Re: I for one am glad that...
So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. All men have the equipment for rape. Does it give all the women to shot dead any man they happen to dislike at the moment, as preemptive strike? Where is the line between the necessary defense and an unruly aggression today? George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war. Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current discussion. Is it an ad-hominem attack, or a disclosure of a sensitive secret information of national security nature? As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. Howmany of them rely exclusively on domestic news? How many of them don't have time or will to get informations from non-US-controlled sources? How reliable their opinion can be? Who controls the media controls the masses. What influence this rule has on the mentioned 70%? Who does the polls? What are rules for the polls? Is there a compensation for Republicans being generally more likely to respond on poll questions? What exactly was the poll question? The number is suspiciously high in comparison with what I hear from my friends. By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the police and military and see how long the US lasts. Just wait until the society as we know it collapses or degenerates. Alternative security forces will spring up; some militia-based, assembled from survivalist-kind of people, some corporate, resembling current private security forces, but with licence to kill. US will last, at least as its name, just transformed. The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. The aid is administered or withheld as it suits to current foreign politics goals. Damn those free elections! Why can't we just agree to let you pick the world's leaders? Problem solved. Supply only the candidates that will not go against the Current Foreign Policy and appropriately pro-US slanted Free Market. Domestically, offer only the candidates of the Corporate Party, better known under the names of its factions as Republicans and Democrats. Make sure the barriers of entry to the game are so high that nobody who isn't member of this Party or at least isn't deeply enough entangled has any real chance. Justice in the Middle East would be Sharon, Netanyahu, and two generations of the Bush family hanging in downtown Baghdad. After a fair trial and due process at the hands of the International Community, of course. This kind of statement works a lot better for Tim than it does for you. Israel occupies large areas it acquired by hostile means in direct contradiction to international law. Military actions in these areas suspiciously resemble state-organized terrorism. It owns large stockpile of nuclear weapons, there are rumours of biological research aimed to find genetical traits specific for Arabs, suitable to develop racially-specific biological weapons. Why there are no US missiles and bombs raining on Tel Aviv? Seems Moses was smart. Those forty years spent cruising Middle East, searching for the only real estate there without oil underneath, surely weren't wasted.
Re: I for one am glad that...
Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. What a crock of shit. I sure hope that Saddam kept enough sarin to bring an excrutiatingly horrible death to all 250,000 of those Nazi boys Dubbya sent over there, and then maybe those lunatics in DC will really go off the deep end and nuke Baghdad, sending the entire Muslim world into a total century long jihad against the US. Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must actively support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone who does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to it and must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our freedom. More Freedom = Less Government. I support maximal freedom. By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the police and military and see how long the US lasts. Better anarchy than the present fascist police state. If we're lucky enough, the Muslim jihad will so damage the fedzis, that the rest of us will be able to pick off the rest of the pigs and feebs. jihadmonger
Bugging Devices found in French German offices at the EU
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2864063.stm -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: I for one am glad that...
A UN Security Council resolution authorizing any Member State to use all necessary means to uphold a previous Security Council resolution. Necessary means of one seem to be hostile aggression of nearly all others. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in the previous one is an unclear move. The number is suspiciously high in comparison with what I hear from my friends. Your friends disagree with two national polls and so the polls must be wrong? The polls are suspicious by their nature itself. My friends are a selected group (they usually think for their own), and the numbers there look rather as 90% against the aggression. Besides, the poll doesn't specify details, making it somehow doubtful. Why wait until then? This anarchy things sounds pretty nifty. If we can get total freedom by abolishing government, why wait for society to collapse? Waco. The Adversary has too much of firepower, and no desire to let the peasants free. But if you keep low profile enough, it is of course possible within certain practical limits; eg, The Government can't control nor see intra-community transactions done in cash or barter, nor can easily peek into encrypted data transfers. Friends and math are good things to have. The aid is administered or withheld as it suits to current foreign politics goals. Of course it is. Name a sovereign nation that doesn't. Then it shouldn't be claimed it is an altruistic help. whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, If the people aren't mistakenly believing that it can't happen here. Many Americans that came here reportedly feel more free than in the US - less surveillance (for now), less petty rules enforced, less risk of a lawsuit. Until this happens, our current goverment and its system of elections is the law of the land. Screwed up, enforced with weapons, backed with propaganda. We have to have the means to at least reduce the effective impact of their Laws over us, giving us some chance to breathe more freely. Which is, after all, one of the purposes of the List.
Re: Bush's Moment of Truth
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote: Bush said this was going to be the Moment of Truth. Well, we haven't had a moment of truth from his administration yet, so I guess that's a welcome change... I wonder if it will be like a moment of silence?
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, David Howe wrote: Chemical weapons are legally dodgy - but under the Bush Doctorine, saddam could blow huge civilian areas of Washington away with missles, and just call it a shock and awe demonstration against a country that might attack it and that is known to have all three forms of WMD. I mean, that's reasonable isn't it? bush said it was I can't wait till China and Russia figure out that pre-emptive strikes are a really good idea, and the US is a problem that needs to be taken care of. Unfortunatly I think they'll leave Washington DC because that way no recovery will ever happen. But I suspect they'll nuke everything else! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: I for one am glad that...
Quoting Jamie Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month is amusing, though. Which resolution took away any Member State's authority to all necessary means to uphold resolution 690? Which resolution requires a Member State to seek Security Council approval for future military action? France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second.' Whether the US chose to pursue a second resolution is immaterial to the fact that it already had the authority under resolution 678. If the UN Security Council wanted to ensure that no military action was taken without a second resolution, they should have put it in 1441 instead of a promise of serious consequences. So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time around, right? What will you agree with next week? I am basing my views of the actual text of the resolutions. This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the Bush Doctrine. Please, compare and contrast. Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized by the UN Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441. North Korea does not have the authority under any UN Security Council resolution to take military action against any country. (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a morally correct action? No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral justification. I was merely pointing out that Bush was not dragging us into war since there was popular support for war. (3) I'm not going to bother with excuses for use of unconventional warfare. The lack of objective difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, the long history of US meddling, and the obvious reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. In this particular case, we were discussing terrorists, not Iraq. I have never said that instituting democracy, peace, or any other way-of-life is justification for war. Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq We are alone with Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan (post conflict), Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Britain, and Uzbekistan. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: CDR: Re: I for one am glad that...
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 01:39:59PM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. Perhaps you should actually read the documents you reference. The legal arguments the Bush Regime are floating this week are contradicted by statements they've floated in getting the resolution passed. Of course this is to be expected, and they'll have a new batch of fatuous bullshit next week. They fact that you're buying the flavor of the month is amusing, though. Try starting at http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm, and following the references. Colin Powell summarized things best last September. From yesterday's NYT ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/17/international/middleeast/17RECO.html ): France was advocating that a first resolution at the United Nations Security Council, demanding that Iraq promptly disclose its weapons and disarm, must be followed by a second resolution authorizing war if Iraq refused. 'Be sure about one thing,' Mr. Powell told Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister. 'Don't vote for the first, unless you are prepared to vote for the second.' So, I assume you're basing you're views on the New, Improved Powell, not that silly, confused one that spoke pushed the resolution last time around, right? What will you agree with next week? This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. (1) Please explain how a preemptive war against a country under more scrutiny than any other which has utterly failed to make any meaningful threat in the last 10 years is defensive? As others have pointed out, N. Korea is entirely justified in bombing DC under the Bush Doctrine. Please, compare and contrast. (2) Please explain exactly what moral system (which you apparently subscribe to) which states that if 7 out of ten say something, it is a morally correct action? (3) I'm not going to bother with excuses for use of unconventional warfare. The lack of objective difference between freedom fighter and terrorist, the long history of US meddling, and the obvious reasons for this war (Halliburton, the Carlyle Group, personal vandetta) are obviously no match for your inciteful jingoism and moral mandate to inflict peace and freedom on others at gunpoint. For a view into the crystal ball, though, you might peruse opinions from our close allies about our Clear Mandate: Analysis / The U.S. is almost alone in its war on Iraq http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=274223displayTypeCd=1sideCd=1contrassID=2 Think about what it means when international markets switch to the Euro. But this is all pragmatic reasoning, surely nothing you're interested in. Have a fun war. -j -- Jamie Lawrence[EMAIL PROTECTED] Remember, half-measures can be very effective if all you deal with are half-wits. - Chris Klein
vonu
i don't know who jim is, but ;-) btw: hope the hacking and coughing aren't getting you down too much. there are now two treatments for that that i know of. www.lef.org, search protocols
Re: I for one am glad that...
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Anonymous wrote: Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. What a crock of shit. I sure hope that Saddam kept enough sarin to bring an excrutiatingly horrible death to all 250,000 of those Nazi boys Dubbya sent over there, and then maybe those lunatics in DC will really go off the deep end and nuke Baghdad, sending the entire Muslim world into a total century long jihad against the US. Hey, shit for brains, those are our sons, brothers, (and some of our braver sisters and daughters) that will be putting their lives in danger. They do not deserve such disrespect. Aim it where it belongs: Shrub. IMHO, we should go back to the pre-Alexander The Great way of waging war - with the man in charge of the war at the very front of the front lines. Then, perhaps the poly-ticks would think twice about war for oil. Our boys over there aren't the problem. Hell, a lot of them don't want to be there and know that this war is for oil and not for freedom. Damn straight they shouldn't be there - but that's no longer their choice. Back in the days of the 1st deodorant war (Desert Shield, then Storm I think it was called) a buddy of mine studpidly decided to join the army, in training, the DI's used colorful language such as Sand Niggers and worse to dehumanize the opponents - it's funny but he said that the African American privates did not seem to take objection to the white D.I.'s uttering such racist shit. I wonder what they're being told these days? By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the police and military and see how long the US lasts. Better anarchy than the present fascist police state. If we're lucky enough, the Muslim jihad will so damage the fedzis, that the rest of us will be able to pick off the rest of the pigs and feebs. Damned straight anarchy is better than fascism. Rule under a Taliban religious extremism party, Communist dictatorship, or Fascist oil-hungry state are all oppressive. Freedom and oppression don't mix. Don't go worshipping Al Qaeda now, dumbass, did you forget that these terrorists are not on your side? - they killed thousands of innocents in New York with little reson.
Re: vonu
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, jburnes wrote: btw: hope the hacking and coughing aren't getting you down too much. there are now two treatments for that that i know of. www.lef.org, search protocols ...MENTAL IMPAIRMENT ... Seems appropriate for you guys! Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:59:31PM -0800, Tim May wrote: About the threat to Washington: I think it's relatively high. A nerve gas attack on buildings or the Metro seems likely. (The Japanese AUM cult had Sarin, but was inept. A more capable, military-trained operative has had many months to get into D.C. and wait for the obvious time to attack. And he need not even be a suicide bomber. A cannister of VX with a reliable timer is child's play. One big difference, it seems to me, is that the U.S. government was recently up against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that did not have the complete resources of a nation-state at their disposal (plus other factors, like sufficient uninterrupted time to prepare a second attack on U.S. soil after we began to target them post-911). Now we're up against a possibly enfeebled nation, but a nation nonetheless, with a leader who knows that his days are numbered so there's arguably little downside to plotting terrorism. Plus other Middle East nations that now might be inclined to lend covert aid if it's entirely deniable. I live in Adams Morgan in Washington, DC, which Mapquest tells me is three miles north of the White House (because of one way streets) -- the oh-so-brave denizens of 1600 have closed Pennyslvania Ave. It's probably 1.5 miles directly. It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear blast, about what the Davy Crockett U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs, provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a similar yield. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons, according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on the ground. I might gain an extra half-mile or so because it's more likely a terrorist would attack the White House from the east, west, or south as opposed to the north -- Pennsylvania Avenue is closed, and traffic on H St. (further north) will be stopped or severely scrutinized during any heightened alert status. By way of comparison, the Tractor That Disrupted DC is about eight blocks southwest of the White House. If it were any closer, the Disgruntled Veteran Farmer would have been dispatched with extreme prejudice by Secret Service snipers. If the Capitol building is attacked, I live much further from that, so I'm not as worried by the immediate impact of the blast, just the aftermath. That leaves just biological and chemical weapons, conventional explosives, and dirty bombs. If I were Declan, I'd get out of Dodge. Well, I don't think I'll be living here the rest of my life -- DC is too tempting a target over the long term, as the U.S. empire spreads and its enemies grow accordingly. For the short term, DC is still an easier target than NYC if you're bringing a bomb in by truck (NYC would be easier by boat). NYC has bridges along which radiation sensors can be placed; DC, as Tim knows, is geographically just a part of Maryland connected by hundreds of residential streets. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the next attack take place in a far more distributed manner. Imagine a dozen Iraqi/Al Qaeda sympathizers or agents making dirty bombs (or even conventional explosives) and leaving them in gift-wrapped boxes in shopping bags at American surburban shopping malls. They detonate simultaneously after 15 minutes or if they're moved or disturbed. The perp would have time to escape and could take steps to mask himself from the inevitable surveillance camera footage that would be broadcast by the FBI. A week or two after that happens, you can imagine the AQ/Iraq axis trying the same thing in the parking lot of a metroplex theater at night (it's easy enough to leave a backpack under a parked car), in the bathroom of a dozen crowded restaurants, and so on. The U.S. would soon become accustomed to living in the same state of seige and constant surveillance that Israel enjoys. And watch what Congress will do to preserve our freedoms by giving more power to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Imagine that approach being escalated by radio-controlled or autonomous model helicopters or airplanes being sent from outside the Beltway to blast into the White House or the House and Senate office buildings. They'd be guided by GPS and carry only a modest payload, so might not accomplish much unless their targets are outside. No more Rose Garden press conferences after the first wave of the attack occurs, I'd wager. Yes, DC is not a good long-term place to live. It's too tempting a target. -Declan
RE: I for one am glad that...
Force against Iraq is not pre-emptive since it is authorized by the UN Security Council resolutions 678 and 1441. North Korea does not have Interesting. So, if the UN gives Bush the right to attack Iraq, such an attack is no more preemptive ? Why would it be different from Bush giving the US army the right to attack ? Would that still be preemptive ? The fact is, Bush and his followers are lying like mad, and it shows so much I'm surprised they still manage to not laugh hard while saying those. They can claim it's not preemptive for their propaganda, but does it make it so ? No one, including me, has stated that popular support equals moral justification. I was merely pointing out that Bush was not dragging us into war since there was popular support for war. He's certainly dragging the world into war. Repercussions of this war will not be only visible in the US (and of course, Iraq, pity on them). Bush's actions are only going to give some legitimacy to terrorists. We are alone with [...] a list of countries which, for the most part, see either the leash of the master (in some cases with a large US military presence on their soil) or have been guided by the smell of money, or immaterial favors that might or might not be awarded. Good grief. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
Mmmmmm, oil money! Tasty!
That's, quite a maybe there... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81480,00.html Iraqi Oil Money May Be Used for Humanitarian Relief ^^ Wednesday, March 19, 2003 UNITED NATIONS . The United States and Britain are working on a plan to use Iraqi oil proceeds from a $40 billion account to pay for humanitarian supplies during a war to disarm Saddam Hussein, The Associated Press has learned. The proposal, based on the assumption that Saddam will be quickly overthrown, is to be presented shortly after a military conflict begins, according to diplomats and U.N. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity. The plan would not give Washington and London direct access to vast Iraqi cash reserves in a U.N. escrow account. Instead, by channeling the money into immediate humanitarian relief, the plan would alleviate U.S. and British financial responsibilities for caring for millions of Iraqis. SNIP --Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ --*--:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Wednesday, March 19, 2003, at 07:37 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:59:31PM -0800, Tim May wrote: About the threat to Washington: I think it's relatively high. A nerve gas attack on buildings or the Metro seems likely. (The Japanese AUM cult had Sarin, but was inept. A more capable, military-trained operative has had many months to get into D.C. and wait for the obvious time to attack. And he need not even be a suicide bomber. A cannister of VX with a reliable timer is child's play. One big difference, it seems to me, is that the U.S. government was recently up against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that did not have the complete resources of a nation-state at their disposal (plus other factors, like sufficient uninterrupted time to prepare a second attack on U.S. soil after we began to target them post-911). Yes, and various other Axis of Evil nations (DPRK, France, etc.) will understand the importance of asymmetric warfare. Frankly, throwing the U.S. economy into chaos _before_ an attack on one's country would seem to be the best strategy. (And this kind of chaos need not be a decapitation attack on the Seat of Government. A disabling attack on agriculture--such as contaminating the meat supply with hoof and mouth or mad cow--or a psychological attack on consumerism--such as 5 suicide bombers hitting crowded shopping malls--would have a big effect. The destruction of a few dams would have similar effects, but, fortunately for us, they are apparently well-defended, i.e., they are _not_ soft targets.) Having seen Vietnam (the war, not the country), and having seen today's media frenzies and rampant consumerism, I think American resolve will fold if 5000 deaths of Americans occur in Iraq. The 100 or so deaths of Americans in 1991 was tolerable, but anything approaching the multiple thousands will trigger a paroxysm of Why are we there? and Congress never authorized this! and Bring our boys home sentiments. Chemical Ali probably understands this very well. (And the usual rhetoric about how if the U.S. is attacked with CBW it will respond by nuking Baghdad is silly. If even 10.000 U.S. soldiers are killed in a chemical attack, the U.S. will not nuke a city of 5 million. At least I doubt they will, despite the rhetoric. My hunch is that Chemical Ali thinks along the same lines.) So, going for a kill of 5-15K Americans, early on, is possibly an Iraqi strategy. It would be my strategy, were I on their side. Now we're up against a possibly enfeebled nation, but a nation nonetheless, with a leader who knows that his days are numbered so there's arguably little downside to plotting terrorism. Plus other Middle East nations that now might be inclined to lend covert aid if it's entirely deniable. I'm not even a despot, and yet I often fantasize about methods to kill tens of thousands of the bad guys, even if I died in the process. So I can imagine the fantasies some of the guys who have been in power for many years may have. I would of course agree with what many are saying, that Kim Jong Il is a much more serious threat--to some, though not necessarily to the U.S. (And yet South Korean students and others are spitting on U.S. soldiers, yammering about U.S. out of Korea!, etc. I say we give them their wish. Ditto for Germany, Italy, and the rest of Europe. This is why I hope the train wreck/clusterfuck in Iraq happens. Get our country out of the world's cop business. I live in Adams Morgan in Washington, DC, which Mapquest tells me is three miles north of the White House (because of one way streets) -- the oh-so-brave denizens of 1600 have closed Pennyslvania Ave. It's probably 1.5 miles directly. It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear blast, about what the Davy Crockett U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs, provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a similar yield. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons, according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on the ground. I had recollected that Adams Morgan was up near Rock Creek Park, near Kalorama, and thus is further than 1.5 miles as the crow flies. A blast at that distance would probably not be good news, especially for a multi-story building. But, yes, many would survive. U.S. soldiers were expected to dig shallow foxholes prior to detonation of just such nukes, intended to clear Soviet armor at the Fulda Gap in Germany. I doubt any Iraqi could get a nuke close to the White House, though. (BTW, one of the best treatments of this idea, of terrorists getting access to small nukes, is in a novel by the guy who later became the Crypto Czar, David Aaron. Google or Amazon will have details. Probably years out of print. I haven't heard anything out of him in
A Warmonger Explains War (fwd)
A WARMONGER EXPLAINS WAR TO A PEACENIK By Bill Davidson PeaceNik: Why did you say we are we invading Iraq? WarMonger: We are invading Iraq because it is in violation of Security Council resolution 1441. A country cannot be allowed to violate Security Council resolutions. PN: But I thought many of our allies, including Israel, were in violation of more security council resolutions than Iraq. WM: It's not just about UN resolutions. The main point is that Iraq could have weapons of mass destruction, and the first sign of a smoking gun could well be a mushroom cloud over New York. PN: Mushroom cloud? But I thought the weapons inspectors said Iraq had no nuclear weapons. WM: Yes, but biological and chemical weapons are the issue. PN: But I thought Iraq did not have any long range missiles for attacking us or our allies with such weapons. WM: The risk is not Iraq directly attacking us, but rather terrorist networks that Iraq could sell the weapons to. PN: But couldn't virtually any country sell chemical or biological materials? We sold quite a bit to Iraq in the Eighties ourselves, didn't we? WM: That's ancient history. Look, Saddam Hussein is an evil man that has an undeniable track record of repressing his own people since the early Eighties. He gasses his enemies. Everyone agrees that he is a power-hungry lunatic murderer. PN: We sold chemical and biological materials to a power-hungry lunatic murderer? WM: The issue is not what we sold, but rather what Saddam did. He is the one that launched a pre-emptive first strike on Kuwait. PN: A pre-emptive first strike does sound bad. But didn't our ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, know about and green-light the invasion of Kuwait? WM: Let's deal with the present, shall we? As of today, Iraq could sell its biological and chemical weapons to Al Qaida. Osama Bin Laden himself released an audio tape calling on Iraqis to suicide-attack us, proving a partnership between the two. PN: Osama Bin Laden? Wasn't the point of invading Afghanistan to kill him? WM: Actually, it's not 100% certain that it's really Osama Bin Laden on the tapes. But the lesson from the tape is the same: there could easily be a partnership between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein unless we act. PN: Is this the same audio tape where Osama Bin Laden labels Saddam a secular infidel? WM: You're missing the point by just focusing on the tape. Powell presented a strong case against Iraq. PN: He did? WM: Yes, he showed satellite pictures of an Al Qaida poison factory in Iraq. PN: But didn't that turn out to be a harmless shack in the part of Iraq controlled by the Kurdish opposition? WM: And a British intelligence report... PN: Didn't that turn out to be copied from an out-of-date graduate student paper? WM: And reports of mobile weapons labs... PN: Weren't those just artistic renderings? WM: And reports of Iraqis scuttling and hiding evidence from inspectors... PN: Wasn't that evidence contradicted by the chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix? WM: Yes, but there is plenty of other hard evidence that cannot be revealed because it would compromise our security. PN: So there is no publicly available evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? WM: The inspectors are not detectives, it's not their JOB to find evidence. You're missing the point. PN: So what is the point? WM: The main point is that we are invading Iraq because Resolution 1441 threatened severe consequences. If we do not act, the Security Council will become an irrelevant debating society. PN: So the main point is to uphold the rulings of the Security Council? WM: Absolutely. ...unless it rules against us. PN: And what if it does rule against us? WM: In that case, we must lead a coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. PN: Coalition of the willing? Who's that? WM: Britain, Turkey, Bulgaria, Spain, and Italy, for starters. PN: I thought Turkey refused to help us unless we gave them tens of billions of dollars. WM: Nevertheless, they may now be willing. PN: I thought public opinion in all those countries was against war. WM: Current public opinion is irrelevant. The majority expresses its will by electing leaders to make decisions. PN: So it's the decisions of leaders elected by the majority that is important? WM: Yes. PN: But George Bush wasn't elected by voters. He was selected by the U.S. Supreme C... WM: I mean, we must support the decisions of our leaders, however they were elected, because they are acting in our best interest. This is about being a patriot. That's the bottom line. PN: So if we do not support the decisions of the president, we are not patriotic? WM: I never said that. PN: So what are you saying? Why are we invading Iraq? WM: As I said, because there is a chance that they have weapons of mass destruction that threaten us and our allies. PN: But the inspectors have not been able to find any such weapons. WM: Iraq is obviously hiding them. PN: You know this? How? WM: Because we
Re: I for one am glad that...
Quoting Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in the previous one is an unclear move. That's a bold-faced lie! The Bush administration made it clear BEFORE resolution 1441 that it already had the authority to use force against Iraq. http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/iraq.resolution/ CNN - Friday, November 8, 2002 The Bush administration reiterated its position that although it would consult with the Security Council, it is not required to get U.N. approval for U.S.-led military action if Iraq fails to comply. The entire Council voted for that resolution with no abstentions. If France and Russia wanted to preclude force without further UN authorization, they should have demanded it be put in 1441. Instead, they unanimously voted to declare Iraq in continuing breach of UN resolutions and bolstered the US's authority for use of force. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12
Re: I for one am glad that...
at Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:39 AM, Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] was seen to say: Which resolution took away any Member State's authority to all necessary means to uphold resolution 690? I think the problem here is who gets to define what is necessary - the UN Security council thinks it is them, Bush thinks it is him personally.
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
On Wed, 19 Mar 2003, Declan McCullagh wrote: It's hardly implausible to believe I might survive a 1 kiloton nuclear blast, about what the Davy Crockett U.S. nuke, at around 50 lbs, The design of current glass-tower skyscrapers encourages glass fragment blowthrough by the shockwave, which will result in massive injuries (simulated on pigs in wind tunnels it abraded flesh to the bone in seconds, it would certainly kill you by blood loss or at least maim badly). It is very worthwhile to establish a duck and cover instinct at the first signs of the flash. It will minimize flash blindness/prevent holes in retina/skin burns as well as minimize the impact of debris and exposure to the shockwave. Getting out of the potentially developing firestorm (unlikely in a small yield weapon) in the panic stampede while minimizing exposure to fallout is much less constrained than right reflexes in the first second or so. If you're paranoid, a small cheap terror kit stored in office/car trunk/home could considerably enhance your survival chances, and minimize subsequent health risk. Actually it would be fun to assemble an item list for a kit. provided. It makes sense to think that Soviet suitcase nukes have a similar yield. Suitcase nukes missing (the only weapons without PAL codes/PAL codes issued to people in charge of them, all other weapons won't assemble without PAL encoding the assembly timing) are apparently a canard. In any case, these are are high-maintenance weapons, and no by now no longer operable/only capable of a fizzle, so only useful for salvaging the fissibles. Latter could be easily leached by purex process from black market low-ashes fuel (high-ashes fuel is much hotter and has the wrong Pu isotopes, so you'll get a hotter core with higher background neutron flux which will make it go off before full assembly can occur, thus seriously reducing yield). The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were closer to 12-23 kilotons, according to one source (http://www.danford.net/hiroshim.htm), and there supposedly was a 50 percent survival rate at 1/8 of a mile from ground zero -- while the bomb went off above ground as opposed to on the ground. If you pressize the weapon pit with 3-5 g gaseous tritium few seconds (Pu metal rapidly forms hydrides) before assembly the yield could be significantly higher (50 kT?), while still not being a fusion weapon which requires considerably more geometry and timing magic to work (the yield boost is from the fusion neutrons synergy fissioning more material during inertial confinement).
Re: I for one am glad that...
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:21:37AM -0600, Keith Ray wrote: Quoting Thomas Shaddack [EMAIL PROTECTED]: They forgot to make corrections for the option when there is no agreement of the Security Council, maybe under the mistaken belief Bush won't play unfair. Sidestepping the new resolution in order to exploit a loophole in the previous one is an unclear move. That's a bold-faced lie! The Bush administration made it clear BEFORE resolution 1441 that it already had the authority to use force against Iraq. They don't have that option. They have to obey international law. Bush, Cheney, Rumdumb, and Powell all need to be sent to the Hague. What we need is for the UN to invade the US, depose it's evil, warmongering leaders, despose of it's weapons of mass destruction, and free the oppressed populace. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
The design of current glass-tower skyscrapers encourages glass fragment blowthrough by the shockwave, which will result in massive injuries (simulated on pigs in wind tunnels it abraded flesh to the bone in seconds, it would certainly kill you by blood loss or at least maim badly). ARGH! Taking back my previous comment about light injuries by flying glass. Thought about the typical downtown brick-and-mortar buildings that have more robust construction with real inner walls. (Don't ask me what I think about the glass towers.) It is very worthwhile to establish a duck and cover instinct at the first signs of the flash. Duck behind anything that can stop/slowdown the shards. A table should do. If you're paranoid, a small cheap terror kit stored in office/car trunk/home could considerably enhance your survival chances, and minimize subsequent health risk. Or in each of the places. If it's small and cheap, it can be multiplied. It's a bit stupid to spend time and effort preparing a terror kit and then have it in the car when you need it in the office. Suitcase nukes missing (the only weapons without PAL codes/PAL codes issued to people in charge of them, all other weapons won't assemble without PAL encoding the assembly timing) are apparently a canard. In any case, these are are high-maintenance weapons, and no by now no longer operable/only capable of a fizzle, so only useful for salvaging the fissiles. If they aren't boosted, if they don't need tritium source, why they would deteriorate? Are the pit cores with fast-decaying isotopes (like the Be-Po ones developed during the Project Manhattan) still in use, or were they fully replaced with arc-discharge neutron generators (or how's that thing with deuterium gas inside which gets ionized and accelerated against the target called)? Latter could be easily leached by purex process from black market low-ashes fuel (high-ashes fuel is much hotter and has the wrong Pu isotopes, so you'll get a hotter core with higher background neutron flux which will make it go off before full assembly can occur, thus seriously reducing yield). Not only that. Pu-240 is fissile, like Pu-239, but it doesn't produce free neutrons, thus acting as de facto a neutron poison. AFAIK, this is the main factor lowering the yield of energetical plutonium. I suppose it is rather hard to find low-ash spent fuel. The main interest of power plants is to get the most megawatthours from every rod, thus to keep it in the reactor as long as possible. The replacement of fuel in the most common VVER reactors requires shutdown of the plant block, which not only lowers efficiency of the plant, but also attracts attention of the inspectors (who don't need anything more than a thermal camera to see that the transformers handling the plant's output are colder than they should be - from miles away, very likely even from the satellite - not talking about the likely lack of vapors from the cooling towers, visible by naked eye). Other kinds of reactors - CANDU, or RBMK (which were so popular in the USSR mainly for this feature) don't have to be shut down for fuel exchange, but then they are much less common.
Re: The Register Libels Declan
Eric Cordian wrote on March 15, 2003 at 22:42:33 -0800: Just when you think journalism can't get any stranger. I was watching some right wing scumbag on MSNBC today, spewing forth about how all homeless people should be rounded up and sent to prison and mental hospitals. His name is Michael Savage, and he is apparently what we get now that Phil Donahue is considered too liberal to be on TV any more. Well, Savage, whose real name is Michael Alan Weiner, got a less than glowing writeup in the Register for his MSNBC performance. http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/7/29754.html Midway through this well-deserved Savage-bashing, (or is that Weiner bashing,) who should be mentioned but everyone's favorite intrepid reporter, and in less than glowing terms. The Register opines about The Savage Weiner: His career path mirrors the trajectory of former woolly Carnegie Mellon liberal Declan McCullagh, now a lavishly-paid writer at CNET. Both realized the value of relentless self-publicity. And both - McCullagh, like Weiner - decided that principles are for fools. You don't stay poor for very long if you can defend rich guys' their right to keep their money, each followed the dollar trail to arrive at their own, personal epiphany. Each advocates the gazillionaires' freedom to spend their gazillions. By putting 'freedom' in quotes, it is obvious that the author, Andrew Orlowski, does not respect the basic property right of people to dispose of the wealth they have produced in a manner they see fit. Does he suppose that our only function is the production of revenue for the STATE? The knack to pulling off this stunt is in persuading us, dear readers, that it's our freedoms that are a stake. Notice how he draws a distinction between the freedom of ordinary people, and that of the gazillionaires, echoing the old bougiouse freedom bullshit of Karl Marx, providing the rationalization for destroying liberty and making us slaves of the STATE. Fucking communist. So what drives the tiny Weiner? ... I hope Andrew Orlowski gets AIDS during one of his bathhouse buttfuck sessions. -- Tom Veil
Israel Honors Saint Goldstein
One of the greatest heros of the Isareli people is Saint Baruch Goldstein, the New York doctor who gunned down over two dozen Palestinians as they knelt in prayer. As Susan Cohen, perennial Usenet apologist for Israel is fond of saying, If only we had a thousand Baruch Goldsteins. Goldstein was also famous for the comment that a million Arabs were not worth one Jewish fingernail. Well, it seems that there was a small altercation at Israel's latest celebration at Goldstein's tomb. A couple of teenagers engaged in a bit of political theatre, with one wearing an Ariel Shraon mask, and the other pointing a toy gun at him. Just like in the United States, where one can not wear an anti-Bush t-shirt to school without being browbeaten by the Secret Service, the teens were immediately arrested and hauled off to jail. Such wonderful people. Let's give them some more US taxpayer dollars to commit more human rights abuses with. http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePageenDisplay=viewenDispWhat=objectenDispWho=Article%5El2096enZone=PoliticsenVersion=0; - Hebron Police arrested two seventeen-year-old youths who last night staged a mock execution of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at a Purim eve ceremony in Kiryat Arba marking nine years since the death of Baruch Goldstein. At the ceremony, one of the youths wore a mask in Sharon's image while the other held a gun and knife to his head. Participants at the ceremony, including adults, called out, Sharon, your day has come. ... Police officials said the two youths would be charged with counts of sedition and incitement. ... The Kiryat Arba ceremony has been held annually since 1994, when Goldstein opened fire in Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs and murdered 29 Muslim worshippers inside. ... One of the most outspoken participants at the ceremony was far-right extremist Michael Ben-Horin, Maariv reported. Dr. Goldstein saved many people and did an important, great act, Ben-Horin said. [Notice that Jewish terrorists are always referred to in the press as extremists, while Arab terrorists are referred to as terrorists. The last time a mainstream US paper used the word terrorist after the word Jewish, three people lost their jobs. Yet we are told that there is no Israeli influence on the US media, and to suggest so is anti-Semitic. -emc] ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: I for one am glad that...
Keith Ray wrote: When did the UN Security Council pass a resolution rescinding the use of force? Earlier resolutions only declared a cease-fire contingent on Iraq complying with all current and future resolutions. The behavior of the world community under US pressure is much like the behavior of a niave computer chess program, which when faced with an unwinnable position, begins sacrificing all its pieces, because each such sacrifice pushes disaster just slightly beyond its lookahead threshhold. Faced with Bush the Elder bombing Iraqi civilians fleeing Kuwait along his Highway of Death, including children in carseats, the UN approved a cease-fire with language in it the US wanted. The UN approved 1441 because it delayed a US threatened war. etc. etc. ad nauseum. The end result of all this is that the US does what it intended to do in the first place, namely invade Iraq, control its oil, scare other states in the region shitless, and remove something a bunch of Beanie-Headed Land Grabbers view as a security threat to God's Chosen People. However, due to all the capitulation the US has forced from other nations, and the UN, who are too stupid to see that they are simply being used as a fig leaf for naked US aggression, the resulting military action has the illusion of having been given some sort of imprimatur by the world community. Saddam should have told Bush to fuck himself when he suggested the propaganda inspectors go back into Iraq, especially since the previous team did nothing but engage in espionage under cover of the UN while they were there, and provide targeting information to the CIA which permitted the US to bomb almost all of Iraq's industrial infrastructure, none of which had anything to do with weapons manufacturing. The UN security council should have told Bush to go fuck himself, when he tried to trick them into a resolution they all believed would not authorize a war, which the US would later claim did. The UN has proved itself irrelevant, but not for inaction against Saddam. It has proved itself irrelevant for repeatedly knucking under to the United States, and allowing itself to be manipulated. This is a war between the US and Iraq, planned by the US and Israel for 11 years, with an pre-existing agenda, and the UN is merely being employed as Bush's merkin. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. That's probably 30% against the war on principle, 20% for the war on principle, and 50% who think it's a sin against God to not agree with authority. If Bush opposed a war, you'd probably find 80% in favor of that position. Polls are meaningless if you don't subtract the sheep. Which article/amendment of the constitution states that the winner of the popular vote wins the election? Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th amendment seem to be pretty clear on the subject. Regardless of your opinion of the 2000 elections, Bush *IS* the president and has been given authorization to use force both by Congress and the UN. Since Congress has now abdicated its control over how war is declared, other nations have a legitimate reason to worry about a country that picks a random crackpot every 4 years that most of the people know little about, hands him the keys to the biggest arsenal in the world with no oversight, and lets him do anything as long as he isn't getting his cock sucked by the junior staff. The fallout from this war is that every other nation in the world, including our former allies, is going to want a credible deterent against the day when AmeriKKKa decides to bomb them. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law
Re: I for one am glad that...
Roger that, Declan. But rarely does that kind of 'meddling' rise to retribution of the 9/11 kind. If you don't like America's funniest home videos you don't have to buy it. Especially if it offends your Islamic sensibilities (or more likely good taste). jim burnes On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 07:07 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:07:35AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Foreign nationals do not hate our freedom. If the US traded with all, and avoided foreign entanglements, the lifestyle of Americans would be of little concern to our current enemies. So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. I believe they hate both. They naturally hate our meddling -- bin Laden's three claims from a pre 911 ABC News interview, as I remember them, were: U.S. out of Iraq (blockade), U.S. out of Saudi Arabia (holy lands), U.S. out of Israel (military aid). Whether or not these are things the U.S. should do or not, it's clear by now that a heck of a lot of Muslims agree with those points, and OBL was able to use them to his rhetorical advantage. As for the hate our freedom claim, I make that claim because even if we were noninterventionists pacifists, we export our culture via MTV and Hollywood in a way that jibes not at all well with strict Islamic fundamentalism. We would call it free trade; OBL would call that meddling. Reducing overt meddling in a military sense would lessen but not eliminate anti-American sentiment that objects to our culture. -Declan
Re: I for one am glad that...
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:07:35AM -0800, Eric Cordian wrote: Foreign nationals do not hate our freedom. If the US traded with all, and avoided foreign entanglements, the lifestyle of Americans would be of little concern to our current enemies. So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. I believe they hate both. They naturally hate our meddling -- bin Laden's three claims from a pre 911 ABC News interview, as I remember them, were: U.S. out of Iraq (blockade), U.S. out of Saudi Arabia (holy lands), U.S. out of Israel (military aid). Whether or not these are things the U.S. should do or not, it's clear by now that a heck of a lot of Muslims agree with those points, and OBL was able to use them to his rhetorical advantage. As for the hate our freedom claim, I make that claim because even if we were noninterventionists pacifists, we export our culture via MTV and Hollywood in a way that jibes not at all well with strict Islamic fundamentalism. We would call it free trade; OBL would call that meddling. Reducing overt meddling in a military sense would lessen but not eliminate anti-American sentiment that objects to our culture. -Declan
Type III Anonymous Message
=== TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BEGINS === remember to email [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ssh2 key... below is gpg key -BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (OpenBSD) mQGiBD4I1qARBADVJq/hf1mec9Ac+L/J1ZJcngJkw6REiOdLD5IOtO18SB2UxDMN Tait4AdhR7O1zHxmxUctNaiypdJwhEZhGDDBlY/k8h0tHNVoa7utUMOWgmtOe+gO hS4LjyfBGX4ExBw6ofdLTrkIkjVz+sDIlJFb4Y4IluDidfrDUPg1/qGkewCg/kK4 dq1W3ntl/PwsmOG1VztbTgUD/i0p95JMxfuAalS9VycYnXaGywFVEsDJDJdIOLYP kVzpimrh25mvf3h9BZpnb4+XFhlWr1NVEA30YWQQGkSYAoOzMfxzk8nXvxBExX+j b/6RZWqfW2/YEv5jUbu6Ud91KubMmfjTjnepuo+q1ZjKO4vZSJhUYs0cLx1lgyVZ lNgKBACYpp+cEsZMU/6JHGY/8Wbo9y+8MLrNkvno+d7QJ0i3u97k2mBe/9Ie9J+5 tiam9gx9CqhKfLM3ikFouJpNoW2mv+1FzSyXb7U4ijGcJx6dXN03wTAs+txVNbOx m/hvR+/UitIFLXSo37CDS9Ba6Pr/cPtgBMzPbg3NVmMtE/nk9rRgR3dlbiBIYXN0 aW5ncyAoUHJpdmF0ZSBkaXN0cmlidXRpb24gbG9uZyBrZXkgZG8gTk9UIHVwbG9h ZCB0byBrZXlzZXJ2ZXJzISkgPGd3ZW5AY3lwaGVycHVua3MudG8+iGAEExECACAF Aj4I1qAFCQeEzgAFCwcDAgEDFQIDAxYCAQIeAQIXgAAKCRBFSNreUZWDz/sBAKC1 jLhll2R4hJ2I7kDlDCzFH8WLGACgsVBDT/7kXP9Xw5xAwlFQgXCuJ3S5BA0EPgji uRAQAMTLx30NTz0ATg/83u1AKoYY3e/dVGcTn4+KTEJIws5d6j2UUR6zm0bT23jw N4lA2zRT5k988lwKtiSnFesV7Ezoe04pmQtD/k5vMaiEPgYoiUHZhCfySYt/dYf/ lvkbhpcLN8cEY38dGk1t2QcK5IeIsJSqOiKQY53932KRcU/xLlRZrjLrkM6Dg2D0 0C3484xMJYdXgaByg91DlJ6csY9w6FQnuxPM9e+pgLj7sv5mDESuUUAHPcwIZFQ3 sKAvSxwa0lc3E/MjeHld50NYB4Fn2cqMwi5Em2m4NqUrO0DgoOBlVJhtZGz5dgZ4 nqP1NpaVR1tc2GcHiTrj5Tr91Q0uOO8e6WpWdt2PjIUsC2OJLDaHgngPRKXKIH63 6V2qu5LPY/jnJABPWWlhU0ZDekbYF14H6buohiSXBHRYrflLwQlUpPA7wJlVlUig sAwiwugV6xrKa4gPEFB7sS7xhqhT8E0UC6I6s6LWoauCthCg4mjDcpEzupeW/vn9 VuUs5BEEokKm+lXg6n8UCFJa6Gtf5TGjpmTtVmRejVs3cft1QUxJ6kJjqlEm7iPU NmqEsGSbT6nkYQILWUrAabc4meQGJf3I/VZ5UUWtBeHA77IhOp56YogNYp0kl9SX mfVhRqsFhhiIpL+GYjTBuawjV/GB+kQQrTynm0Jq5ditErjPAAMHD/9a4mlrQqWR A6G5wgrfevg2axAhaJrl0CgnAT/ulUWF8iHNeq9LXkkNE0J1yQzWicOU4a+9TFat 8vo4MqFiUkyWfnI/683RUnUldGU9tZ9Skab6rBy9QWUqorqRfudiYKqZKhX44nmj vYb53DZg3VlfVN7X7kG2ZJkFNO9YeqB63Ah503LR7ArT2u8fwoXZ2gxYDFK+zd8o BgDW0hhHj6leV5pJeEYqd1uX7cN07gtmjGd3fPEzI7xSGqj5ottipSpyQlZZVcGH prSY1fuPh0KSrakvmEfK+I4dfe7Mb+rwu5rz6TYR5wpo56/F0Ikv5QjQX6k9J2YE 4K1+Uu1APg/LixJZVodTeV5CXZLwz+zwycP8hOw5mg0ngHCu8HimTIEI5/LxSWqD TlqfcKR72taJH9tiYByMA6uAV7XMrTmlE301LqoCYUc4EYKwWZZq+Xg0RTKIRasX adw1bBFkE1KrXKr78XbtLO8p2L28qMiyCfBy+N3V41iYcQStiJRG85gZD7KaHrUV UobSYWLbKr7KUue72fsdle8Ha6Ss5yOrD2AK5vWSLo+SbABY4Pjhw/GVWSJ3xihw ITAiSWRKqgWfPwwiOoIqrOi59wcPL+nCkNqLlVpHz2FCxkM1Ym5Cc8nSJSqR7vHy 4HXCwV6Vy/sAUU4y+NjucjdW+hmeqhUF+4hMBBgRAgAMBQI+COK5BQkHhM4AAAoJ EEVI2t5RlYPPbMwAoM7SrL6F1ql2M30o1p0noSbtAWniAKCcT5EBe3wTIjKaf3k0 RlQesjpsbg== =OFmm -END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK- TYPE III ANONYMOUS MESSAGE ENDS
Re: I for one am glad that...
Wow. That message from Tyler finally made me come out 2 years of lurk mode. 'when we supported him, he was not evil'. Now that is a serious laugh. Since when did the spooks at Foggy Bottom ever care whether or not who we supported was good or evil. The number of dictators we have actively supported when they were evil with a capital 'E' is too long to mention. I wish I had enough time to review most of the messages from the last several years, but is Tyler a troll? How could anyone be that dogmatically trusting of any regime? Besides, assuming US foreign policy is relentless promotion of freedom vs 'the dark side' is a hopelessly naive viewpoint. That would assume that the US remembered what freedom was about in the first place -- and that is a very shaky proposition at best. 2003 is a long, long way down the one-way entropy slide from 1776. Jim Burnes On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 03:22 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: Patriot Keith Ray wrote... The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. Yes, and the fact that the majority of this aid is in the form of munitions credits is proof of the fact that we Americans are willing to help other nations defend the cause of freedom throughout the world. Of course, it might be pointed out that the US has given aid to the likes of Saddam Hussein in the form of billions of dollars, much in munitions credits. But the obvious reponse to this is that, when we supported him, he was not evil, and had not yet turned away from freedom into darkness. Likewise with the Taliban, Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and so on. -TD From: Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I for one am glad that... Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:39:59 -0600 Quoting Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The US is one of many nations. Since the inception of the United Nations, and International Law, a nation may go to war only if it is attacked or in iminent danger of being attacked by another nation. The US is a signatory of the UN charter, and is consequently bound by it as if it were law. Military actions taken because of a perceived future threat to world peace can only be authorized by the UN Security Council. The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) 2. 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 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. That is why our leader, George W. Bush, understands that in order to protect our freedoms, special precautions are necessary. George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war. Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current discussion. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must actively support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone who does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to it and must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our freedom. More Freedom = Less Government. I support maximal freedom. By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the police and military and see how long the US lasts. Let us as responsible citizens of this free and peaceful nation pledge ourselves in the fight against evil. May God help us in our fight. The US is the foremost international bully in the world today, pursuing an agenda of globalization on its own terms, during a brief period in which it enjoys complete and total military superiority. The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. World government may be inevitable at some time in the future, but it would be idiotic to
Re: I for one am glad that...
Sorry, Tyler. I believe I spoke too soon. The comments you provided look like they were 'de-referenced'. Back to my attention-deficit lurking. jim burnes On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 03:22 PM, Tyler Durden wrote: Patriot Keith Ray wrote... The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. Yes, and the fact that the majority of this aid is in the form of munitions credits is proof of the fact that we Americans are willing to help other nations defend the cause of freedom throughout the world. Of course, it might be pointed out that the US has given aid to the likes of Saddam Hussein in the form of billions of dollars, much in munitions credits. But the obvious reponse to this is that, when we supported him, he was not evil, and had not yet turned away from freedom into darkness. Likewise with the Taliban, Argentina, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and so on. -TD From: Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I for one am glad that... Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:39:59 -0600 Quoting Eric Cordian [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The US is one of many nations. Since the inception of the United Nations, and International Law, a nation may go to war only if it is attacked or in iminent danger of being attacked by another nation. The US is a signatory of the UN charter, and is consequently bound by it as if it were law. Military actions taken because of a perceived future threat to world peace can only be authorized by the UN Security Council. The UN authorized force in resolution 678 to uphold current and future resolutions. The UN voted unanimously to declare Iraq in violation of previous UN resolutions in 1441. The UN weapons inspector's reports detailed many omissions in Iraq's weapons declaration and failures to fully cooperate with inspectors. United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) 2. 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 above, the foregoing resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area; United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002) 13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations; So-called terrorists hate not our freedom, but our meddling. This is no excuse for use of unconventional warfare against the US nor does it delegitimize the US's use of force to defend themselves. That is why our leader, George W. Bush, understands that in order to protect our freedoms, special precautions are necessary. George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war. Ad hominem attacks against the President are irrelevant to the current discussion. As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people are behind him. Of course, in order to secure our freedom, all citizens must actively support our government's efforts to secure this freedom. Anyone who does not obviously support American freedom is clearly opposed to it and must be stopped, or he will help our enemies take away our freedom. More Freedom = Less Government. I support maximal freedom. By that reasoning, maximum freedom equals no government. Let's disband the police and military and see how long the US lasts. Let us as responsible citizens of this free and peaceful nation pledge ourselves in the fight against evil. May God help us in our fight. The US is the foremost international bully in the world today, pursuing an agenda of globalization on its own terms, during a brief period in which it enjoys complete and total military superiority. The US is also the world's foremost provider of economic aid. Whether the US is a bully or a peacekeeper really depends on your perspective. World government may be inevitable at some time in the future, but it would be idiotic to permit that world government to grow from the coalition of Bible Spewing Jesus Christers, and their Neo-Conservative handlers that currently have their greedy paws on America's military machine. Damn those free elections! Why can't we just agree to let you pick the world's leaders? Justice in the Middle East would be Sharon, Netanyahu, and two generations of the Bush family hanging in downtown Baghdad. After a fair trial and due process at the hands of the International Community, of course. This kind of statement works a lot better for Tim than it does for you. -- Keith Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12 _ Add
Re: I for one am glad that...
The fact that the count was very close is not legal or constitutional grounds for a do over. In the wise words of a modern American sage, Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. -TD _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
I'm convinced that if the U.S. were libertarian, even libertine, that many Muslims would think of us as corrupt...but I don't think much organized effort would be directed against us. Exactly. You don't stress about the weirdos living at the end of the street if you can tune them out. Maybe it even boosts your self-righteousness to have such counterexamples. Well, I'm also not sure I by the Muslims are by nature fundamentalist line of thought. Of course, I'll probably take some heat for this, but to a large extent a local population with its own culture, etc..., when under siege or the pressure of extermination, often revert to something akin to a fundamentalism, in order to codify the rules of identity that are being nullified. It's possible that if the US had not maintained such a strong, interfering presence in the middle east for so long, the desirability of a Muslim form of fundamentalism might be greatly reduced (and for history buffs it should be noted that for most of its history, the Islamic world has not been particuarly fundamentalist). Note that Wahabism orignated in Saudi only mid-late 1800s, and probably didn't take a real firm root until the US start getting involved (humsomething to be said for Dave Emory's theory about the Wahabis being 'Islamo-Fascists'...) I agree the above would be bullshit if it weren't on some occasions demonstrably true. After the US helped get the Taliban rolling (through providing them with stingers and other weapons as well as subversive opps training to knock out the soviets), Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto said to Bush I You know you have created Frankenstein's Monster... SO if we hadn't been screwing around in the middle east for so long, perhaps the world would look entirely different. As for our troops, qwell, on some level it must be acknowledged that every man is utlimately responsible for his actions. And in this case, it's pretty evident that Iraq hasn't attacked us. But then again, perhaps weak schools make good soldiers. -TD _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Journalists, Diplomats, Others Urged to Evacuate City
Tim May wrote... (And this kind of chaos need not be a decapitation attack on the Seat of Government. A disabling attack on agriculture--such as contaminating the meat supply with hoof and mouth or mad cow--or a psychological attack on consumerism--such as 5 suicide bombers hitting crowded shopping malls--would have a big effect. The destruction of a few dams would have similar effects, but, fortunately for us, they are apparently well-defended, i.e., they are _not_ soft targets.) Well, I am not convinced. About the ever-present dangers of innumerable terrorists, that is. I mean, where the hell are they all? It's a giant country, with ungaurded borders extending for thousands of miles. It seems to me if there really were some vast army of terrorists waiting to kill us all out there, we should be seeing something happen about every other day. But as it the only terrorist attack (from non-US citizens, that is), was on 9/11/01. Were there ANY others? (Though I still think that plane that went down over Far Rockaway was obviously sabotaged.) Israel, of course, is a different story. But as Variola posted a few days ago, those suicide bombers grow up under very different circumstances. We don't have such circumstances here...yet. Those suicide bombers could see the possibility of direct and obvious pressure on local abusive forces that they had likely grown up witnessing first-hand. So what I am tempted to believe is that on September 11th, the vast majority of adult, mission-oriented Suicide bombers likely died in action. After that, it was easy to scare the population into accepting check points, lockdowns, the general loss of freedom, and 1.5 hour bus drives into lower Manhattan (such as I experienced this morning). You know what? There are no terrorists. _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
