Just finished reading the text of Bush's speech.
So, 48 hours -- I wish Saddam would take exile, but
that seems extremely unlikely.
Things that should have happened and didn't -- US
diplomacy before bullying, UN Security Council taking
firmer steps to convince SH that they meant *real*
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:09 PM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
I worry about them too, of course. Heck, I'm one of
them. But the only way I see this working out well
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given this assessment, it seems to me that we will
need a bit of
luck...unless the US has tricks up its sleeve that I
can't begin to
comprehend. Lets assume a reasonable worst case
scenario for what we
cannot control. The Republican guard decides
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:49:48 -0600
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
(And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
And yet. I feel that this particular course of action, and this
particular timing, has pretty much been force-fed to the American people
by a propaganda campaign based on scanty facts and half-truths to convince
us all that Hussein presents to America the same degree
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:04:26 -0600
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bryon Daly wrote:
I just came across this article that explores Bush's ineffective diplomacy and
the reasons behind it, and had been debating whether to post it.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-17-anti-diplomacy-usat_x.htm
Thanks. Here's another
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given this assessment, it seems to me that we will
need a bit
From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bush and Sharone are a lot of things but they aren't Nazis.
Of course not, the poster was obvious hyperbole, but not necessarily
anti-Semitic.
How about we agree to disagree? I don't think I'm gonna change your mind
and I'm not sure you are
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the next two days are important for this, right?
If they start
redeploying to Baghdad now, then the chances of
doing this are greatly
reduced.
Yes, very much so. According to NPR this morning,
interestingly enough, Baghdad is _not_ being
-Original Message-
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 01:45 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, the next two days are important for this, right?
If they start
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Mongolian Defense? (Show an obvious weakness
to
draw in your opponent, but be deployed to react to
such a move)
-j-
No, that involves superior tactical mobility, and
tactical mobility is one of the hallmarks of American
fighting forces. If
-Original Message-
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 02:11 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Who is the sheriff?
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Mongolian Defense? (Show an obvious weakness
to
draw
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 10:37 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd
outlining what a
snipped
John,
If you could tell me how to get a copy of that paper,
or post it, or a URL, or something like that, I would
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boyd is a fascinating man, and I plan to read Robert
Coram's biography
of Boyd after Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark.
john
I'm not a big fan of Wes Clark's, but I am looking
forward to the Coram bio. I have to ask my USAF
friend what he thinks
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 11:30 PM, Reggie Bautista wrote:
John Garcia wrote:
I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a
military force organized on his principles of strategy would look
like. ...
What I can glean from the public statements made by our
On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 08:59 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boyd is a fascinating man, and I plan to read Robert
Coram's biography
of Boyd after Waging Modern War by Wesley Clark.
john
I'm not a big fan of Wes Clark's, but I am looking
forward to the
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
john
ps good luck to your friend.
John - thanks. He'll need it - but his enemies will
need it a lot more. A different USAF pilot described
him to me as someone who would cause the Red Baron to
expletive deleted his pants if he found out they
were in
iaamoac wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops
prepared^^
to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf.
Typo correction:
From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize more than the holocaust. I
associate
fascism, secret police and several other nasty things with
him and his
regime.
I think it's in poor taste but not anti-Semitic.
(It's taken me a long time to get a
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:07:44 -0600
From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We do NOT all look alike! ;-)
Too
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
Horn, John wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why? Hitler and Nazism symbolize
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
Horn, John wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs
On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
say) to listen more than talk. And I think it does me good to just
listen to what you and Gautam and John G., for instance, have to say.
Not that you meant it that way, but it struck me as funny that you
grouped me in with JDG politically. I
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced
persuasive pro-war
arguments that made me stop and think about my
prejudices and fears.
Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be seen.
Marvin Long
Why thank you Marvin. I'm not
- Original Message -
From: Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right
now I can barely think straight. As far as I can
tell
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Why thank you Marvin. I'm not posting right now
(except for this) I did 110+ hours at the office last
week (including 2:00am Saturday, which _sucked_, let
me tell you) and would be looking at the same this
week, except I leave for Denmark on
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced
persuasive pro-war
arguments that made me stop and think about my
prejudices and fears.
Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:53:13PM -, iaamoac wrote:
struggle, both in terms of the stakes (the survival of western
civilization) and the costs (tremendous sacrifice by almost all
I really don't think 'western civilization' is at stake here... kind of
overdramatising.
--
Paul
*
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're welcome. Get some sleep.
Not part of the job description, unfortunately :-(
It's the
people on *this* side of
the Atlantic I worry about.
Marvin Long
I worry about them too, of course. Heck, I'm one of
them. But the only way I see
John G said:
Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik -
Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly
right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before
it goes nuclear, the prospects for Western Civilization in the
Terrorism Age
At 11:39 AM 3/17/03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:07:44 -0600
From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL
From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up that
*other* slang
meaning of John . . .)
That's one of the jokes I had in mind...
Sometimes I hate my name...
- jmh
___
At 11:21 AM 3/17/03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:36:41PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
Terrorism being pretty much such organised use of violence by
non-state groups, the War Against Terror is perhaps better seen as
an attempt to uphold and strengthen the monopoly of states on the
machinery of modern warfare.
I
At 09:36 PM 3/17/03 +, Richard Baker wrote:
John G said:
Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik -
Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly
right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before
it goes nuclear, the prospects for
Horn, John wrote:
(It's taken me a long time to get a chance to answer this one...)
Well it would help if I had referred to the right person. 8^)
It seems to me that 99 times out 100, when you see a swastica it is being
used in either an anti-Semitic or racist manner and is being used to
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We'll see what happens in a couple of days, I guess.
Pondering the
vagaries of human psychology, it seems to me that a
stunning and
spectacular victory might work as badly against us
as somewhat prolonged
and messy one. People fight an
At 11:07 AM 3/17/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
Horn, John wrote:
From: Doug Pensinger
On Monday, March 17, 2003, at 01:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ha! I group you three as people who have advanced
persuasive pro-war
arguments that made me stop and think about my
prejudices and fears.
Which remain, but their accuracy remains to be
--- John Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd
outlining what a
military force organized on his principles of
strategy would look like.
One of the interesting comments made was that
Sherman's campaign after
leaving Chattanooga and entering
Guatam wrote:
But if you think you're scared - I'm so jittery right
now I can barely think straight. As far as I can
tell, the battle plan looks like a template for 4th
generation warfare - OODA loops
Dan replied:
I had to look it up
http://www.mindsim.com/MindSim/Corporate/OODA.html
4th
John Garcia wrote:
I recently read a paper by an associate of John Boyd outlining what a
military force organized on his principles of strategy would look like.
...
What I can glean from the public statements made by our strategists, the
plan is to get inside the Iraqi's decision cycle (the
On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
What, btw, do you _want_ Marvin? If it goes well,
that's bad. But if it goes poorly, that's bad.
Sorry, that's my kneejerk pessimism again.
If we
don't do this, Saddam eventually gets nuclear weapons.
If we do do this, there's no outcome
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
(And I bet some people are glad that no one brought up that *other* slang
meaning of John . . .)
I was biting my tongue, figuratively speaking, actually.
I figured that nobody here by that name would appreciate any smart-alecky
remark I might make along those lines,
--- Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Check:
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/15/151.html
I believe there was an American Indian Tribe that
used the symbol as well.
And this site makes me think the Navajo rug I saw as a
child had the 'anti-swastika' (funny that I remember
the
Erik Reuter wrote:
Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than
the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be
more serious than a siege if you don't mean war
Siege with attitude?
Maybe. Bombing Iraq with pamphlets saying that Saddam
eats pork?
-Mensagem original-
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Para: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Data: Sábado, 15 de Março de 2003 18:00
Assunto: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message---
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authorizes Member States
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:19:25PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Are we running for the worst quoting technique of the lsit?
No, just talking about reinsurance companies.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
Erik Reuter wrote:
Great idea! I'll look into it. I've never been to a town meeting (or
know where and when they are held here), but this is a good time to find
that information and attend one.
Watch your local paper for information on it. Or contact your
representative. Your rep probably
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---Original Message---
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared
^^
to carry out this resolution in the lurch
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---Original Message---
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops
prepared
iaamoac wrote:
Actually... I meant hoisted... which means the same thing
as hosed.
Unfortunately, now we are being hosited, by leaving the US troops
prepared to carry this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf.
JDG - Not the best sentence I've ever written, Maru. :)
Hoisted is a little
At 18:28 14-03-03 -0500, Bryon Daly wrote:
Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN
where each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so
that no country can force its will upon others, and where all
decisions are made by all members, not a small
At 21:26 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
I do however think that keeping the pressure on high, while conducting
further peacefull inspections is probably the best bet for improvement
in the region. Then again I don't see how the US will be prevented from
going for the price... oops I mean ...
---Original Message---
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush
regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush
regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't
---Original Message---
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad idea. The Bush
regime decided to ignore those voices and set the stage for war anyway. If the Bush
regime is foolish enough to ignore good advice, it shouldn't
At 06:05 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
Yeah, so? There were plenty of voices saying that war was a bad
idea. The Bush regime decided to ignore those voices and set
the stage for war anyway. If the Bush regime is foolish enough
to ignore good advice, it shouldn't complain about the costs.
At 06:11 15-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
snip content
Er, John, is there a reason why you are sending each (or at least: most) of
your messages to the list *twice*?
Jeroen Casual Observations van Baardwijk
_
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:41:26PM -0600, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
That sounds good, but I think it's very hard to do. How would one
start, since buidling such a thing would appear to involve scuttling
or restructuring NATO and possibly the UN as well? I can't think
of a way for anyone to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared
^^
to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf.
This didn't make sense. Could you re-state the sentence in a way that makes
sense, using
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
While it definitely sucks to be away from loved ones for such a long time,
and while I sympathise with those sailors who had to miss their own
wedding, you can't put a military operation on hold just because someone
wants to get married.
You're right, you can't. The
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:00:44PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than
the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be
more serious than a siege if you don't mean war
Siege with attitude?
--
Erik Reuter
---Original Message---
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The consequence
war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase serious consequences; the
various UN members are not in agreement about the how it
---Original Message---
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Unfortunately, now we are being hosted by leagin the US troops prepared
^^
to carry out this resolution in the lurch in the Gulf.
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message---
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The UN Resolution says serious
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 8:59 AM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who is the sheriff?
---Original Message---
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authorizes Member States co-operating
---Original Message---
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---Original Message---
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait,
unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in
paragraph 1
At 09:35 15-03-03 -0500, JDG insultingly wrote:
The UN Resolution says serious consequences, it doesn't say war. The
consequence war is merely America's interpretation of the phrase
serious consequences; the various UN members are not in agreement about
the how it should be interpreted.
The one country, one vote system also gives you the least amount
of paperwork After all, either a country exists or it doesn't.
This is a very puzzling statement. What about northern Somalia? It
collects taxes, pays civil servants and soldiers, and you can point to
it on the map.
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 12:37:22PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you
think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per
person in Afghanistan is as
Earlier, I wrote,
What about northern Somalia? It collects taxes, pays civil
servants and soldiers, and you can point to it on the map. From
what I have heard, it is one of the better run countries in its
part of Africa.
By `northern Somalia' I meant the part of the country
At 12:23 PM 3/15/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 05:00:44PM -, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Ok, but AFAIK serious consequences should be something worse than
the current siege warfare against Iraq, and I fail to see what can be
more serious than a siege if you don't mean
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On
Behalf Of Doug Pensinger
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:32 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: [Humor] RE: Who is the sheriff?
Jon Gabriel wrote:
I checked my archive. That was John Horn who said that, not me.
You're
At 23:39 12-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
BTW - Jeroen - a constitutional monarchy is a form of republican
government
How's that?
Under a population-based system, China's population should be measured as
being approximately 5,000. This is the number of people who are actually
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:45:36 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Germany has proportional representation. If there are two big parties,
each with 47.5% of the legislature, then a party with 5% can claim a
pretty
high price to make one of the two parties the top dog.
Not really. It is
From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
We do NOT all look alike! ;-)
Too many Johns
There is definitely a joke in there somewhere but *I'm* not gonna say it.
- jmh
That's why I use 'jmh' actually...
___
At 23:45 12-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Germany has proportional representation. If there are two big parties,
each with 47.5% of the legislature, then a party with 5% can claim a
pretty high price to make one of the two parties the top dog.
In theory, yes, but that's not how it works in
- Original Message -
From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:22 AM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
At 23:45 12-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Germany has proportional representation. If there are two big
However, to be consistent with that policy, the population of *every*
country should then be measured as the number of people who voted that
country's government into power.
No it should be measured by those who had the *opportunity* to vote.
IOW, you want an international organisation in
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
It seems to
me that in order to be able to use massive amounts of anthrax and
nerve agent against the US
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with
regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a
nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to be
properly dispersed
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I appreciate your sincerity in this, but I'm curious as to why you
think that while an extremely modest effort (about $40 spent per
person in Afghanistan is as much as can be done) a massive effort will
work in Iraq.
I guess you
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
First of all, I'm not convinced that Hussein has the ability to use
massive amounts of anything against the US. I don't doubt that he
has stockpiles of the stuff, but that's not the same as being able
to deploy them in any significant way against
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with
regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a
nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs to
On 14 Mar 2003 at 13:41, Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Erik Reuter wrote:
First of all, I'm not convinced that Hussein has the ability to
use massive amounts of anything against the US. I don't doubt
that he has stockpiles of the stuff, but that's not the same as
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed
to pick up the materials from an incoming
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with
regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a
nuclear attack. But, since a biological or chemical agent needs
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:47:57 -, Andrew Crystall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14 Mar 2003 at 16:02, S.V. van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 23:45:36 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I had to write a paper once on all the pros and cons I could come up
with for
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:24:04 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
I appreciate your sincerity
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Julia Thompson wrote:
Erik:
I was thinking along the lines of terrorists in the country who managed
to pick up the materials from an incoming cargo container. But I don't
know enough details about whether that would be possible. Do you?
How much Tom Clancy have you
At 02:42 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 01:24:04PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
I think I was the one who originally brought up cargo containers with
regard to attacks before 9-11. They are a very significant risk for a
nuclear attack. But, since
S.V. van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:24:04 -0600, Dan Minette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 9:17 PM
Subject: Re: Who
On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Kevin Tarr wrote:
At 02:42 PM 3/14/2003 -0600, Julia wrote:
Can you imagine what would have happened to the US computer industry, at
least short-term, if someone had successfully deployed such a biological
weapon at COMDEX during the fat years of the late 1990s?
The
At 09:41 14-03-03 -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
In a multi-party system (as opposed to a two-party system), one party
rarely (if ever) gets that big a share of the votes. To form a
government, the party with the most votes will try to form a coalition
with one or more of the other major parties,
At 10:44 14-03-03 -0500, John Giorgis wrote:
IOW, you want an international organisation in which countries may
give their opinion, but in which the US unilaterally makes all the
decisions.
I think that such an arrangement would be both an improvement over the
status quo, and beneficial to the
J. van Baardwijk wrote:
Although I really prefer to go for the third option: an improved UN where
each country has one vote, where no country has veto power so that no
country can force its will upon others, and where all decisions are made by
all members, not a small subset of members (like
---Original Message---
From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's First Past
the Post system - at no time because of demographics
(I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted
Your vote still counts even when your guy loses.
Indeed, there
On 14 Mar 2003 at 17:47, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
---Original Message---
From: Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am currently pretty frustrated by the UK's First Past
the Post system - at no time because of demographics
(I've still voted, but...) has my vote counted
Your
1 - 100 of 379 matches
Mail list logo
