JDG wrote:
O.k., I presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that
Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce chemical weapons.
I also presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that
Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce anthrax, and possibly
other
Nick Arnett wrote:
JDG wrote:
O.k., I presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that
Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce chemical weapons.
I also presume that you believed then and continue to believe now that
Baathist Iraq had the capability to mass produce anthrax,
On Dec 24, 2004, at 10:12 AM, JDG wrote:
At 12:29 PM 12/18/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their purpose was to pull
the
West into the region in order to touch off a larger conflict. If it
was
to actually try to expand their borders, they were nuts, a
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 18:44:28 -0500, maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You've a good point there. I think Hussein has been widely under-rated;
I've been hearing things about
how he made preparations to aid the insurgency while the US was building
up to an invasion (but obviously
its been more
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:38:37 -0800 (PST), Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their
purpose was to pull the
West into the region in order to touch off a larger
conflict. If it was
to actually try to
On Dec 17, 2004, at 9:34 PM, JDG wrote:
At 11:31 AM 12/17/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
I won't argue with that. I don't think that constitutes attacking the
United States, though.
So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing
down a country's aircraft ordinarily
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote,
I remember reading a long time ago that Saddam had quietly
informed the White House before the Kuwait invasion, and taken the
official silence as tacit consent. Any truth to this?
According to a partial transcript at
Ah, good ol' TOTSE. I haven't been there in a long time...
But I find interesting the segment which goes:
'We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your
dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to
emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in
At 11:47 PM 12/17/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a
country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said
country?
It now seems inescapable that you are saying the very thing I imagined:
We invaded Iraq.
I
JDG wrote:
I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when we
invaded Iraq.
I think the label is appropriate any time one nation's military enters
the other's territory uninvited, destroys stuff and kills people.
Refusing this ordinary way of talking strikes me as less than
At 11:04 AM 12/18/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
I don't think that I would describe Gulf War I as an instance when we
invaded Iraq.
I think the label is appropriate any time one nation's military enters
the other's territory uninvited, destroys stuff and kills people.
Refusing this
JDG wrote:
Later in this post, you make a distinction between tactical and
strategic language.Do you agree that while US actions in Iraq in Gulf
War I could be called an invasion in the tactical sense, they would not
be described as an invasion in the strategic sense?
I think that anything
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll add that when you said I was being
sanctimonious, I felt a bit
pissed off. You don't know what I'm feeling unless
I tell you.
I hope this all doesn't seem hopelessly pedantic. I
believe that
language is one of the most important tools for
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can only see it as strategic to Iraq if their
purpose was to pull the
West into the region in order to touch off a larger
conflict. If it was
to actually try to expand their borders, they were
nuts, a possibility
that cannot be discounted!
You've a good point there. I think Hussein has been widely under-rated;
I've been hearing things about
how he made preparations to aid the insurgency while the US was building
up to an invasion (but obviously
its been more successful than Hitler's plans along those lines). Also,
I remember
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
I hope this all doesn't seem hopelessly pedantic. I
believe that
language is one of the most important tools for
peacemaking.
Geez, Nick, then stop using it as a tool to hinder
communication.
What's the antecedent of it in that sentence? Are you saying that it
appears
On Dec 18, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
If you don't
want to be seen as sanctimonious, stop being such a
jerk every time someone disagrees with you. You're
heading for Brin levels, for God's sake, and he may be
the most obnoxious human being I've ever communicated
with for any period
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Jesus Howard Christ.
I think it's spectacularly poor form to insult the person whose list a
given group nominally is. If you really feel that Nick is
sanctimonious and arrogant or behaves like a jerk with those who
disagree with him (pot/kettle if ever I saw it) and
At 11:31 AM 12/17/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
I won't argue with that. I don't think that constitutes attacking the
United States, though.
So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a
country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country?
JDG wrote:
So, you would disagree that firing shots with the intent of bringing down a
country's aircraft ordinarily constitutes an act of war against said country?
It now seems inescapable that you are saying the very thing I imagined:
We invaded Iraq.
They shot at our airplanes that were flying
20 matches
Mail list logo
