Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:29 PM, vashnukad vashnukad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I, like most people, come to full disclosure for all the best in > political theory, but while I'm here I have a minor question... what > does this entire thread have to do with full disc? Part of the problem is some treat this list as Fool Disclosure. ;-) -Jim P. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
I, like most people, come to full disclosure for all the best in political theory, but while I'm here I have a minor question... what does this entire thread have to do with full disc? c5b360dfa8508ae34fa999b98536aa50 -- Name: Vashnukad e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Site: http://www.vashnukad.com ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Throwaway1, now that your first argumentative pillar succumbed, you dastardly hide yourself behind false interpretations on Resolutions 1441 and 687. Not to mention your silly move, approaching Resolution 678 to the former ones. Convenient and biased interpretations! That's what your law understanding seems to be all about. That's it, study: http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_functions.html Let's try not to post off-topic (though relevant) stuff here anymore. Kofi Annan sent you his best regards, On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:48 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM, M.B. Jr. wrote: > > > >there is absolutely no sense in evoking 1990's UN-authorized action... > > > > > > You can stop right there M.B. > You claim there was no sense in evoking [sic] the UN's authorization of > 1990? > > That you appear to not understand what the words "Cease Fire" means is your > problem, not mine. Saddam had obligations and failed to meet them. Period. > > Neither your understanding nor your approval is required. > > == > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:08 PM, "security concern" wrote: > > > > Sorry to inject some real truth here, guys. > >...the then UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan (referring to the 2003 > Iraq invasion) >termed the invasion 'illegal'. > > > > Two points: > a) It's been my experience that people who claim to be speaking "real > truth" are generally as full of crap as a Christmas Goose. It's almost as > cliched and ridiculous as "speaking truth to power". > b) The notion that you would hold forth a man who was up to his neck in the > United Nations "Oil for Food" scandal as an arbiter of legality is absurd > to the point of surrealism. MC Escher himself would feel compelled to roll > his eyes and say; "Niggah Please". > > > > mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft(R) > Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail > > > > > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- Marcio Barbado, Jr. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) But this made me laugh a lot rogue/clean nations and USA as a respectfull ONU member Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general assembly @ ONU, On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" /And be a little more subtle/ / Razi Shaban a écrit : > Touche. > > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. > > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. > > -- > Razi ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:56 PM, M.B. Jr. wrote: > >there is absolutely no sense in evoking 1990's UN-authorized action... > > You can stop right there M.B. You claim there was no sense in evoking [sic] the UN's authorization of 1990? That you appear to not understand what the words "Cease Fire" means is your problem, not mine. Saddam had obligations and failed to meet them. Period. Neither your understanding nor your approval is required. == > On Wed, Mar 27, 2008 at 3:08 PM, "security concern" wrote: > > Sorry to inject some real truth here, guys. >...the then UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan (referring to the 2003 Iraq invasion) >termed the invasion 'illegal'. > Two points: a) It's been my experience that people who claim to be speaking "real truth" are generally as full of crap as a Christmas Goose. It's almost as cliched and ridiculous as "speaking truth to power". b) The notion that you would hold forth a man who was up to his neck in the United Nations "Oil for Food" scandal as an arbiter of legality is absurd to the point of surrealism. MC Escher himself would feel compelled to roll his eyes and say; "Niggah Please". mail2web.com Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Valdis, Good point, I didn't know that. I did find a link to Fitna, that politically censored movie. Indirectly related to the thread. Now I have to brush up on my Dutch. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ee4_1206625795 Bil Stout - Original Message > From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Paul Schmehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:19:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:03:15 CDT, Paul Schmehl said: > > your head in the sand. The Pentagon has been paying $900.00 for toilet seats > > Of course, understanding what a "toilet seat" actually *was* might help. > > "The $640 toilet seat was, in fact, a large molded plastic cover for the > entire > toilet system of a P-3 aircraft" > > http://books.google.com/books?id=5YH5rPgWvzUC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq="air+force"+"toilet+seats"&source=web&ots=3jFk3Wu4dA&sig=jdG3MPvTixyge2jld59d2yAkytQ&hl=en#PPA70,M1 > > While we're there.. > > "... that the famous $3,046 coffee pot was actually designed for the huge C5-A > aircraft, which carries as many as 365 people. Major airlines, he pointed out, > had purchased similar coffee makers for about the same price, > $3,107".___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
> -Original Message- > From: Razi Shaban [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 11:14 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq > > Touche. > > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was > Iraq a member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to > subject themselves to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. > > In order for the UN to effectively work, The leaders of the UN and members of the UN security council cant be corrupt and on the take from the oil for food program. FTFY. > > -- ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Dennis, > > In order for the UN to effectively work, The leaders of the UN and members > of the UN security council cant be corrupt and on the take from the oil for > food program. The idea behind the United Nations was that of collective security, where basically if one nation steps out of line all the other countries respond accordingly. The UN's preferred form of response is that of a resolution, which is basically a statement made by members of the UN. The problem is that these resolutions cannot be enforced by the UN, and can only be effective if nations choose to act according to those resolutions of their own free will. Rogue nations prevent this effectiveness of the UN. You're citing one example of corruption in the UN. Everywhere you go there will be some degree of corruption, it's human nature. You can't assume that the entire UN is corrupt based on one example. -- Razi ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:56 PM, M. B. Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Throwaway1, > > Your childish reasoning is no more than a poor attempt of sophistic > argumentation. He tried to overthrow the n3td3v agenda and failed miserbly. Iraq war strategic disaster THE IRAQ WAR is five years old and except for members of the President George Bush administration, there is little doubt elsewhere that it is a moral and strategic disaster for the United States. But what has not yet been fully recognised is that it has also been an economic disaster. http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/311710727142441.php USA are fucked... regards, n3td3v About to celebrate 10 years in power on the cyber security scene, be there for our anniversary in 2009! ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Throwaway1, there is absolutely no sense in evoking 1990's UN-authorized action to justify 2003's UN's-Security-Council-unauthorized-and-illegal invasion. Your childish reasoning is no more than a poor attempt of sophistic argumentation. Yours sincerely, On 3/26/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > === > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > > > > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > > > > Actually, dummy... > The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations > authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action > was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The > United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be in > effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors > who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included > but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and > nuclear/radiological weapons. > After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American > political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same > patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and resumed > hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces > searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they > found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals, > final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this is > because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he > simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking > for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current > American administration or your opinion of their actions. > > However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you > demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job here. > > No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's > murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan People. > > THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I > ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. > > > > > mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- Marcio Barbado, Jr. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:03:15 CDT, Paul Schmehl said: > your head in the sand. The Pentagon has been paying $900.00 for toilet seats Of course, understanding what a "toilet seat" actually *was* might help. "The $640 toilet seat was, in fact, a large molded plastic cover for the entire toilet system of a P-3 aircraft" http://books.google.com/books?id=5YH5rPgWvzUC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq="air+force"+"toilet+seats"&source=web&ots=3jFk3Wu4dA&sig=jdG3MPvTixyge2jld59d2yAkytQ&hl=en#PPA70,M1 While we're there.. "... that the famous $3,046 coffee pot was actually designed for the huge C5-A aircraft, which carries as many as 365 people. Major airlines, he pointed out, had purchased similar coffee makers for about the same price, $3,107". pgp3RKHo1Vsv4.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Tempting to give a soap-box response, I'll attempt to give this thread a graceful exit by saying that I believe the strategic course I've described previously is do-able and a welcomed evolution of the US "maintain the superpower status quo" vision that so many in power have. The obstacles mentioned can be overcome (less painfully than US troops are currently experiencing in Iraq). Currently, our choices are: Iraq-style invasion and messy/expensive/painful aftermath OR strategic isolationism (where intervention is completely shunned). I've proposed an alternate vision that is neither of those. Whether you agree or disagree, it is a broad strategic approach that I espouse, not an emotional or reactionary course of action. Security guru Bruce Scheier recently blogged about a security mindset (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/the_security_mi_1.html) (how's that for an IT security tie-in?). I propose that we (and certainly our political luminaries) have a "strategic mindset" in this flatter and more globalized world that we live in. - G - Original Message - From: "Razi Shaban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Garrett M. Groff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq > On 3/27/08, Garrett M. Groff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> A thoughtful reply was posed to my address rather than the list. I'll >> keep >> the sender anonymous & post my reply since others have posed similar >> concerns: > :-) > >> Excellent point. Initially, a "puppet regime" would be in place to run >> the >> country on a day to day basis. Actually, I'm more concerned about the >> pertinent country's 1) access to the global economy as well as 2) >> security. >> Point 2 is obvious enough, so I'll focus on point 1. > > As an American, I can understand how that would be the most important > things on your agenda. As someone who has lived in a country with one > of those "puppet regimes," I feel that the only way that these > countries can become benefecial to the global economy is if their > people are freed from their imposed ignorance and servitude. Countries > with 45% unemployment rates, lawlessness and corruption will not > integrate with the global economy. > >> Simply stated, countries that have or are moving in the direction of >> broad >> economic integration with the rest of the world (i.e., that are or are >> becoming more "globalized," to use the vogue term) tend to be more >> moderate >> in their ideologies, better (or getting better) in their governance and >> governmental transparency, and more economically productive. On that >> last >> point, I'll take keeping people busy with jobs over the prospect of >> millions >> of "idle hands." > ... >> Globalization is the answer to Salafist (Sunni extremist)-borne >> terrorism in >> the long run (or any terrorist ideological movement), as alternate view >> points dilute local/regional extremism and, pragmatically, give people >> other >> things to do. The same effect occurs in rogue regimes, assuming we (or >> someone) is able to "persuade" the heads of state in those regimes to >> allow >> exterior connectivity. > > The problem with this globalization is that in conservatives begin to > feel threatened, and often become extremists. I feel that it is this > globalization that lead to the extremism that pervades the Middle > East, creating Islamists. This globalization is the reason people in > the Middle East cry for Bush's head. The Middle East is the only > example I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure that > similar extreme reactions occur accross the globe. > > >> Economics binds people together, even if they're of disparate cultures >> and >> beliefs, and gives them a means of constructive, non-violent engagement >> with >> each other. It leads to idea-sharing that would otherwise be difficult >> and >> discouraged. It leads to distribution of power away from the central >> government, as people compete constructively in the private sector >> rather >> than just politically in the halls of power. Oh, and it also increases >> aggregate prosperity in the region, and by extension, across the globe. > > Trade has led to the prosperity of today, but unfortunately I feel > that the capitalism under which trade thrives leads to very unequal > distribution of power. Not the thread for that though :-) > > >> The
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
On 3/27/08, Garrett M. Groff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A thoughtful reply was posed to my address rather than the list. I'll keep > the sender anonymous & post my reply since others have posed similar > concerns: :-) > Excellent point. Initially, a "puppet regime" would be in place to run the > country on a day to day basis. Actually, I'm more concerned about the > pertinent country's 1) access to the global economy as well as 2) security. > Point 2 is obvious enough, so I'll focus on point 1. As an American, I can understand how that would be the most important things on your agenda. As someone who has lived in a country with one of those "puppet regimes," I feel that the only way that these countries can become benefecial to the global economy is if their people are freed from their imposed ignorance and servitude. Countries with 45% unemployment rates, lawlessness and corruption will not integrate with the global economy. > Simply stated, countries that have or are moving in the direction of broad > economic integration with the rest of the world (i.e., that are or are > becoming more "globalized," to use the vogue term) tend to be more moderate > in their ideologies, better (or getting better) in their governance and > governmental transparency, and more economically productive. On that last > point, I'll take keeping people busy with jobs over the prospect of millions > of "idle hands." ... > Globalization is the answer to Salafist (Sunni extremist)-borne terrorism in > the long run (or any terrorist ideological movement), as alternate view > points dilute local/regional extremism and, pragmatically, give people other > things to do. The same effect occurs in rogue regimes, assuming we (or > someone) is able to "persuade" the heads of state in those regimes to allow > exterior connectivity. The problem with this globalization is that in conservatives begin to feel threatened, and often become extremists. I feel that it is this globalization that lead to the extremism that pervades the Middle East, creating Islamists. This globalization is the reason people in the Middle East cry for Bush's head. The Middle East is the only example I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure that similar extreme reactions occur accross the globe. > Economics binds people together, even if they're of disparate cultures and > beliefs, and gives them a means of constructive, non-violent engagement with > each other. It leads to idea-sharing that would otherwise be difficult and > discouraged. It leads to distribution of power away from the central > government, as people compete constructively in the private sector rather > than just politically in the halls of power. Oh, and it also increases > aggregate prosperity in the region, and by extension, across the globe. Trade has led to the prosperity of today, but unfortunately I feel that the capitalism under which trade thrives leads to very unequal distribution of power. Not the thread for that though :-) > The strategic vision that I'm suggesting is that we use our global power > projection as the initial phase in taking out stubborn regimes. That's a > small part of the picture, but still a necessary piece. If only those in power wanted to use their power for good, rather than expansion of their power, the world would be a much better place. I don't know if humankind has it in itself to overcome its self-defeating behavior and tries to help those in need. Just my thoughts :-) -- Razi ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Your concern in our off-topicness is indeed justified. We have strayed far from the primary topic of the list. - G - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq Sorry, but am I the only one missing the infosec security angle on the "free tibet" and "free iraq" posts? Renski > I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood part of my post. > What I meant was that the USA is a rogue nation, just like other > so-called "rogue nations," and is causing the UN to lose its > effectiveness. > > I don't doubt that what the USA has done to Cuba is pointless, > ineffective, and strategically wrong. > > > -- > Razi > > On 3/27/08, b. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) >> But >> this made me laugh a lot >> rogue/clean nations >> and USA as a respectfull ONU member >> Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general >> assembly @ ONU, >> On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book >> "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" >> /And be a little more subtle/ >> / >> >> >> Razi Shaban a écrit : >> >> > Touche. >> > >> > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a >> > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves >> > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. >> > >> > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all >> > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North >> > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. >> > >> > -- >> > Razi >> >> >> > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Free Kevin, opsss he is free already, but at least that sounds a bit infosec. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:05:18 To:full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq Sorry, but am I the only one missing the infosec security angle on the "free tibet" and "free iraq" posts? Renski > I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood part of my post. > What I meant was that the USA is a rogue nation, just like other > so-called "rogue nations," and is causing the UN to lose its > effectiveness. > > I don't doubt that what the USA has done to Cuba is pointless, > ineffective, and strategically wrong. > > > -- > Razi > > On 3/27/08, b. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) >> But >> this made me laugh a lot >> rogue/clean nations >> and USA as a respectfull ONU member >> Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general >> assembly @ ONU, >> On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book >> "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" >> /And be a little more subtle/ >> / >> >> >> Razi Shaban a écrit : >> >> > Touche. >> > >> > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a >> > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves >> > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. >> > >> > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all >> > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North >> > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. >> > >> > -- >> > Razi >> >> >> > >___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
You are certainly not alone! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Sorry, but am I the only one missing the infosec security angle on the > "free tibet" and "free iraq" posts? > > Renski > > >> I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood part of my post. >> What I meant was that the USA is a rogue nation, just like other >> so-called "rogue nations," and is causing the UN to lose its >> effectiveness. >> >> I don't doubt that what the USA has done to Cuba is pointless, >> ineffective, and strategically wrong. >> >> >> -- >> Razi >> >> On 3/27/08, b. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) >>> But >>> this made me laugh a lot >>> rogue/clean nations >>> and USA as a respectfull ONU member >>> Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general >>> assembly @ ONU, >>> On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book >>> "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" >>> /And be a little more subtle/ >>> / >>> >>> >>> Razi Shaban a écrit : >>> >>> Touche. >>> > >>> > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a >>> > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves >>> > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. >>> > >>> > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all >>> > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North >>> > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Razi >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ___ >> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. >> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html >> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >> >> > > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > -- David Rook | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Information Security Analyst Realex Payments Enabling thousands of businesses to sell online. Realex Payments, Dublin, www.realexpayments.com Castlecourt, Monkstown Farm, Monkstown, Co Dublin, Ireland Tel: +353 (0)1 2808 559 Fax: +353 (0)1 2808 538 Realex Payments, London, www.realexpayments.co.uk 1 Hammersmith Grove, London W6 0NB, England Tel: +44 (0)203 178 5370 Fax: +44 (0)207 691 7264 Pay and Shop Limited, trading as Realex Payments has its registered office at Castlecourt, Monkstown Farm, Monkstown, Co Dublin, Ireland and is registered in Ireland, company number 324929. This mail and any documents attached are classified as confidential and are intended for use by the addressee(s) only unless otherwise indicated. If you are not an intended recipient of this email, you must not use, disclose, copy, distribute or retain this message or any part of it. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately and delete all copies of this email from your computer system(s). -- ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Not commenting on the perceived misunderstanding, but I'll post a couple thoughts... One, I disagree with the "rogueness" of the US (beyond that, the debate is semantics, methinks). Having said that, I'm not particularly fond of the current administration and I hope the next president expresses greater desire toward diplomacy and engagement internationally. Cuba embargo: I agree. It's stupid and unncessary. It constricts our ability to expand economic connectivity to Cubans (in addition to the restrictions within Cuba that are imposed by the socialist regime) at no strategic gain. I hope the next administration phases out the embargo that, obviously, has not been effective. - G - Original Message - From: "Razi Shaban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "b." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:57 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood part of my post. What I meant was that the USA is a rogue nation, just like other so-called "rogue nations," and is causing the UN to lose its effectiveness. I don't doubt that what the USA has done to Cuba is pointless, ineffective, and strategically wrong. -- Razi On 3/27/08, b. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) > But > this made me laugh a lot > rogue/clean nations > and USA as a respectfull ONU member > Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general > assembly @ ONU, > On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book > "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" > /And be a little more subtle/ > / > > > Razi Shaban a écrit : > > > Touche. > > > > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a > > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves > > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. > > > > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all > > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North > > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. > > > > -- > > Razi > > > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Sorry, but am I the only one missing the infosec security angle on the "free tibet" and "free iraq" posts? Renski > I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood part of my post. > What I meant was that the USA is a rogue nation, just like other > so-called "rogue nations," and is causing the UN to lose its > effectiveness. > > I don't doubt that what the USA has done to Cuba is pointless, > ineffective, and strategically wrong. > > > -- > Razi > > On 3/27/08, b. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) >> But >> this made me laugh a lot >> rogue/clean nations >> and USA as a respectfull ONU member >> Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general >> assembly @ ONU, >> On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book >> "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" >> /And be a little more subtle/ >> / >> >> >> Razi Shaban a écrit : >> >> > Touche. >> > >> > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a >> > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves >> > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. >> > >> > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all >> > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North >> > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. >> > >> > -- >> > Razi >> >> >> > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
--On Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:24:10 -0400 Peter Dawson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so much for being the friggin US of A !! > > http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_304.php > > If you think there's one thing remarkable about that story, then you must have your head in the sand. The Pentagon has been paying $900.00 for toilet seats and other assorted tomfoolery for as long as I have been alive (and I'm certain well before that.) -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
A thoughtful reply was posed to my address rather than the list. I'll keep the sender anonymous & post my reply since others have posed similar concerns: Excellent point. Initially, a "puppet regime" would be in place to run the country on a day to day basis. Actually, I'm more concerned about the pertinent country's 1) access to the global economy as well as 2) security. Point 2 is obvious enough, so I'll focus on point 1. Simply stated, countries that have or are moving in the direction of broad economic integration with the rest of the world (i.e., that are or are becoming more "globalized," to use the vogue term) tend to be more moderate in their ideologies, better (or getting better) in their governance and governmental transparency, and more economically productive. On that last point, I'll take keeping people busy with jobs over the prospect of millions of "idle hands." Economics binds people together, even if they're of disparate cultures and beliefs, and gives them a means of constructive, non-violent engagement with each other. It leads to idea-sharing that would otherwise be difficult and discouraged. It leads to distribution of power away from the central government, as people compete constructively in the private sector rather than just politically in the halls of power. Oh, and it also increases aggregate prosperity in the region, and by extension, across the globe. Globalization is the answer to Salafist (Sunni extremist)-borne terrorism in the long run (or any terrorist ideological movement), as alternate view points dilute local/regional extremism and, pragmatically, give people other things to do. The same effect occurs in rogue regimes, assuming we (or someone) is able to "persuade" the heads of state in those regimes to allow exterior connectivity. The strategic vision that I'm suggesting is that we use our global power projection as the initial phase in taking out stubborn regimes. That's a small part of the picture, but still a necessary piece. - G - Original Message - From: [REMOVED] To: "Garrett M. Groff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq > Only problem is that the "re-building" usually involves the > installation of a dictator who supports American policies at the > expense of that nation's people's rights. > > -- > [NAME REMOVED] > > On 3/27/08, Garrett M. Groff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Excellent points, with exception to the gratuitious name-calling (just >> b/c >> there are annoying people on this list who throw out invective doesn't >> mean >> we should submit to our temptation to do the same vile practice back to >> them). >> >> I'll add the following (despite the fact that it's grossly off-topic!). >> The >> Iraq war was more than just a follow-up to a UN resolution or two. It >> was a >> desire by neo-conservatives to re-make the Middle East. That desire is >> partly strategic and partly political. Strategic: eliminate the threat >> of >> WMD proliferation (including to Salafist groups like Al Qaeda) by >> scaring >> rogue-ish countries into thinking "they're next" if they don't behave >> (think, Libya). The strategic plan was to go beyond Iraq and is often >> referred to as a "domino effect" whereby other mid-east nations >> liberalize >> their political systems and economies. Political: free up huge oil >> fields in >> Mesopotamia, bringing down global oil prices. Also, empower Republicans, >> making them appear more responsive & pro-active in a post-911 world to >> threats posed by rogue nations & global terrorist groups. >> >> My focus is strategic, since the political side-effects are less >> important >> and less justifiable than the strategic argument. >> >> Result... >> Unforutnately, the nation-rebuilding effort is not going well (compared >> to >> the actual "war" which went well by historic standards, lasting only >> about 4 >> weeks; everything since has involved dealing with the war's aftermath). >> I >> can think of specific things that would have made the nation re-building >> campaign much more likely to succeed. Rather than a lengthy explanation >> on >> that, I'll say this. Think about what would have happened if the Bush >> administration weren't so inept and if Iraq had been a successful model >> of >> nation re-building. That model could be replicated to other >> nation-states >> that are arguably an
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
I'm sorry, but I think you misunderstood part of my post. What I meant was that the USA is a rogue nation, just like other so-called "rogue nations," and is causing the UN to lose its effectiveness. I don't doubt that what the USA has done to Cuba is pointless, ineffective, and strategically wrong. -- Razi On 3/27/08, b. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry for the Junk mail ( not related 2 security ) > But > this made me laugh a lot > rogue/clean nations > and USA as a respectfull ONU member > Cuba blocus is condemned for 14 years, each years, by the general > assembly @ ONU, > On the ONU thema, please read *Hans-Christof von Sponeck book > "*/A different war : The UN sanctions regime in Irak" > /And be a little more subtle/ > / > > > Razi Shaban a écrit : > > > Touche. > > > > Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a > > member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves > > to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. > > > > In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all > > nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North > > Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. > > > > -- > > Razi > > > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
so much for being the friggin US of A !! http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/todays_must_read_304.php ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq..
At the risk of opening myself up to Godwin's law, blaming crime and unemployment on foreign immigrants very strongly represents policies that a certain historical enemy of Britain championed. -- Razi On 3/27/08, Rankin, James R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Voluntary? No-one had a referendum and asked the British people if they > wanted wave after wave of foreign invaders committimg crimes, pinching > employment and throwing hissy fits every time that British law doesn't fit > with their own ideas. > > > > -Original Message- > From: Garrett M. Groff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27 March 2008 14:39 > To: Rankin, James R; 'n3td3v'; full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > > Importance: Low > > Legal immigration is voluntary, not an "invasion." Further, countries that > are able to absorb immigration (like the United States) have benefited in > the aggregate economic sense. > > Contrast that with France. France has had some level of success with > immigrants... but not much. The car burnings and riots are primarily a > result of people feeling excluded and unable to find jobs. Yes, "it's the > economy, stupid!" (not calling you stupid, just borrowing the phrase). If > the French economy were more dynamic and its labor laws less constricting, > the unemployed would likely have less trouble finding jobs and being > productive members of society. Instead, they fester in boredom and > frustration. Security and economics are not unrelated, and this is but one > example of that relationship. > > - G > > > - Original Message ----- > From: "Rankin, James R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'n3td3v'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:34 AM > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > > > > So is the UK, it is being invaded by half of Europe, Asia and the Middle > > East > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3td3v > > Sent: 26 March 2008 15:55 > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > Subject: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Robert Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Tibet is an invaded country, and China has no right to be there at all. > > > > Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > > > > ___ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > ___ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Touche. Now a question. Is the USA a member of the UN? Okay. And was Iraq a member of the UN? Okay. So both nations agreed to subject themselves to the UN mandate, which implies recognition. In order for the UN to effectively work, the participation of all nations is a must. When you have rogue nations such as Libya, North Korea, and the USA, thats when the UN begins to appear defunct. -- Razi On 3/27/08, josh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The second post? Their weapon inspectors? > > Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone with SprintSpeed > > -Original Message- > > From: "Razi Shaban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:44:26 > To:"I. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc:full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq > > > > Who mentioned the UN? > > -- > Razi > > On 3/27/08, I. D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not everyone views the defunct UN as a legitimate authority on what is > right > > or wrong. Occupation is occupation. I'm no friend of Islam, but I can call > a > > spade a spade. > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Handrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Great post, but I'm afraid to tell you that the truth is out of you're > > answear... > > > you're answer is a classical one that we found in the most of fashion's > > magazine . > > > The truth is in the bloody Iraq across americans army, and others. > > > We hope that Iraq will be free very soon 'cause their children need to be > > kept far from ware. > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > === > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at > > all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, dummy... > > > > The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations > > > > authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military > > action > > > > was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The > > > > United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would > be > > in > > > > effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations > Inspectors > > > > who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which > included > > > > but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and > > > > nuclear/radiological weapons. > > > > After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American > > > > political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same > > > > patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and > > resumed > > > > hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces > > > > searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they > > > > found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized > > biologicals, > > > > final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe > this > > is > > > > because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that > > he > > > > simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of > > looking > > > > for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current > > > > American administration or your opinion of their actions. > > > > > > > > However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you > > > > demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job > > here. > > > > > > > > No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's > > > > murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan > > People. > > > > > > > > THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I > > > > ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. > > > > > > > > > >
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq..
Voluntary? No-one had a referendum and asked the British people if they wanted wave after wave of foreign invaders committimg crimes, pinching employment and throwing hissy fits every time that British law doesn't fit with their own ideas. -Original Message- From: Garrett M. Groff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 March 2008 14:39 To: Rankin, James R; 'n3td3v'; full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. Importance: Low Legal immigration is voluntary, not an "invasion." Further, countries that are able to absorb immigration (like the United States) have benefited in the aggregate economic sense. Contrast that with France. France has had some level of success with immigrants... but not much. The car burnings and riots are primarily a result of people feeling excluded and unable to find jobs. Yes, "it's the economy, stupid!" (not calling you stupid, just borrowing the phrase). If the French economy were more dynamic and its labor laws less constricting, the unemployed would likely have less trouble finding jobs and being productive members of society. Instead, they fester in boredom and frustration. Security and economics are not unrelated, and this is but one example of that relationship. - G - Original Message - From: "Rankin, James R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'n3td3v'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > So is the UK, it is being invaded by half of Europe, Asia and the Middle > East > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3td3v > Sent: 26 March 2008 15:55 > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Robert Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tibet is an invaded country, and China has no right to be there at all. > > Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
The second post? Their weapon inspectors? Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed -Original Message- From: "Razi Shaban" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:44:26 To:"I. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc:full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq Who mentioned the UN? -- Razi On 3/27/08, I. D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not everyone views the defunct UN as a legitimate authority on what is right > or wrong. Occupation is occupation. I'm no friend of Islam, but I can call a > spade a spade. > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Handrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great post, but I'm afraid to tell you that the truth is out of you're > answear... > > you're answer is a classical one that we found in the most of fashion's > magazine . > > The truth is in the bloody Iraq across americans army, and others. > > We hope that Iraq will be free very soon 'cause their children need to be > kept far from ware. > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > === > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at > all. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, dummy... > > > The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations > > > authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military > action > > > was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The > > > United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be > in > > > effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors > > > who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included > > > but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and > > > nuclear/radiological weapons. > > > After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American > > > political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same > > > patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and > resumed > > > hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces > > > searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they > > > found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized > biologicals, > > > final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this > is > > > because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that > he > > > simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of > looking > > > for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current > > > American administration or your opinion of their actions. > > > > > > However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you > > > demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job > here. > > > > > > No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's > > > murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan > People. > > > > > > THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I > > > ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > > > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > > > > > > >___ > > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > MEZGANI Ali > > Network Engineering/Security > > http://securynix.co.cc/ > >___ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > >___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Who mentioned the UN? -- Razi On 3/27/08, I. D. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not everyone views the defunct UN as a legitimate authority on what is right > or wrong. Occupation is occupation. I'm no friend of Islam, but I can call a > spade a spade. > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Handrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Great post, but I'm afraid to tell you that the truth is out of you're > answear... > > you're answer is a classical one that we found in the most of fashion's > magazine . > > The truth is in the bloody Iraq across americans army, and others. > > We hope that Iraq will be free very soon 'cause their children need to be > kept far from ware. > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > === > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at > all. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, dummy... > > > The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations > > > authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military > action > > > was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The > > > United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be > in > > > effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors > > > who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included > > > but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and > > > nuclear/radiological weapons. > > > After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American > > > political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same > > > patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and > resumed > > > hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces > > > searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they > > > found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized > biologicals, > > > final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this > is > > > because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that > he > > > simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of > looking > > > for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current > > > American administration or your opinion of their actions. > > > > > > However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you > > > demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job > here. > > > > > > No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's > > > murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan > People. > > > > > > THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I > > > ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > > > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > MEZGANI Ali > > Network Engineering/Security > > http://securynix.co.cc/ > > ___ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: > http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Not everyone views the defunct UN as a legitimate authority on what is right or wrong. Occupation is occupation. I'm no friend of Islam, but I can call a spade a spade. On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Handrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great post, but I'm afraid to tell you that the truth is out of you're > answear... > you're answer is a classical one that we found in the most of fashion's > magazine . > The truth is in the bloody Iraq across americans army, and others. > We hope that Iraq will be free very soon 'cause their children need to be > kept far from ware. > Best regards, > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > === > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > > > > > > > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at > > all. > > > > > > > Actually, dummy... > > The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations > > authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military > > action > > was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The > > United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be > > in > > effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors > > who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included > > but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and > > nuclear/radiological weapons. > > After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American > > political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same > > patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and > > resumed > > hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces > > searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they > > found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized > > biologicals, > > final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this > > is > > because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that > > he > > simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of > > looking > > for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current > > American administration or your opinion of their actions. > > > > However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you > > demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job > > here. > > > > No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's > > murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan > > People. > > > > THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I > > ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. > > > > > > > > > > > > mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > > > > ___ > > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > > > > > -- > MEZGANI Ali > Network Engineering/Security > http://securynix.co.cc/ > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Great post, but I'm afraid to tell you that the truth is out of you're answear... you're answer is a classical one that we found in the most of fashion's magazine . The truth is in the bloody Iraq across americans army, and others. We hope that Iraq will be free very soon 'cause their children need to be kept far from ware. Best regards, On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > === > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > > > > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > > > > Actually, dummy... > The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations > authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action > was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The > United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be > in > effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors > who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included > but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and > nuclear/radiological weapons. > After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American > political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same > patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and > resumed > hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces > searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they > found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals, > final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this > is > because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he > simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking > for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current > American administration or your opinion of their actions. > > However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you > demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job > here. > > No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's > murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan People. > > THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I > ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. > > > > > > mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? > http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint > > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- MEZGANI Ali Network Engineering/Security http://securynix.co.cc/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq..
Legal immigration is voluntary, not an "invasion." Further, countries that are able to absorb immigration (like the United States) have benefited in the aggregate economic sense. Contrast that with France. France has had some level of success with immigrants... but not much. The car burnings and riots are primarily a result of people feeling excluded and unable to find jobs. Yes, "it's the economy, stupid!" (not calling you stupid, just borrowing the phrase). If the French economy were more dynamic and its labor laws less constricting, the unemployed would likely have less trouble finding jobs and being productive members of society. Instead, they fester in boredom and frustration. Security and economics are not unrelated, and this is but one example of that relationship. - G - Original Message - From: "Rankin, James R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'n3td3v'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > So is the UK, it is being invaded by half of Europe, Asia and the Middle > East > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3td3v > Sent: 26 March 2008 15:55 > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Robert Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Tibet is an invaded country, and China has no right to be there at all. > > Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
Excellent points, with exception to the gratuitious name-calling (just b/c there are annoying people on this list who throw out invective doesn't mean we should submit to our temptation to do the same vile practice back to them). I'll add the following (despite the fact that it's grossly off-topic!). The Iraq war was more than just a follow-up to a UN resolution or two. It was a desire by neo-conservatives to re-make the Middle East. That desire is partly strategic and partly political. Strategic: eliminate the threat of WMD proliferation (including to Salafist groups like Al Qaeda) by scaring rogue-ish countries into thinking "they're next" if they don't behave (think, Libya). The strategic plan was to go beyond Iraq and is often referred to as a "domino effect" whereby other mid-east nations liberalize their political systems and economies. Political: free up huge oil fields in Mesopotamia, bringing down global oil prices. Also, empower Republicans, making them appear more responsive & pro-active in a post-911 world to threats posed by rogue nations & global terrorist groups. My focus is strategic, since the political side-effects are less important and less justifiable than the strategic argument. Result... Unforutnately, the nation-rebuilding effort is not going well (compared to the actual "war" which went well by historic standards, lasting only about 4 weeks; everything since has involved dealing with the war's aftermath). I can think of specific things that would have made the nation re-building campaign much more likely to succeed. Rather than a lengthy explanation on that, I'll say this. Think about what would have happened if the Bush administration weren't so inept and if Iraq had been a successful model of nation re-building. That model could be replicated to other nation-states that are arguably and egregiously bad, be it countries with a) too much government (dictatorships) or b) too little government (many African states, which are tribal & lack sufficient central governance). A "nation re-making" process that falls under UN legitimacy would be powerful, shifting the American focus from maintaining the "superpower status quo" to "making the world better." Sounds controversial (like some imperial colonial fantasy), but try living in the DPRK, Cuba, or Sudan, and tell me those nations aren't screwed up and wouldn't go for a "nation re-making" make-over, provided that it actually worked. The US (and others) will certainly engage in nation re-building again. If you don't believe that, then check out recent US history. It's really just a question of when, where, and to what extent. Next time, I hope the war's aftermath goes substantially better and involves broad international legitimacy, not to mention significant involvement in the post-war phase (where the US actually needs allies). - G - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:22 PM Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq === On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > Actually, dummy... The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be in effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and nuclear/radiological weapons. After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and resumed hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals, final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this is because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current American administration or your opinion of their actions. However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job here. No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Sad
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq..
So is the UK, it is being invaded by half of Europe, Asia and the Middle East -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of n3td3v Sent: 26 March 2008 15:55 To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq.. On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Robert Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tibet is an invaded country, and China has no right to be there at all. Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
http://you.justgotowned.com Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed -Original Message- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:22:24 To:full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq === On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > Actually, dummy... The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be in effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and nuclear/radiological weapons. After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and resumed hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals, final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this is because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current American administration or your opinion of their actions. However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job here. No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan People. THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. mail2web.com – What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] Free Iraq
=== On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:55 PM, net-dummy wrote: > >Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. > Actually, dummy... The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August of 1990 led to a United Nations authorization to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. This military action was carried mainly by the Americans for entirely practical reasons. The United Nations halted hostilities and declared that a ceasefire would be in effect as long as Saddam cooperated fully with United Nations Inspectors who were looking for an extensive list of banned weapons, which included but was by no means limited to; chemical, biological and nuclear/radiological weapons. After over a decade of continual failure to cooperate, the American political leadership decided that they could no longer take the same patient approach that they had taken for the previous 12 years; and resumed hostilities. After invading Iraq and removing Saddam, American forces searched for the aforementioned list of banned weapons, and while they found most of them they did not find stockpiles of weaponized biologicals, final stage chemicals or nuclear/radiologicals. Whether you believe this is because Saddam didn't possess them at the time of the invasion or that he simply did a better job of hiding them than the American's did of looking for them doesn't change the facts. Nor does your opinion of the current American administration or your opinion of their actions. However, the most disturbing part of your post was not that you demonstrated your ignorance once again... That is basically; your job here. No, the disturbing part of your asinine post was that you made Saddam's murderous Ba'athist thugs the moral equivalent of the Free Tibetan People. THAT needed to be answered, or I would have ignore this post as I ordinarily do to ALL of your posts. mail2web.com What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you? http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
[Full-disclosure] Free Iraq..
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Robert Smits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tibet is an invaded country, and China has no right to be there at all. Iraq is an invaded country, and America has no right to be there at all. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
