on Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:37:30AM -0700, Subcommander Bob ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> At 04:08 PM 9/30/01 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> >>
> >> This is IMHO naive. Have you ever been in a brawl?
> >
> >Have you ever been in a brawl where one side (or both) has friends?
>
> Balkans, just befor
>> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:
>> > Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything,
>> > and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.
>>
>> I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required
>> to keep the encryption export
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:38:23PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:
> > Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything,
> > and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.
>
> I've always enjoyed the regular decla
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 08:25:08AM -0700, David Honig wrote:
> Yes. Though these days they have Emergency Powers for everything,
> and chronic, continually extended 'Emergencies'.
I've always enjoyed the regular declarations of emergencies required
to keep the encryption export control regime ac
At 03:30 PM 9/30/01 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>I have to admit being somewhat confused myself over just what
>distinctions there are between a formal declaration, and a vote of
>support such as we saw following the 9/11 attacks. I believe a formal
>declaration would entail far more Presidenti
At 04:08 PM 9/30/01 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>>
>> This is IMHO naive. Have you ever been in a brawl?
>
>Have you ever been in a brawl where one side (or both) has friends?
>
Balkans, just before WWI. Poison gas followed that one (too).
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
> > What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional
> > declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires
> > something at least approxim
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz wrote:
> What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional
> declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires
> something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would
> be ex
"Karsten M. Self" wrote:
> There are stateless nations (e.g.:
> Palestine), and states which are host to people of several nations
> (e.g.: the Swiss Federation).
In fact it is the normal condition. China, India, Russia, Indonesia,
Iran, and even our very own UK. All put together, well over
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
James wrote:
>This is not the definition used in the analysis, which references the
>much-bandied "war on terrorism". Granted that the English language is no
>longer what it was after nearly a century of concerted corruption
>through constant misuse by all str
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 03:45:07PM -0700, Steve Schear ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> At 03:25 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > One of the most asinine arguments I've heard to date was a
> > commentator on the BBC/PRI "The World" radio pro
At 03:25 PM 9/30/2001 -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>One of the most asinine arguments I've heard to date was a commentator
>on the BBC/PRI "The World" radio program a couple of weeks back. Her
>statement was that by calling this "a war", the US was validating the
>deaths at the WTC/P5 attacks as
on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 04:11:21PM -0400, James B. DiGriz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like
> > the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their
> > website, but what I read yes
on Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 05:55:50PM -0400, James B. DiGriz ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> dict.org cites Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913):
>
> War War, n. OE. & AS. werre; akin to OHG. werra scandal,
<...>
> 1. A contest between nations or states, car
On Sun, 30 Sep 2001, James B. DiGriz wrote:
> What I find interesting is how we can have a war without a Congressional
> declaration, which out of practical if not legal necessity requires
> something at least approximating a foreign power as the enemy. It would
Oh, like the "War on Drug
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> James wrote:
>
>
>>What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads
>>like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit.
>>Pure felgercarb.
>>
>
> What objective criteria do you use to tel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
James wrote:
>What is this, Henry Kissinger's vanity website or something? It reads
>like one of his Nixon era State Dept. memos on Vietnam or some shit.
>Pure felgercarb.
What objective criteria do you use to tell good analysis from bad?
> Mr. Bin Laden mus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Where's the "discovery" here? I posted a story from Stratfor to the list
Tuesday, Sept 25. Oh well, glad you found it anyway.
>Yup, by far the most intelligent analysis I've seen.
It's good, but I'm guessing the classified work from RAND is even better. It al
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> The Washington Times ran a stratfor.com article (as a news article, like
> the paper would run Reuters or AP) yesterday. I haven't visited their
> website, but what I read yesterday is quite interesting.
>
> -Declan
>
>
What I find interesting is how we can have a w
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:58:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Nathanael Dermyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FREE] stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com
This is a website about strategic forcasting. These people really know
their shit.
Read these in order ...
20 matches
Mail list logo
