Re: [ZION] Important Questions

2003-01-24 Thread Jon Spencer
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

2003-01-24 Thread Jon Spencer
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

2003-01-23 Thread Jon Spencer
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
==^




Re: [ZION] Important Questions

2003-01-23 Thread Paul Osborne
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
==^