Re: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler

Except for the problem of western militarism.

Gary Smith wrote:

 There is an easy solution to the Iraq problem. Instead of invading, just
 drop a major 20,000 ton bomb on one of his presidential compounds and
 flatten it. Then tell Saddam that every week we'll flatten another
 compound until he agrees to let inspectors visit everywhere. Either way,
 the problem will eventually go away

 K'aya K'ama,
 Gerald/gary  Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www
 .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html
 No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free.  -
 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

 GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

 Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

 Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:

 http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

 /
 ///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
 ///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
 /


--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===





Re: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-09 Thread vicgh25

September 11th was a defining moment in history, it showed that America could be 
attacked within her own borders; it didn't need an ICBM as has been the thinking.

It would be tragic that when (not if) it happens again; and what could be the outcome 
(will cities not buildings lay waste)?

Lastely, could it have been prevented? Will the thinking of no war still be present?

Vic


--- Marc A. Schindler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the Ensign. I mysel=
f have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, =
not
get it after hearing this talk. He said as a CHURCH we should renounce wa=
r and emphasized that it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who=
 would
be the peacemakers in the region. I think it's pretty hard to wriggle out o=
f that one.  And to your BoM reading I hope you add some selective DC read=
ing,
too, especially a revelation given at the height of persecution of the Sain=
ts.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Within the first chapters of the Book of Mormon it talks about Nephi chop=
ping off the head of Laban.

 Toward the end of the Book of Mormon it talks about Mormon and Moroni war=
ring against the Lamanites.

 In between, there is bloodshed and it gives me the impression as long as =
one is fighting for ones homeland and ones family, than war becomes accepta=
ble.

 Osama and is band of terrorists are warring against the U.S.

 It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the sam=
e.


I've foreborn specific comment on your questions -- I have a general questi=
on at the end -- but it seems to some people to be only a matter of time be=
fore
N. Korea wars against the U.S., so why isn't the US government amassing arm=
aments in that area? Also, if you're concerned about military dictatorships=
 with
WMD, why continue to give billions every year to Pakistan, which *already h=
as* nuclear weapons -- tested ones, ready to use. Seems to me you should bo=
mb
Pakistan back to the stone age before you worry about Iraq.


 Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a response?

 As LDS, and with what the contents of the Book of Mormon says, in all hon=
esty; is there such a thing as a pacifist Mormon?


There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. And for what it's worth, I think a=
lmost every one of your implied assumptions in your question is wrong.


 Vic

But perhaps I've been too shy in expressing my opinion ;-)

--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and=
 falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the auth=
or solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author=92s
employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associ=
ated.

///=
//
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html  ///
///=
//

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

_
Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. --- http://www.DCemail.com --- A 
Washington Online Community Member ---
http://www.DCpages.com

_
Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, 
POP  more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^




RE: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-09 Thread Stephen Beecroft

-Marc-
 Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the
 Ensign. I myself have a difficult time seeing how people can
 still, with all due respect, not get it after hearing this talk.

And I have a difficult time seeing why people are so eager to twist an 
apostle's words into supporting their political tastes, rather than try 
to glean the truth and wisdom he was teaching. I suppose we both should 
work on our ability to understand.

 He said as a CHURCH we should renounce war and emphasized that
 it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who would be the
 peacemakers in the region.

And therefore...?

 There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS.

From The American Heritage Dictionary (1985):

 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be
 settled peacefully.
 2a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving
 disputes.
 b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in
 military action.

#1 does partially apply to Saints, of course, but it is so obvious that 
even the most hawk-like Saint agrees that disputes *should* be settled 
peacefully. Disputes involving aggression by enemies against you 
obviously *cannot* be settled peacefully. Both parts of definition 2 are 
anti-Mormon.

From Merriam-Webster's online (www.m-w.com):

 Main Entry: pac·i·fism 
 Pronunciation: 'pa-s-fi-zm
 Function: noun
 Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
 Date: 1902
 1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling
 disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or
 religious grounds
 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

Neither of these definitions describes the Church's position.

The definion at www.dictionary.com is word-for-word identical to that of 
the American Heritage definition quoted above.

So you're wrong, Marc. Mormons are *not* pacifist, or at least they 
should not be. Quite the contrary.

Stephen

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^




Re: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler



Stephen Beecroft wrote:

 -Marc-
  Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here.
  Life's too short,

 Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you
 feel, why are you so willing to engage in point-by-point games at
 other times?


I'm human. I'm inconsistent. So sue me. Seriously, as I answered in another post,
I don't have enough information yet, I don't believe, to address this talk
directly to the Iraq situation per se. I believe that in general prophecies tend
to be broader than just one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all
of us, or most of us).


  and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear
  and unamibiguous.

 And he clearly, unambiguously did not mention Iraq.


As I did not. It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a
criticism of US foreign policy, but I'm not trying to put words into Elder
Nelson's mouth. Incidentally, it's a bit ironic, because I'm not so sure there's
actually going to be a war with Iraq. I think Bush's tactics are not direct here.
I have an inkling of what I think he might be up to, but I can't read his mind
and it's too soon to tell. Let's just say that I think he's trying to kill more
than one bird with one stone, and there'll be little violence on the streets of
Baghdad in the near future.


  The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do
  with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference
  weekend) was specific and it was unbiased.

 Seems I recently critiqued an Economist article you referenced and
 demonstrated its tremendous bias.

So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take what you just
wrote and say, because you used an emotional word like tremendous that you're
biased, and I don't have to listen to you? Actually I value your input, even when
I think it's biased and even when I'm arguing against it. And fwiw, I think
you're giving yourself too much credit.

 I think you'll have a hard time
 maintaining that the Economist's articles are unbiased. But maybe I'm
 wrong. Can you give a URL to the specific article you're citing?


I actually posted the whole thing here. It was only a week ago.

But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the article. Why do you
need a URL to it again?


  There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and
  bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own
  minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho.

 Well, it's easy for you to claim my critical reading skills aren't
 where they should be. You certainly might be right. But I notice you
 never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim
 that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists.


In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. I don't mean to
imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors, but we are members of a church
whose official policy is to proclaim peace and renounce war. That can certainly
be said to be a pacifist point of view. You don't have to fit ALL definitions of
a word (not in English, a notoriously ambiguous language at best) to be able to
use it. Else why bother even to try using words? Let's communicate in source
code.


  Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out,
  and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently.

 Apparently that's not the case. I was indeed paying attention to the
 thread, and it looked to me like you were dismissing his sources as
 biased and proclaiming your own to be unbiased.


As I've said several times, I dismissed his source as careless and therefore
biased. That's an important distinction. His source said that according to the
Israeli military intelligence (no citation given), Jane's (no citation given)
said such-and-such. I did a search of Jane's website (I can't afford the hard
copy -- their subs are hundreds of dollars a year, but I did occasionally look at
it in the provincial government library, so am familiar with the publication) and
found not a single reference to *any* Israeli military intelligence reference to
anything. So what am I supposed to think about an article that uses vague and 2nd
hand sources? At least the Economist cites its sources.


  I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word
  to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by
  calling me a liar.

 I don't believe Dan was calling you a liar, though of course I could be
 wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying
 that term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as
 unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say,
 in effect, I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then
 you're blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word.


You put that in quotation marks. That implies I wrote those words. Please retract
that accusation. I didn't.  Okay, I also see that 

RE: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-09 Thread Stephen Beecroft

-Marc-
 I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just
 one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or
 most of us).

I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote:

 and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear
 and unamibiguous.

Generality of application implies some ambiguity, at least to me. I'm 
curious what you thought was the specific application of Elder Nelson's 
clear and unambiguous words.

 It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a
 criticism of US foreign policy,

His words can be considered any number of things -- a criticism of US 
foreign policy, an endorsement of expedient and necessary political 
actions, a recipe for walnut fudge. The more important question, I 
think, is what Elder Nelson actually meant. Perhaps you believe he 
intended to criticize US actions. I doubt it, but it's possible. But I'm 
still wondering what you meant when you wrote that the Saints still 
[do] 'not get it' after hearing his talk. I personally don't know any 
Saints, in the flesh or in cyberspace, who believe that war is generally 
a good thing; so what is it that you think the Saints don't get?

-Marc-
 So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take
 what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word
 like tremendous that you're biased,

My charge of bias was not based on a single occurrence of a term, but 
rather on the whole tenor of the article and the slant they gave it.

 and I don't have to listen to you?

Naturally you don't. And if you do wish to listen to me, I am quite sure 
you formulate in your mind's eye a vision of what you believe my 
viewpoint (or bias) to be, in order to better understand what I write.

 And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit.

The curse of the responsible. If not me, who?

 But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the
 article. Why do you need a URL to it again?

To review it and see if my criticisms were justified. I don't remember 
it being only a week ago, and my memory of the particulars is hazy.

-Stephen-
 I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your
 extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily
 pacifists.

-Marc-
 In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them.

We both know that the generally-accepted and understood meaning of the 
term pacifist is one who rejects warfare under all circumstances. I am 
pretty sure you realized this when you wrote what you did. If you had 
another, narrower definition of pacifist in mind, it was incumbent 
upon you to define your terms. As I demonstrated, none of the dictionary 
definitions reasonably applied to Latter-day Saints.

 I don't mean to imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors,
 but we are members of a church whose official policy is to
 proclaim peace and renounce war. That can certainly be said to be
 a pacifist point of view.

Not according to the dictionary.

 As I've said several times, I dismissed his source as careless and
 therefore biased.

I had not yet noticed that your dismissal of his source as biased was 
based on its carelessness, though I know you mentioned that from the 
beginning. Carelessness and bias are two separate and unrelated things; 
if you consider his article biased because of carelessness, then that's 
even less defensible.

 So what am I supposed to think about an article that uses vague
 and 2nd hand sources? At least the Economist cites its sources.

Perhaps that they're dishonest, or perhaps that they're careless. If the 
former, then they're certainly biased; if the latter, then perhaps not. 
(Okay, we both know a truly unbiased viewpoint is unachievable; but 
there's a big difference between citing a true but unverifiable source 
and making something up out of whole cloth.)

-Stephen-
 I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe you're twisting
 Elder Nelson's words. Please return the courtesy.

-Marc-
 Well, if you insist. I've demonstrated in some detail how I
 believe your're twisting Elder Nelson's and my words.

Where? Not in this post, nor any other I've read. You have explained how 
I have mistaken your meaning (which I maintain was more due to 
authorship than to reader error), but you haven't even touched on how 
I'm supposedly twisting Elder Nelson's words.

Stephen

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register

Re: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-09 Thread Marc A. Schindler



Stephen Beecroft wrote:

 -Marc-
  I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just
  one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or
  most of us).

 I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote:

  and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear
  and unamibiguous.

 Generality of application implies some ambiguity, at least to me. I'm
 curious what you thought was the specific application of Elder Nelson's
 clear and unambiguous words.


Then let me clarify what I mean by the two words. General to me doesn't mean
vague, but rather refers to scope, either time-related, geography-related,
whatever. Not limited to time, place or person, let's say. Ambiguous to me
refers to the clarity of meaning. So one can have an unambiguous but general
statement. They're not easy to craft, but I believe that's how prophets prefer to
express themselves.


  It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a
  criticism of US foreign policy,

 His words can be considered any number of things -- a criticism of US
 foreign policy, an endorsement of expedient and necessary political
 actions, a recipe for walnut fudge. The more important question, I
 think, is what Elder Nelson actually meant. Perhaps you believe he
 intended to criticize US actions. I doubt it, but it's possible. But I'm
 still wondering what you meant when you wrote that the Saints still
 [do] 'not get it' after hearing his talk. I personally don't know any
 Saints, in the flesh or in cyberspace, who believe that war is generally
 a good thing; so what is it that you think the Saints don't get?


That not only war, but militarism, are not healthy options. Militarism is the
consideration of military actions before they ought to be considered, according
to the scriptures, as I read it. I think I said something similar in another
response, so I'll let it go at that.


 -Marc-
  So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take
  what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word
  like tremendous that you're biased,

 My charge of bias was not based on a single occurrence of a term, but
 rather on the whole tenor of the article and the slant they gave it.


But you didnt' say that. But thanks for clarifying your, er, general statement
;-)


  and I don't have to listen to you?

 Naturally you don't. And if you do wish to listen to me, I am quite sure
 you formulate in your mind's eye a vision of what you believe my
 viewpoint (or bias) to be, in order to better understand what I write.


I happily (if admittedly, at times, somewhat impatiently) listen to you because
there's something in it for me -- you help me hone my words and craft my
arguments better, if nothing else.


  And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit.

 The curse of the responsible. If not me, who?

  But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the
  article. Why do you need a URL to it again?

 To review it and see if my criticisms were justified. I don't remember
 it being only a week ago, and my memory of the particulars is hazy.


It should be on the archives. If you really want me to, I'll repost it, but
because it was premium material, I have to do more than post a URL (which I don't
mind; a minor sin -- just in case y'all were labouring under the understandable
but false assumption that I'm perfect) ;-)


 -Stephen-
  I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your
  extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily
  pacifists.

 -Marc-
  In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them.

 We both know that the generally-accepted and understood meaning of the
 term pacifist is one who rejects warfare under all circumstances.

Well, all it takes to demolish a general argument is one exception. You carefully
avoided that kind of argument, but, no, I did not have the Quaker's definition
in mind; I actually had in mind the definition given in DC (134 iirc; I'd have
to look it up). to renounce war is definitely a pacific approach, I think we're
now just arguing over connotations. After all, Elder Nelson didn't call for a
jihad (or its English equivalent, a crusade).

 I am
 pretty sure you realized this when you wrote what you did. If you had
 another, narrower definition of pacifist in mind, it was incumbent
 upon you to define your terms. As I demonstrated, none of the dictionary
 definitions reasonably applied to Latter-day Saints.


I disagree. I pointed out that in your first dictionary definition, it gave 3
meanings, and I said renounce war was in keeping with the first 2, but not
necessarily the 3rd definition. And we can play dictionary games if you want. I
have a few I could turn to, too. But to what end? If one doesn't understand what
another says, the best approach is to ask, not throw a dictionary at him.


  I don't mean to imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors,
  but we are members of a 

Re: [ZION] Iraq and War

2002-10-07 Thread Paul Osborne


It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the
same.
 
Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a
response?



Saddam is a stupid idiot. I don't think he is any threat to the USA. I
think America needs to mind there own business and let the other
countries fight it out. 

But, if Saddam should be found to have attacked American soil or
property, then I am all for firing a nuclear bomb right down his throat.
Then the scripture will be fulfilled: 

Babylon is no more.

Paul O
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^




Re: [ZION] Iraq and war

2002-10-05 Thread John W. Redelfs

At 03:48 PM 10/5/02 -0600 Marc A. Schindler favored us with:
Elder Russell M. Nelson's talk -- did you notice his emphasis on how
Ishmael and Jacob's cooperation following their father's death should
serve as an example, that their present-day descendants should emerge as
peacemakers in the region?

What think ye?

I felt that it should throw a bucket of cold water on some of those saints who are in 
favor of a war with Iraq. He said that as a Church we have to remain neutral and our 
members have to obey the laws of the land even if that means fighting in a war.  But 
as individuals we don't have to be so circumspect.  On a personal level we are to 
oppose war and be peacemakers.

I thought Elder Nelson's remarks would put to rest the recent thread on war vs. peace 
with Iraq.  We'll see if anyone was listening.

John W. Redelfs   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against 
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the 
darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in 
high [places]. (Ephesians 6:12)
*
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^




Re: [ZION] Iraq and war

2002-10-05 Thread Marc A. Schindler

I don't mean to belabour the point, but I'm sometimes amazed at the things you and I 
agree on. This could be bad for your reputation, you know

John W. Redelfs wrote:


 I felt that it should throw a bucket of cold water on some of those saints who are 
in favor of a war with Iraq. He said that as a Church we have to remain neutral and 
our members have to obey the laws of the land even if that means fighting in a war.  
But as individuals we don't have to be so circumspect.  On a personal level we are to 
oppose war and be peacemakers.

 I thought Elder Nelson's remarks would put to rest the recent thread on war vs. 
peace with Iraq.  We'll see if anyone was listening.

 John W. Redelfs   [EMAIL PROTECTED]


--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling 
short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; 
its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s employer, nor those of 
any organization with which the author may be associated.

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===




Re: [ZION] Iraq and war

2002-10-04 Thread Jon Spencer

Actually, I do agree that this is a big mistake.  Since probably at most
only 1/2 of your armed forces are fighting forces, when the Mexican army
reaches your border with the US, you may really miss those 2,000.

Jon

Marc A. Schindler wrote:

Canada ready to send 2 000 troops along with US forces to Iraq (this is
about the same that was committed in the Afghan conflict). Big mistake,
imo. But you probably already knew that.

/
///  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
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^