At 10:27 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Doug wrote:
1)
>> -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
So, do you beli
On 4/30/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 10:27 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Doug wrote:
> 1)
> >> -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
JDG wrote:
After the first Gulf war there was no threat to Saudi Arabia or anyone
else for that matter
So, do you believe that the US should have withdrawn its forces from
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Persian Gulf following Gulf
War I, as
US troops were no longer necessary to defend
At 08:47 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote:
>My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A.
>than it does to attack Iraq,
O.k., its not clear from this message.Do you believe that the US should
have pursued a war against Saudi Arabia after 9/11?
>a country that had
JDG wrote:
At 08:47 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote:
My suggestion was meant to imply that it makes more sense to attack S.A.
than it does to attack Iraq,
O.k., its not clear from this message.Do you believe that the US
should have pursued a war against Saudi Arabia after 9/11?
I think that S
On 4/30/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given that Saddam Hussein had kicked out UN inspsection teams, that US
> troops were only along the Southern Border of Iraq, and what we now know
> about how UN sanctions operated on Iraq, particularly the Oil-for-Food
> program, do you believe that the
On 5/1/05, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Every country in the world can now purchase nuclear weapons from rogue
> elements in the USSR. GOP leaders in Congress defunded for over a
> year the major program preventing that. Some people in this
> administration leaked the name of one of t
They have linked it to Novak and one unidentified official, neither is
talking. These are the people they supposedly want to prosecute.
Those are the only two people present at the exchange of information.
A dead end unless something else shakes lose. The only thing keeping
the investigation open
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
At 10:07 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>> But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ...
>
>
>
>I didn't come up with the "permission slip" metaphor, but hear this:
>
>I. Understand. The. Difference.
Great!Perhaps you could help me explain it to Nick, then?
>> Do you believe that:
>
>
>
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:26:05 -0400, JDG wrote
> At 10:07 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> >> But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ...
> >
> >
> >
> >I didn't come up with the "permission slip" metaphor, but hear this:
> >
> >I. Understand. The. Difference.
>
> Great!Perhaps you could he
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
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 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
14 matches
Mail list logo
