you front-n-center in our little club Tuesday nights!!!) -TD From: Tim May [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 15:57:39 -0800 On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 12:57 PM, Bill Stewart wrote: At 01:37 PM 03/19/2003 -0500, Tyler Durden wrote: But as it the only terrorist attack (from non-US citizens, that is), was on 9/11/01. Were there ANY others? Sure. Besides the earlier truck-bombing of the WTC, there were Waco and Ruby Ridge. (Or do you only count terrorism if it's done by enemies of the state?) WTC #1 was a critical example. Yeah, it semi-fizzled and did limited damage, but mainly because of luck. I'm not a building engineer, but those who are have said that had the van filled with high explosives parked where the van owners had planned to park it, it probably would have toppled the tower into the other tower and then both would have toppled. With no chance for evacuation, and with a one-fifth of a mile high building toppling sideways, fatalities might have reached 30,000 or more. Also: -- the attempted simultaneous bombing of a bunch of American airliners, mostly flying between the Far East and the West Coast. (This was thwarted, but was actively planned and might have happened. Anyone saying Were there ANY others? must count this as a credible attempt. Apparently the plan even back then, mid-90s, was to fly a hijacked plane into a target.) -- the truck bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983...about 300 Marines killed. (Tyler Durden will probably claim that this was not on U.S. soil, but it's a distinction without a difference.) -- the Gander, Newfoundland mid-air explosion of an aircraft carrying U.S. troops ( Arrow Air, DC-8). Much evidence of connections with U.S. troops having been in the Mideast beforehand, Islamic Jihad claiming credit, and other cases where explosives and detcord were found on troop transports. Cf. this site for details: http://www.sandford.org/gandercrash/investigations/minority_report/ html/_5.shtml -- Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. U.S.S. Cole attack. Etc. (It is unclear to me from the section Bill quoted whether Tyler Durden was referring to terrorist attacks in general or only those on U.S. soil. If he meant to exclude European, Canadian, Far Easternor Middle Eastern attacks -- the arrest of the guy at the U.S. border near Vancouver with explosives in his trunk, supposed to use during the Millennium celebrations in L.A. And so on. Tim talked about people driving gasoline trucks into malls. A couple of years ago, somebody drove one into the California state capitol building and got killed; the early reports suggest that he was a parolee with a grudge against the governor. And he also did it at night. And he drove into a doorway, but bounced off a couple of walls. Compared to the average shopping mall with a glass curtain entrance, the California State Capitol Building is a hard target. (BTW, many office buildings are already somewhat hardened against vans loaded with gasoline or explosives. For example, Intel's main building in Santa Clara, the Robert Noyce Building, has extensive barrier blocking a suicide bomber from getting through the glass curtain wall...though there are other places a van or truck could get through.) A movie which I recommend for various reasons is Arlington Road. It's about vengeance, about truck bombs, about conspiracies. Tim Robbins and Jeff Bridges star. It was held back because of one of the terrorist events which that other actor, Tyler Durden, tells us don't happen here in America. And the movie has not been widely publicized. But I recommend it, despite a few flaws. It has a climax which put a huge grin on my face. Short of filming Clancy's Debt of Honor, with its Sato Solution, this is a pretty good substitute. Those who have seen Arlington Road will know what I am talking about. Please, don't give anything away here. Tim also
Re: terror alert black
I've heard that for terror alert black we're all supposed to down a few 100 milligrams of valium, and stay in our beds, butts-up. For hidden weapons inspections, of course. -TD From: Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: terror alert red Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:31:59 -0600 Has anyone heard any more about the announcement made by the NJ gov that if we go to the next level -- red -- that everyone is confined to their houses? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com We are now in America's Darkest Hour. http://www.oshkoshbygosh.org hoka hey! _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
Good work, Shaddack. Gold star and smiley face. My father has mentioned the Texas City incident a few times while growing up (he grew up in Galveston). He remembers that it basically dissappeared in a giant fireball, and there was never an explanation. So of course I'l send him these links. -TD From: Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: cypherpunks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 21:55:17 +0100 (CET) On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Tim May wrote: Having seen Vietnam (the war, not the country), and having seen today's media frenzies and rampant consumerism, I think American resolve will fold if 5000 deaths of Americans occur in Iraq. There is no solid American resolve. Most of the yes voices are backed by the thinking that what the current Authority says has to be Good Thing. It shouldn't take much to make them doubt; once then, the already-weak resolve will crumble to shards. The 100 or so deaths of Americans in 1991 was tolerable, but anything approaching the multiple thousands will trigger a paroxysm of Why are we there? and Congress never authorized this! and Bring our boys home sentiments. The sooner, the better. Hope it won't be TOO late. (And yet South Korean students and others are spitting on U.S. soldiers, yammering about U.S. out of Korea!, etc. I say we give them their wish. Ditto for Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe. ...and my government is pondering to offer them a whole base with an airport... *sigh* Russians out, Americans in, change the flag, continue bowing. It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear blast, about what the Davy Crockett U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs, provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a similar yield. Quite easily. The blast wave, if the explosion would be on the ground, will be greatly attenuated by the surrounding structures. Lots of nonfatal but medially attractive bloody injuries by flying glass, though. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons, according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on the ground. We shouldn't forget the targets were selected for their softness. Lots of mostly wooden buildings, easy to incinerate, easy to crush with the blast wave. The buildings that were built from solid concrete mostly survived, though damaged; that one with the well-known dome (I think it's a museum now) was, by the way, designed by a Czech architect. (We have a dome with the same construction in Prague, though the building itself is different.) We also shouldn't forget that there were countless nameless similar Japanese towns firebombed into oblivion, but Hiroshima took all the fame, despite of no bigger degree of destruction. A novel I read a few years ago is quite prescient: Osama Bin Laden sends a freighter into San Francisco harbor with a Russian suitcase nuke. Here's the blurb for Joshua's Hammer, David Hagberg, August 2000 (first mass market June 2001...I must have read it soon after the paperback came out, as I remembered the novel when 911 happened): If you want to sacrifice a cargo ship, you can use plain old ammonium nitrate, which is cheaper than a nuke (including the ship) and doesn't expose you to radiation detectors and gamma cameras. There are precedents to study. Check April 16 1947, Texas City, TX: http://www.rmstitanichistory.com/grandcamp/grandcamp.html http://www.firefightersrealstories.com/monsanto.html http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0060185414 (surprising piece of info was that the US Government was shipping NH4NO3 from Europe, then became moving it through Texas City port, without telling the locals about the danger of the substance, hence keeping them unprepared (and unprotesting - neighbouring ports who knew the material properties reportedly banned the ships carrying them). For more general link, check http://web1.caryacademy.org/chemistry/rushin/StudentProjects/CompoundWebSites/2001/AmmoniumNitrate/history.htm (especially juicy is the bit about how the explosive properties of ammonium nitrate were discovered by accident, in the first paragraph). Or this: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1138.htm Mentions an accidental explosion in the city of Roseburg, OR, 1959. Many more accidents mentioned here: http://www.uneptie.org/pc/apell/disasters/toulouse/other_accidents.htm Who needs nukes? Who *wants* nukes? The cheapest way for a terrorist group will be to wait until a snafu happens, then take the blame. The news will widely report it was a terrorist attack on front pages. Couple days/weeks/months later, when it will turn out that it was just a technological failure, the report appears on fifth pages of the news. Most of the headlines-scanning public will still believe it
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
-- On 19 Mar 2003 at 14:53, Tyler Durden wrote: I agree the above would be bullshit if it weren't on some occasions demonstrably true. After the US helped get the Taliban rolling (through providing them with stingers and other weapons as well as subversive opps training to knock out the soviets), The Taliban did not exist back then. The guys the US aided were for the most part, the guys that are running Afghanistan now. The major recipients of US aid, for example the lion of Afghanistan were the people the Taliban murdered. The story you are telling is part of a big commie lie -- that the US aided the bigoted Taliban against the elightened communists who created a constitutional democracy where every man and every women have a vote, and universal education and health care were guaranteed, etc. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 7RHG6436iyu0CEZRgLVbrRD6e9vztOYBLPDj87tj 47sltWxQU907jJOEeQwyKRWdG0+3Gl04FmdgDHSqa
Re: Libertarian Party expresses concern over war -- but does not
Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force is to protect them from their slaves. It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the right of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of some disarmed third world country to steal its oil and advance the cause of the Jews. WASHINGTON, DC - Statement by Geoffrey Neale, national chairman of the Libertarian Party, in response to the U.S. invasion of Iraq: On behalf of the Libertarian Party, I wish to express our deep concern for the U.S. troops currently engaged in war in Iraq, and urge the government to end the conflict quickly and with as few casualties as possible. This is like opposing gassing, but expressing support for the gas chamber operators. Bush is a criminal. The war is a war of aggression in violation of international law, and the troops are criminals carrying out illegal orders. So let's drop the support for the troops canard. No doubt Bush wishes to do away with absolute national sovereignty the same way he did away with the UN. Though it is difficult for Americans who have never fought in battle to imagine a soldier's fear and bravery, it is easy to imagine the anguish that every family will feel for their sons and daughters who never return. It's unlikely the American cowards will sustain any casualties, aside from friendly fire accidents. Iraq is disarmed, and generations behind in weaponry. Any suggestion that the country poses a threat is merely propaganda to make our soldiers look less like pussies kicking the shit out of a one-armed man. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
