At 10:03 PM 3/11/2003 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
You are not just taking a stand for what you believe in, you are also taking
a contemptuous stand against anyone who disagrees. And make no mistake, I
see this just as plainly in many of those who are against this war. That is
the behavior of fear
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 , Nick Arnett wrote:
Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of
positions one can take?
Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory
tower fantasy land?
Well, the pragmatic reality of every nation on earth, including ours,
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Erik Reuter
...
Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory
tower fantasy land?
I don't see anything there but an ad hominem.
Do you claim regime change in
Iraq is a mistake?
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think I've called people jackasses and
anti-American for their
positions on this war. I hope I've refrained
entirely from name-calling.
I'm trying to hang onto respect when people who are
pro and anti war seem to
demand that each of us
On 12 Mar 2003 at 6:22, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things
here?
I will call you on it.
Frankly, YOU seem to be offering a blunt and un-thoughtthrough
viewpoint from my POV.
Andy
Dawn Falcon
___
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:31:46PM -, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 12 Mar 2003 at 6:22, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things
here?
I will call you on it.
Frankly, YOU seem to be offering a blunt and un-thoughtthrough
viewpoint from my POV.
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:03 AM
Subject: RE: US out of UN?
I'm in favor of doing away with the polarizing rhetoric that divides us,
to
take us back to the subject you were
On 12 Mar 2003 at 10:56, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 03:31:46PM -, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 12 Mar 2003 at 6:22, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
to actually discuss. So who is polarizing things
here?
I will call you on it.
Frankly, YOU seem to be offering a
[U.N. Chapter VII Resolution 1441]
However, it appears as I write this that the major states are not
going to agree to follow-up action -- they will not agree to the
`serious consequences' of the resolution.
Did the resolution set a deadline? Is it possible that
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:14:53AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote
Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory
tower fantasy land?
I don't see anything there but an ad hominem.
Interesting that you see it in others writing, but not in yours.
Do
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
...
Actually, you've been the worst of anyone here,
because you are a good enough writer that you can
subtly imply what you're not willing to say outright -
that the people who disagree
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Erik Reuter
...
No, of course not. There are a number of factors affecting unity, of
which whether we refrain from pointing out the likely consequences of
someone's position is only a small part.
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disagree with the stand that you say I'm not taking?
Your side of the political spectrum, perhaps. I'm
sure you have _some_ sort of an opinion.
It's hard to have an actual debate with people who
are already decided they
are right. Where, in all
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
...
Your argument would be more credible if you, you know,
actually _did_ imply anything negative about the
similarly behaving anti-war folks.
Let me know if you find it in what I've
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Part of my concernt has to do with how different people view reality.
For example, in a recent essay, Thomas Friedman asked whether Iraq a
clear and present danger in itself to the United States? This is how
Friedman frames the question.
But I don't think Bush
At 06:06 PM 3/11/03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
Okay, now I have *that* off my chest. I think I'm more grumpy than usual,
after having my intestines cleaned out over the last 24 hours and inspected
today.
Just keep telling yourself, This, too, shall pass.
Bright Side Maru
--Ronn! :)
At 18:06 11-03-03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN
support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't we
taking the UN *more* seriously this time around, by working so hard to
gain its consent? We're hardly acting as
At 08:20 AM 3/12/03 -0500, Erik Reuter wrote:
Where is yours? You keep changing the subject away from how to deal with
Saddam and instead attacking those who are discussing how to deal with
him.
How do you think Saddam should be dealt with?
-- Ronn! :)
Your message here!
(Call for rates.)
On Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 04:32 PM, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
At 18:06 11-03-03 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
The United States has gone to war a number of times without UN
support. Why should this time be any different, if we do so? Aren't
we taking the UN *more* seriously this time
On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power,
that is, with rights as individual states to prevent super-state
action, agreed
... that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687
(1991), ...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: US out of UN?
On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power,
that is, with rights
--- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Man, I'm getting tired of seeing people who oppose
this decision being
labeled supporters of the current regime in Iraq.
I'm not going to shoot
Jerry Falwell, but that doesn't mean I support him.
Can we please, here at
least, acknowledge that
Nick Arnett wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Robert J. Chassell
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 9:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: US out of UN?
On 8 November 2002, states in the United Nations with veto power
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Other than that you don't seem
to like people who support the war and try to paint
them as crypto-fascists who want to eliminate dissent
Personally, I prefer crypto-anarchists to crypto-fascists, at least if I get
to choose who I'm going to hang around with. (The
At 06:06 PM 3/11/2003 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
Moreover, it appears that the US government will decide that without a
follow-up the other major countries in the UN will have made the UN
irrelevant, and will withdraw (or `suspend' itself) from it.
The United States has gone to war a number of
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Gautam Mukunda
...
There are three problems with this:
1. The single most prominent opponent of the war
effort - the French government - has, over the past 12
years, provided immense evidence that they
Nick Arnett wrote:
Where is *your* true, strong voice, the one that says, Here is what I
believe in, with the courage to let your words stand on their own, the man
know knows that contempt for those who disagree weakens you? I know that
all of us have that voice, but it is far too rare nowadays.
27 matches
Mail list logo
