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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
. 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 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
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
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
Tyler Durden wrote:
Our leader understands the dynamics of peace. As he said last night, we are
a peaceful people, and he understands that in order to secure peace, we
need to aggressively defend the cause of peace, throughout the globe, by any
means necessary.
The US is one of many
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
One can well imagine the chaos that would ensue if every nation that
perceived some other nation as a potential future threat ran around waging
pre-emptive strikes and wars of aggression.
Precisely. This is why the United States should be the lone guardian of
peace and freedom throughout the
21 matches
Mail list logo
