On 4/26/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> >On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> >> > At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> >> > >> You are conflating two separate things:
> >> > >> a) "serious consideration of the op
JDG wrote:
-the potential of Saddam Hussein attacking Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
States constituted a threat to the security of the United States?
After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone
else for that matter
-the continued presence of US troops in the Muslim Holy Lan
On Apr 26, 2005, at 7:20 PM, JDG wrote:
> But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ...
I didn't come up with the "permission slip" metaphor, but hear this:
I. Understand. The. Difference.
> Do you believe that:
> Thank you for your answers.
They weren't questions. They were talking points wi
At 12:20 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:23:15 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
>> > At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>> > >> You are conflating two separate things:
>> > >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before
>> > >> acting"
>> > >> a
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:16:31 -0700, John DeBudge wrote
> The short summary
> is that Saddam was working to get sanctions lifted as fast as
> possible, while at the same time was working on ensuring that he
> could rebuild his weapon stocks as quickly as possible as soon as
> they were so he co
> After the years of discussion of this subject on the list, I still do
> not have a handle on how Iraq was a credible threat to the US.
If you have not done so, you might want to read the "Duelfer" report
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/. It shows in detail how
it could be both true
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> I think
> Iraq was a threat to the security of the United
> States. So does John. All your certainty otherwise
> doesn't make you right, it just means that you're
> unable to understand other people's points of view.
After the years of discussion of this subject on the l
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 08:19:18 -0400, JDG wrote
> The problem with the above is that when a child needs to get a permission
> slip for an activity, the child doesn't "seriously consider the opinions"
> of his or her parents, the child gets, well, *permission.*
That's the point! Bush was saying tha
At 10:23 PM 4/25/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>> At 07:37 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>> >> You are conflating two separate things:
>> >> a) "serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before
>> >> acting"
>> >> and
>> >> b) "agreement from other nations before acting"
>> >
>> >"
