On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
>It would be great if the UN imposed sanctions on the US and UK and demanded
> they turn over their WOMD. And their leaders, including top generals, to the
> Hague.
>And given the very evident worldwide animosity toward the US today, I'd not
> be
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 01:42:30PM -0500, Sunder wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:28:49AM -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> > >
> > > I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the
> > > next year or two, if the invasion and
hi,
Terrorism only increases.Saying meet fire with fire is
only an anology.The whole world is against the war but
they are all oppurtunists-they will strike only when
they can.The war may do more damage even than all the
oil it can get.
Regards Sarath.
--- Mike Rosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Bill Stewart wrote:
> While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine
> just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath.
> I was expecting better from Geoff.
>
> The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues
> like the draft (we oppos
While I wish Mike were correct that the party would get some spine
just because we tell them to, I'm not holding my breath.
I was expecting better from Geoff.
The LP's traditional heritage was pretty radical about issues
like the draft (we opposed it) and drugs (got any good pot?)
and about free ma
On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 11:28:49AM -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
> >
> > I wouldn't bet too much on us not going after North Korea sometime in the
> > next year or two, if the invasion and takeover of Iraq goes well.
>
>Don't be ridiculous -- that wou
At 11:28 AM 03/21/2003 -0500, John Kelsey wrote:
At 07:52 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
...
But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up,
not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada,
Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Kore
At 07:52 PM 3/20/03 -0800, Tim May wrote:
...
But the imperial power goes after the skinny kid it knows it can beat up,
not the greater threats in the region (and in the world). Grenada, Panama,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. But not North Korea, not China, not
Saudi Arabia, not Russia, not
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Bill Frantz wrote:
> One view of the war in Iraq is that it is to assure an oil supply so we can
> take on Saudi Arabia, home of three quarters of the 911 hijackers.
Makes sense, use Saudia Arabia as a land base to take over Iraq, then
use Iraq as a land base to take over Sau
I agree, and I'm including the LP on cc (which I didn't notice till
I hit "reply"). Now that congress has voted to "support the troops"
it's time for a revolution in the ballot box. If enough of us tell
the LP to get some spine, they will!
Patience, persistence, truth,
Dr. mike
On Thu, 20 Mar 2
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 07:52:30PM -0800, Tim May wrote:
> Given that their platform, and Ralph Nader, calls for 90% tax rates for
> those with "excessive" wealth or income, they're far more statist than
> anyone else out there.
Yep -- their platform is extreme. Like I said, I'm not a GP voter.
Declan writes:
> Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
> that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
> comes to the war on Iraq.
We've had this discussion many times before on this list.
People who know nothing about Libertarians see a word
Eric's statement was hyperbole, designed to provoke. My own view is
that the Libertarian Party is being unfortunately wishy-washy when it
comes to the war on Iraq.
It correctly said that troops should not be blamed for politicians'
choices, but it pointedly declined to say: "This is an unjust war.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force
> is to protect them from their slaves.
You get of the wrong side of bed this morning or what?
> It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the
> "right" of
Libertarians are people who think the only legitimate use of state force
is to protect them from their slaves.
It is unlikely that people who don't oppose the death penalty, nor the
"right" of parents to beat their minor children at will, will care
particularly about Shrub kicking the crap out of
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George Getz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Libertarian statement on Iraq invasion
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 15:38:51 -0500
===
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
16 matches
Mail list logo
