Re: I for one am glad that...

[Anonymous]

Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 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.
>

   Hey shitforbrains yourself -- the troops *are* the problem. I'll support
them when they shoot their officers and noncoms and come back and clean out 
washington. First off -- they ain't draftees, they are all, each and every
one, volunteers. Many of them there for the money they got as reserves --in
other words, mercenarys. And all you got to do is listen to the interviews,
a great many of these assholes are very gungho. 
   During Vietnam, a great many people went to Canada, and many already in the
army deserted. So what's with these fucks? So far there hasn't been even one
single desertion, and the war in Vietnam was one helluva lot more palatable 
than this one. 
   Bottom line -- anybody who thinks the US has the right to depose the leader
of another country that ain't attacking us, needs killing. Anybody who thinks
that each and every country in the world doesn't have an inalienable right to
own guns (including nukes, bio/chem agents/etc.) needs killing.
 
(snip)
> 
> 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.


   That was bogus bullshit -- 17,000 die every year in the US from drunk
drivers, lets declare war on cars. The US murdered over 5000 innocent people
in Panama for christs sake. Literally for christs sake. Most of the people
in the US military seriously need killing -- I hope they get it the most
painful way possible.

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Harmon Seaver]

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: I for one am glad that...

[David Howe]

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: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

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.


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...

[Vincent Penquerc'h]

> 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 

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Sunder]

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: CDR: Re: I for one am glad that...

[Jamie Lawrence]

> 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=274223&displayTypeCd=1&sideCd=1&contrassID=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

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

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: I for one am glad that...

[Tyler Durden]

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: I for one am glad that...

[jburnes]

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 down

Re: I for one am glad that...

[jburnes]

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 tota

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Thomas Shaddack]

> 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: I for one am glad that...

[Anonymous]

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

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Thomas Shaddack]

> > 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...

[Declan McCullagh]

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...

[Keith Ray]

Quoting Thomas Shaddack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> > > 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?

A UN Security Council resolution authorizing any Member State to use "all
necessary means" to uphold a previous Security Council resolution.

> > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> > are behind him.
> 
> 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?

> > 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.

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?

> > 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.

Of course it is.  Name a sovereign nation that doesn't.

> 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.

"whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the
Right of the People to alter or abolish it,"

Until this happens, our current goverment and its system of elections is the law
of the land.  

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12

Re: I for one am glad that...

[jburnes]

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...

[Eric Cordian]

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...

[Keith Ray]

Quoting gabriel rosenkoetter <[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.
> 
> This entirely disregards the UN stating a position against immediate
> action on the US's part, which President Bush chose to flatly ignore
> in his address Monday evening. The UN Security Council is allowed to
> change its mind. Just because they said the use of force could be
> justified doesn't mean that the Security Council approves of the
> US's current actions; that's completely twisting their words (and
> quite obviously not the case).

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 Security Council unanimously voted to
hold that Iraq has violated and continues to violate previous resolutions.  In
no resolution did the Security Council state that it must hold a vote before any
future action is taken.  France, Russia, and Germany alone are not the Security
Council and cannot "take back" their previous votes authorizing force.

> > As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> > are behind him.
> 
> Oh? Really? You asked them yourself? Because you sure didn't provide
> a reference or a statistical error distribution...

NBC/Wall Street Journal : 65% +/- 4.4%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 66% +/- 4.5%

> > Damn those free elections!  Why can't we just agree to let you
> > pick the world's leaders?
> 
> Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by
> President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the
> kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but
> still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected?
> Right then.
> 
> (No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's
> reasonable doubt is damning.)

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.

 --
Keith Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- OpenPGP Key: 0x79269A12

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Keith Ray]

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

Re: I for one am glad that...

[gabriel rosenkoetter]

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.

This entirely disregards the UN stating a position against immediate
action on the US's part, which President Bush chose to flatly ignore
in his address Monday evening. The UN Security Council is allowed to
change its mind. Just because they said the use of force could be
justified doesn't mean that the Security Council approves of the
US's current actions; that's completely twisting their words (and
quite obviously not the case).

> > 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.

I think it was intended as a suggestion that bombing Iraq won't make
the use of unconventional warfare against the US any less likely.
And get enough of the EU pissed off and it could lead to the use
of conventional warfare against the US. Fun!

> As far as dragging the nation to war, 70% of the American people
> are behind him.

Oh? Really? You asked them yourself? Because you sure didn't provide
a reference or a statistical error distribution...

> Damn those free elections!  Why can't we just agree to let you
> pick the world's leaders?

Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by
President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the
kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but
still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected?
Right then.

(No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's
reasonable doubt is damning.)

--
gabriel rosenkoetter
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Tyler Durden]

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 world. And indeed, all nations understand 
that we should be the keepers of this freedom, which is why they look to us 
for action and leadership.

A great deal of the world hates the behavior of World Arrogance (The US)
Stop. Your words border on treason. Please perform self-evaluation followed 
by self-criticism to correct your erroneous thinking before it is too late.

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.
No nation in history has been blessed with the bounty or standard of living 
that we have in this country. And those freedom-hating countries with whom 
we refuse to share this bounty are clearly enraged and wish to destroy us. 
This is why it is necessary for all citizens to join together as one to 
fight those who would take our freedoms and steal our bounty.

George W. Bush is a raving lunatic, barking at the moon, lying through his
teeth, and dragging the nation into another Bush family war.
This is clearly treason, and your dark thinking will clearly cause you many 
troubles. Our Partners in Freedom (ie, the various government agencies) will 
certainly find you and correct your thinking, through many long Freedom 
Sessions, as may be needed. We are a tolerant and compassionate people, but 
we will not allow one bad apple to spoil the whole batch. I have hope for 
you, however, that at the end of your education, you will understand that 
George W. is a strong, just, and compassionate elder brother who has always 
wanted the best for you. But the journey will be long and difficult, and 
there will be great pain along the way. In the end, however, if you 
persevere, we will make you free.

> Both peace and freedom are in our leaders' strong fist, who protects 
both
> for us. Any attempt to pry open this clenched fist must be met with the 
most
> extreme forms of resistance imaginable. Think of George W. Bush kind of 
like
> your elder brother: he watches out for you and fights off bullies that 
try
> to hurt you. But if you criticize your elder brother, then there can be 
no
> hope for you: you are basically helping the enemy.

Can I have some of what you've been smoking?
I've been smoking the American Flag, and it courses through my veins in red, 
white, and blue. What have YOU been smoking, sir? Perhaps the Koran? And I 
suppose your blood is a commie, Crimson red...

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.
Only in the United States do we correctly understand the Bible, and this is 
the primary source of our freedom. Those nations that recognize our freedom 
and special status on god's earth will not resist us as we pursue the course 
of peace throughout the world. Those nations that oppose us are clearly in 
the dark, and must be punished.

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.
Stop. You must not speak like this anymore, as you are attacking our 
freedom. I insist that those that run this list edit your posts for reckless 
talk such as this, and before our Partners in Freedom find you and correct 
your thinking.

Tyler Durden,
proud and free American
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Tyler Durden]

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 photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Tim May]

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 11:59  AM, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
Oh, you mean the free elections like the one that got fixed by
President Bush's brother in Florida in 2002? Or maybe you mean the
kind of election in which a candidate can win the popular vote but
still not be elected, like in 2002 when the current Bush was elected?
Right then.
(No, it doesn't matter whether there's proof; the fact that there's
reasonable doubt is damning.)
Presidential elections are not based on winning the popular vote. Our 
system has been based on electing electors.

You might wish it were not so, but it's been this way for well over 200 
years.

(And, practically, it affects campaign strategies. In fact, it's the 
reason for the Electors approach, to head off a candidate spending his 
time only in the dense urban cores. Same general reason each state gets 
two senators, regardless of population.)

As for your first point, that Jeb Bush somehow awarded the election to 
his brother, this is silly.

True, he didn't give the Democrats a chance for a "do over," even after 
they complained that they thought they were voting for someone else (on 
a ballot designed by Democrats, by the way). It is not possible for a 
governor to order a re-vote, or to change the way ballots are counted, 
etc. A good thing, too.

"Hanging chads" may sound ridiculous, but only because the vote was so 
close. These same "hanging chads" have been with us for as long as 
punched ballots, and punched IBM cards!, have been in use.

The fact that the count was "very close" is not legal or constitutional 
grounds for a "do over."

--Tim May
"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, 
my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists."  --John 
Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney General

Re: I for one am glad that...

[Eric Cordian]

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 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.

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.

> Likewise with American freedom. Terrorists and evil-doers throughout the 
> world hate our freedoms, and think day and night about destroying them. 

A great deal of the world hates the behavior of World Arrogance (The US)
and World Zionism (Israel).  Israel is in material breach of somewhere
between 30 and 60 UN security council resolutions, depending on how
forgiving one is in interpreting the language.  That doesn't even count
the many vetos by the US of resolutions unanimously approved, and designed
to hold Israel accountable for its abysmal human rights records, and its
history of disingenuous hidden agenda negotiations.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> Both peace and freedom are in our leaders' strong fist, who protects both 
> for us. Any attempt to pry open this clenched fist must be met with the most 
> extreme forms of resistance imaginable. Think of George W. Bush kind of like 
> your elder brother: he watches out for you and fights off bullies that try 
> to hurt you. But if you criticize your elder brother, then there can be no 
> hope for you: you are basically helping the enemy.

Can I have some of what you've been smoking?

> 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.

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.

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.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"