* Bryon Daly [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 18:14 -0500]
Jean-Marc Chaton wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500]
It is true that the indefensible position of the French (no war
ever no matter what) made things more difficult.
It was not the position of France. It was 'no
* Gautam Mukunda [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 13:49 -0800]
Note, for example, two simple actions by France:
1. They publicly threatened the Eastern European
candidate countries with blackballing from EU
membership for supporting the US and
2. It is now revealed that they did the same to
Turkey,
JDG wrote:
Lastly, the total cost of the war is:
Total Cost = Wait Costs + War Costs
If we consider that War Costs is fixed, (...)
But it is *not* fixed. The USA coalition could
wait another 30 years, when the Iraqi population
would be all over 50 [all iq children would die
after
At 11:34 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Horn, John wrote:
From: Kevin Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's
*America*
who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost)
never acted in an
imperialistic manner, the country that has helped
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Sonja van Baardwijk wrote:
No matter what you percieved as fact it still is no reason whatsoever
to not be polite. If you wanne make it personal and fight it out
dirty, take it off-list. On-list we are nice to each other and give on
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
America just doesn't things like this.
Like what? Overthrow dictatorships that have invaded another
country and
have the potential to destabilize the world? What about the
Balkans? That
had no basis in UN resolutions at all. Yes, France
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 11:34 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Horn, John wrote:
From: Kevin Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's
*America*
who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost)
never acted in an
imperialistic
--- Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in links to support your point 2. To
my knowledge France
hasn't got a particular link or lever with Turkey.
Germany has, though,
due to historial, sociological (large part of its
population is Turkish)
, and economical. But I
--- Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think France, as the broad majority of the
council, was agreeing with
the necessity of a verifiable set of compliance
tests, with the presence
of a deadline (which length was under discussion)
and the presence of
the threat of military action.
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
--- Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm interested in links to support your
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Turkey joined the EU, then it would have
overwheming repercussions,
right? Wouldn't Turkish citizens have the same
right to travel, work, and
live anywhere in Europe, passing through customs
with a wave like I've seen
other EU members do now?
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
No, but I think that's correct. Germany is doing this
in part because Schroeder dislikes the US (and Fischer
is an ex-terrorist, for goodness sake - I don't see
why people don't make a bigger deal of that)
Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:41:51PM -0300, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the Ministers of
the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too.
Brazilian Ministers go around scaring former's and previously's and used
to be's?
JDG wrote:
I developed that statistic myself, and AFAIK, I'm the only person that
I've
seen use it. :)
Russell Chapman replied:
It can't be too wrong, based on the size of the deployed force and the US
population...
Hmmm, now that you mention it, it may have only been here that I've seen
that
Erik Reuter wrote:
Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the
Ministers of the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too.
Brazilian Ministers go around scaring former's and
previously's and used to be's?
I don't understand what you are talking
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 02:51:00PM -0300, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
Because an ex-terrorist is not a terrorist. Lots of the Ministers
of the current gov.br are ex-terrorists too.
Brazilian Ministers go around scaring former's and previously's
Erik Reuter wrote:
I don't understand what you are talking about.
You previously interpreted A B where A=terrorist
and B=killer to mean someone who kills terrorists.
So, if A=ex- and B=terrorist, the Alberto
interpretation should be someone who terrorizes ex'es.
JDG wrote:
Lastly, the total cost of the war is:
Total Cost = Wait Costs + War Costs
If we consider that War Costs is fixed, (...)
Alberto replied:
But it is *not* fixed. The USA coalition could
wait another 30 years, when the Iraqi population
would be all over 50 [all iq children would die
Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 11:37 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention
is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in
creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK.
How about a push for a
Well actually I wasn't referring to Iran. I should have mentioned that. It
was more in the region of Saudi Arabia and such that I was thinking.
Sonja
I was proven wrong anyway. But I still don't think the tone of the story
you read, or heard, was quite right. Then again, we did a few foolish
Let me ask the question a little differently, then (not just for Kevin,
but for anyone who wishes to respond):
Is there anyone who is strongly opposed to this war in Iraq (e.g., who has
been speaking out against it, protesting it, etc.) who supports Bush and
thinks he is a good (or at least
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking of a friend this morning. I know
he's 100% anti-bush
and he's 100% pro war. He said things after 9/11
that would have made Pat
Buchanan blush.
Kevin T.
Heather MacDonald at the Manhattan Institute is at
least a conservative
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And you think the rest of the world will not feel
(in some way or other)
the consequences of US retaliation for the
destruction of New York?
Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk
I think that everything anyone
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 12:59 01-04-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
And you think the rest of the world will not feel (in some way or
other) the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of
New York?
I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about your politics
is
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I think you should stick to attacking arguments
and not the poster.
Sonja
And I think your husband could, perhaps, strive harder
to avoid giving the impression that he wouldn't
particularly regret such attacks as long as they were
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I think you should stick to attacking arguments
and not the poster.
Sonja
And I think your husband could, perhaps, strive harder
to avoid giving the impression that he wouldn't
particularly regret such attacks as
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 07:31:45PM +0200, Sonja van Baardwijk wrote:
No matter what you percieved as fact it still is no reason whatsoever
to not be polite. If you wanne make it personal and fight it out
dirty, take it off-list. On-list we are nice to each other and give on
another the
At 07:15 01-04-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
As such, by not launching the war now, if you were George Bush, would you
be prepared to bear the following costs of waiting until September to let
a dictator whom we know with certainty will try and succeed at hiding
*something* from inspectors
At 07:55 02-04-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Sonja van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And I think you should stick to attacking arguments
and not the poster.
And I think your husband could, perhaps, strive harder to avoid giving the
impression that he wouldn't particularly regret
JDG wrote:
-Leaving 1 in every 1,000 Americans away from their families, loved
ones, and jobs for an extended period of time.
Jeroen replied:
Away from their jobs? The US doesn't have the draft, so for all those
soldiers being a soldier *is* their job. Therefore they are not kept away
from
-Original Message-
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 01:43 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to go are not
full-time members
At 15:43 02-04-03 -0600, Ronn Blankenship wrote:
Or, since you work for the Dutch department of defense, if they have
reserves who are subject to callup, perhaps you know some of those reserve
members who have been called up in the past and you could ask them.
So far it has never been necessary
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], J. van Baardwijk
I am absolutely baffled that people can consider the reasons below
to be
valid reasons for starting the war.
Sorry, but I must correct the above woeful mischaracterization of my
post.
I did not list in the previous posts reasons for, quote,
At 02:00 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote:
Many of the soldiers who are now in Iraq or preparing to go are not
full-time members of the armed forces but rather are members of the
National Guard or Reserve who have full-time civilian jobs
and who drill
with their military units on
At 03:18 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Reggie Bautista wrote:
I don't have the stats handy as to how many reservists have been called up,
but it's been widely reported that 1 in 1000 Americans is the neighborhood
of Iraq and involved in the current military operations there.
How widely?
I developed that
At 02:25 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 Miller, Jeffrey wrote:
False or not, its a lame reason to start a war before you're ready.
Uhhh we were ready, as was widely reported in all major news outlets.
The only questions was whether for *political* not *military* reasons, the
war should be postponed until
John D. Giorgis wrote:
I developed that statistic myself, and AFAIK, I'm the only person that I've
seen use it. :)
It can't be too wrong, based on the size of the deployed force and the
US population...
___
From: Kevin Street [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The thing that bothers me so much here is that this time it's
*America*
who's the aggressor. The one major power that has (almost)
never acted in an
imperialistic manner, the country that has helped other
nations far more
than it has harmed
- Original Message -
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 11:34 PM
Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Yes, I think I've said before that this is exactly my biggest problem
with
the whole
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating weapons embargoes on countries like NK.
How about a push for a moratorium on the export of artillery and tanks and the like?
At 11:37 AM 4/1/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Where the peace movement should focus a large share of its attention is
upon the weapons manufacturers in their own nations and in creating
weapons embargoes on countries like NK.
How about a push for a moratorium on the export of
Tom Beck wrote:
But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching
war. We _weren't_ doing nothing. You can argue that
the inspections were or were not working,
but they were _something_. Were they enough?
We'll never know now.
Yeah, and the was the Embargo! 12 years of
At 08:16 PM 3/31/2003 -0700 Kevin Street wrote:
or a
world where all the nations work together and rogue states are brought back
into the international community - a world where we can help places like
North Korea, Somalia and Iraq bcome more civilized by opening our
civilization up to them,
At 09:44 PM 3/31/2003 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this is a false dichotomy - doing nothing or launching war. We _weren't_
doing nothing. You can argue that the inspections were or were not working,
but they were _something_. Were they enough? We'll never know now.
Au Contraire. Let's
JDG wrote:
Those nations closest to doing this are the USA, UK,
Australia, and Poland that are doing the most to
establish Western Civilization for the first
time in the Arab World.
For Poland, this is not the first time O:-)
Alberto Monteiro
In a message dated 4/1/03 6:36:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yeah, and the was the Embargo! 12 years of siege warfare
against Iraq to prevent Saddam from buying weapons,
and now we know that the _only_ think that Saddam bought
in this period was... weapons.
Again, it's a false
* Kevin Tarr [Tue, 01/04/2003 at 06:20 -0500]
...
From what I've read, the US was only interested in having both countries
fight, neither of them gaining the upper hand. This does not mean the US
encouraged Iraq to attack or supplied either side with weapons.
...
I've read that WP article
At 19:22 31-03-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
act has been committed. Hopefully, no one will ever be stupid enough
to attempt to destroy New York or anywhere else with weapons of mass
destruction - but unfortunately, that's a risk we all have to live with.
No. It's a risk _I_ have to live
--- J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
And you think the rest of the world will not feel
(in some way or other)
the consequences of US retaliation for the
destruction of New York?
Jeroen Make love, not war van Baardwijk
I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about
your
At 20:01 2003-03-31 -0600, rob wrote:
Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of
protest over it.
China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison.
A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in
foreign policy.
But the rest of
At 04:26 PM 3/31/03 -0700, Kevin Street wrote:
Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right
now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention...
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military
action in Iraq
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500]
It is true that the indefensible position
of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult.
It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as progresses
were made'
--
Jean-Marc
--- Jean-Marc Chaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500]
It is true that the indefensible position
of the French (no war ever no matter what) made
things more difficult.
It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as
long as progresses
At 12:59 01-04-03 -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
And you think the rest of the world will not feel (in some way or
other) the consequences of US retaliation for the destruction of
New York?
I think that everything anyone ever wants to say about your politics is
encapsulated, Jeroen, in the
Jean-Marc Chaton wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Mon, 31/03/2003 at 21:44 -0500]
It is true that the indefensible position
of the French (no war ever no matter what) made things more difficult.
It was not the position of France. It was 'no war as long as progresses
were made'
Two problems
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
What the French government, in its quest to attack the
United States in this affair, didn't realize is that
American politics are not like French politics. What
the people think in the United States has a real
influence on foreign policy. And the people, right
now,
Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right
now, but this post just jumped out and demanded attention...
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the current military
action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed to
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right
now
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example,
N. Korea without the
ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul.
Would it have been wrong
to stop their development of nuclear weapons and
ICBMs? Why is stopping
them more frightening than
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 5:26 PM
Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Sorry if this is a late response. I'm I'm the middle of busy season right
now
I wrote:
As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President
Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of
pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really
frightens me that a gigantic nation like the United States would even
In a message dated 3/31/03 7:13:43 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In other words - do you reject all preventive actions?
In which case it seems to me that your argument is
that we should wait until _after_ New York is
destroyed to do something. As a New Yorker, I
disagree, and not terribly
Dan Minette wrote:
I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example,
N. Korea without the
ability to kill hundreds of thousands in Seoul.
Would it have been wrong
to stop their development of nuclear weapons and
ICBMs? Why is stopping
them more frightening than not stopping them?
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 8:54 PM
Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Dan Minette wrote:
I'm curious about this. Lets give a simple example,
N. Korea
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw this level of
protest over it.
China is still in Tibet and the protest is minimal in comparison.
A lot is made by the rest of the world of Americas inconsistencies in
foreign policy. But the rest of the
Dan Minette wrote:
If we use the criminal model for world affairs, we
will need to resign ourselves to a world where many small states and
terrorist have the ability to kill millions of people in any country.
That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster.
But that's the world we live in now,
--- Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why on Earth would Saddam Husein attack America?
He'd have to be an
idiot, since he has no territorial disputes with the
US, and no possible way
of beating them in a war. There's no reason.
He was willing to assassinate George Bush. What do
you
At 07:24 PM 3/31/2003 -0700, you wrote:
I wrote:
As a Canadian, I really don't care one way or the other about President
Bush. He's just a name on the news, really. But this Bush Doctrine of
pre-emptive warfare goes against everything I believe, and it really
frightens me that a gigantic
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Street [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 PM
Subject: RE: Question for those who are anti-war . . .
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Soviet Russia used to do things like this, and you never saw
--- Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipped all but the sig
But I liked new Coke so...
Why Kevin, and here I thought you were a patriotic
American! For shame, sir -- what, pray tell, was
wrong with the
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Hmm, I'll have to relay that information to my brother
in San Antonio -- before they changed the formula in
the States, he went and bought multiple *cases* of
'original' Coke. I think he drank the last about 2
years after the change-over...
I think my BIL got it at a
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there anyone who considers themselves opposed to the
current military
action in Iraq who does not also consider themselves opposed
to President Bush?
I'm the opposite. I am, generally, opposed to President Bush but am a
(somewhat
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipped all but the sig
But I liked new Coke so...
splutter, gag, choke on my tea!
Why Kevin, and here I thought you were a patriotic
American! For shame, sir -- what, pray tell, was
wrong with the tried and true original Coca-Cola!?!
The one made with
At 04:43 PM 3/25/03 -0800, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Just for that, I think I'll change my mind about
sending a picture of my blizzard kill** to Steve's
Brin-L pix... (**the rare and ephemeral snow stag,
with a nose as red as a marashino (sp!) cherry, eyes
dark as olives, and antlers like branches)
--- Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Just for that, I think I'll change my mind about
sending a picture of my blizzard kill** to
Steve's Brin-L pix... (**the rare and ephemeral
snow
stag, with a nose as red as a marashino (sp!)
cherry,
eyes dark as olives,
Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snipped all but the sig
But I liked new Coke so...
splutter, gag, choke on my tea!
Why Kevin, and here I thought you were a patriotic
American! For shame, sir -- what, pray tell, was
wrong with the tried and true
76 matches
Mail list logo
