At 08:58 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Not that any of this should be taken to mean that I
think leaving the treaty was a good idea. Dan has
managed to convince me (absent classified evidence
otherwise, at least) that the technology for missile
defense is so unready that there's not
At 10:35 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote:
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
d.brin wrote:
much snippage
*Technical point* Your quote was NOT what he said!
Deborah, you snipped too far.
Here is what was written:
The difference between now and WWII is that such people
Dr. Brin recently made some harsh criticisms of the US
war plans in Iraq, and suggested that it would be the
prowess of US soldiers in the field that would salvage
success in this war. David Frum's commentary on this
from a few days ago seems particularly relevant - as
well as providing some
JDG posted:
The reason the Americans are so successful at war is
that war is chaos, and the American Army practices
chaos on a daily basis.---German general (can't
remember the name of the guy. Might have been Guderian
or Rommel).
Americans are so hard to fight because they do not
know their
Or attacking in 180 degrees the wrong direction. Saddam could have
waited. The people who are killing Americans, waging jihad against our
civilization and corrupting our leaders live in Riyadh.
Absolutely. But if we were to take some action against SA, compared to the
reaction the US is
--- d.brin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me remind you that in 1991 this same team
stopped our army 24
hours from eliminating the problem altogether
freeing the same
Iraqi people we are now supposed to be rescuing.
The difference
between now and WWII is that such people would not
be
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, good thing such things like, oh, the UN, weapon
treaties, the Geneva Convention don't involve the
word of the United States!
The word of the United States is worth something,
as various
countries have found out over the past two
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 4:27 PM
Subject: RE: Brin: David Frum on the War Plans
-Original Message-
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday
-Original Message-
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 02:32 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Brin: David Frum on the War Plans
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, good thing such things like, oh, the UN
-Original Message-
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 02:42 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Brin: David Frum on the War Plans
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When did the US violate the Geneva convention?
Camp X-Ray?
Which holds unlawful combatants who are _explicitly_
denied the protections of POWs by those same
conventions.
What UN Security Council
Resolution is the US not merely
-Original Message-
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 02:43 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: RE: Brin: David Frum on the War Plans
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When did the US violate the Geneva convention
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're right - we pulled out of the treaty before violating it, so
technically..
BTW - the ABM Treaty specifically provided for a method of withdrawal
by either party through ample notification, which the US followed to
the letter.
iaamoac wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You're right - we pulled out of the treaty before violating it, so
technically..
BTW - the ABM Treaty specifically provided for a method of withdrawal
by either party through ample notification, which the US
At 10:38 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
Furthermore, the actual political entity with which we'd entered into the
treaty in the first place no longer existed.
In fairness, the Russian Federation is regarded in almost every other arean
as the successor to the USSR.
While the above
At 01:51 PM 4/2/2003 -0800 d.brin wrote:
Let me remind you that in 1991 this same team stopped our army 24
hours from eliminating the problem altogether freeing the same
Iraqi people we are now supposed to be rescuing.
My understanding is that in the first Gulf War, US troops never even
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 10:38 PM 4/2/2003 -0600 Julia Thompson wrote:
Furthermore, the actual political entity with which we'd entered into the
treaty in the first place no longer existed.
In fairness, the Russian Federation is regarded in almost every other arean
as the successor to
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In fairness, the Russian Federation is regarded in
almost every other arean
as the successor to the USSR.
While the above argument was used by many
conservative commentators, I
never found that particular argument to be truly
serious.
JDG
18 matches
Mail list logo
