Re: [ZION] Important questions
I'll agree with that. Stacy. At 06:19 PM 01/24/2003 -0500, you wrote: I concur, but we have to do more than get Saddam out of their. We have to have a different form of government, not another dictator, even one who was "on our side." Jon Gerald Smith wrote: > Well, I hope we don't have to bomb Iraq. I hope we can get Saddam out of > there without having to injure a single Iraqi individual, or risk our own > troops. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 01/21/2003 // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Important questions
I concur, but we have to do more than get Saddam out of their. We have to have a different form of government, not another dictator, even one who was "on our side." Jon Gerald Smith wrote: > Well, I hope we don't have to bomb Iraq. I hope we can get Saddam out of > there without having to injure a single Iraqi individual, or risk our own > troops. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Important Questions
But Paul, come on now, be honest. how do you REALLY feel? Noj Paul Osborne wrote: > Gee-wizz, John. I thought we weren't suppose to talk about Iraq? Remember > the last flame war we had? Well, since we are about to go at it again I > will only make one little itty bitty comment which is that I hope we bomb > the hell out Iraq and roll our tanks right into the palaces of that > madman in Baghdad. > > Enough said. Now back to lurking. :-) // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Important Questions
Gee-wizz, John. I thought we weren't suppose to talk about Iraq? Remember the last flame war we had? Well, since we are about to go at it again I will only make one little itty bitty comment which is that I hope we bomb the hell out Iraq and roll our tanks right into the palaces of that madman in Baghdad. Enough said. Now back to lurking. :-) Paul O On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:04:41 -0900 "John W. Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Here are three important questions that need to be answered before we > > launch a preemptive strike against Iraq: > > Who has more nuclear weapons, Iraq or the United States? > Who has more chemical weapons, Iraq or the United States? > Who has more biological weapons, Iraq or the United States? > > If the answer is the United States in all three cases, then I > consider it > gross hypocrisy for us to use Saddam's weapons of mass destruction > as > justification for aggression against another sovereign state. Now > if it > can be prove by evidence that Saddam Hussein was in some way behind > the > attack on the WTC, that will constitute an attack on our own soil, > and I > would fully support full retaliation by launching as invasion of > Iraq. > > However, I'm not sure there is any evidence to pin the WTC attack on > Saddam > Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current > administration > in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for > war with > Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was > not > involved in the September 11th attacks. > > John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
Re: [ZION] Important Questions
John - I will not write what initially came to my mind when I read your post. It might be misunderstood! :-) So, let me state that there are several reasons why a country might arm itself. These include: 1. To act as a deterrent. In this case, the fact that they have them is made known publicly. This is the case for the US. 2. To use as a bargaining chip. In this case the fact that they have them is made known publicly. This is the case for North Korea. 3. To use to perpetrate a blind attack on someone. In this case, the fact that they have them is hidden. This is the case for Saddam/Iraq. Your three important questions fail to take this into account. We live in a dangerous world, one where Satan would love for us to roll over and play dead. We must walk a fine line, which I believe we have done reasonably well over the last 60+ years. It is not hypocrisy to take out Saddam. We are not taking him out because he has WOMM. We are taking him out because he has and will use them against others in acts of blatant aggression, for Saddam's personal gain. Jon - Original Message - From: "John W. Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 3:04 PM Subject: [ZION] Important Questions > Here are three important questions that need to be answered before we > launch a preemptive strike against Iraq: > > Who has more nuclear weapons, Iraq or the United States? > Who has more chemical weapons, Iraq or the United States? > Who has more biological weapons, Iraq or the United States? > > If the answer is the United States in all three cases, then I consider it > gross hypocrisy for us to use Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as > justification for aggression against another sovereign state. Now if it > can be prove by evidence that Saddam Hussein was in some way behind the > attack on the WTC, that will constitute an attack on our own soil, and I > would fully support full retaliation by launching as invasion of Iraq. > > However, I'm not sure there is any evidence to pin the WTC attack on Saddam > Hussein. It seems to me that if there was, then the current administration > in the White House would trot it ought as the primary argument for war with > Iraq. That they have not done so is the best proof that Saddam was not > involved in the September 11th attacks. > > John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] > == > "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power > corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost > always bad men." --Lord Acton, 1887 > == > All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR > > // > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > > > // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^
