--
James A. Donald:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Michael Kalus
Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam?
Because you have been justifying his actions, denying his
crimes, and calling for his release.
James A.Donald:
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 21:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's bullshit. Saddam was told by our Chick ambassador (I
can't remember her name) that the US had no interest in his
dispute with Kuwait, in effect giving Saddam a green light.
Commie lie
--
James A. Donald:
And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears
about poor victimized Saddam.
Jamie Lawrence:
I don't care if he got a shave. I do care that the US fails
to adhere to international law.
The US army would be wholly in compliance with international
law
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Re saddam et all...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html
The war of words over Saddam Bush is quite amusing. The
blind faith in ones govt structure and the willingness to
support force that is in such extreme measure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 21-Dec-03, at 10:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
--
James A. Donald:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Michael Kalus
Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam?
Because you have been justifying his actions, denying his
crimes, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 20-Dec-03, at 8:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam? That's an interresting logic
you have here:
I am against the war, unless of course, it is initiated by lies,
--
On 20 Dec 2003 at 13:04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's a video interview I saw about all of this on 60
minutes (I think) where it was made clear that Glaspie did in
fact say to Saddam that We have no opinion on your Arab -
Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait.
And, as
On Friday 19 December 2003 20:35, James A. Donald wrote:
In fact Glaspie told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait, the shit
would hit the fan.
(That was not her words. Her words were subject of concern,
Cite? The google groups article you linked to has two links to possible
transcripts.
. We had to get very disciplined and accept nothing less than three
names.
A major obstacle was simply gathering the names correctly, considering
that many Arabs have four proper names, including family and tribal
surnames
At 08:14 AM 12/21/2003 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
He won't be put in front of the ICC as the US never signed on to it.
So this one is out.
That leaves either an American Tribunal or an Iraqi one. In either case
they should adhere to US procedures as they are based on them.
But this isn't an
At 05:41 PM 12/20/03 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had
it coming,
Collateral damage.
The workers at say a WWII refinery did not directly
do evil to anyone. Still, they were killed, because of where
they were. Bummer, eh? Sleep with
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3334235.stm
It's fun what you can do with satellite images.
The UN's using them to track the progress of the
apartheid wall that Israel's building to
keep Palestinian suicide bombers out.
They haven't been all that careful about whose land
they're excluding.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kassem [...] took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958,
[..] starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil
companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated
right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run,
US-puppet state,
On Dec 20, 2003, at 5:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose
the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription,
and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting
efficiency and to create
On Dec 21, 2003, at 7:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers
had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in
the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and
losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false
--
James A. Donald
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is quite a presumption there. If you're not with US,
you're with the terrorists,
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11, as
the anti-war posters in this thread have been
At 01:59 AM 12/22/2003 -0800, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kassem [...] took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958,
[..] starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil
companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated
right-wing
At 07:31 PM 12/21/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is quite a presumption there. If you're not with US,
you're with the terrorists,
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11,
as the anti-war posters in this thread have been arguing,
then indeed
At 05:41 PM 12/20/2003 -0800, James A. Donald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
On 19 Dec 2003 at 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Re saddam et all...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html
The war of words over Saddam Bush is quite amusing. The
blind faith in ones govt structure and
On Monday 22 December 2003 13:49, Michael Kalus wrote:
Well, in america instead of being the slave to the man (just yet)
you're the slave to your credit card bills
By choice.
your employers
By choice, through a range that is barely enough to eat and drink to
unimaginable heights in
--
James A. Donald:
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11,
as the anti-war posters in this thread have been
arguing, then indeed you are with the terrorists.
Bill Stewart
Saddam's not particularly related to the terrorists,
Those who want Saddam released, for
--
On 21 Dec 2003 at 13:13, Bill Stewart wrote:
But this isn't an American war or occupation. It's a war by
the Allies, including the US, Great Britain, and the
Coalition Of the Willing, and the UK and most of the COWs are
responsible for bringing this to the ICC.
For this to be true,
--
On 22 Dec 2003 at 1:10, Tim May wrote:
I, and many others, were against the war in Vietnam without
being supporters of Ho Chi Minh or the Soviets or anyone of
that ilk
True, but amongst the vast mass chanting Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh,
one could no more discern principled opponents of
--
James A. Donald:
So in your version of reality, the Iraqi people were
happily enjoying socialism, loving the socialism this
benevolent dictator Kassem provided to them and then this
evil capitalistic CIA agent, Saddam, took it all away from
them.
If that is what happened, what
--
James A. Donald
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two
towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts
himself in the corner with the people who are stupid,
evil, and losers.
Jamie Lawrence:
Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
Would you kindly STFU now. Talk about crypto, your politics is flat-EEG.
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:20:35AM -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
--
James A. Donald:
[demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
At 11:43 AM -0800 12/22/03, Steve Schear wrote:
Cite your sources. The one's I find creditable
Debka? Really?
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131
--
On 22 Dec 2003 at 11:43, Steve Schear wrote:
Cite your sources. The one's I find creditable indicate that
at the time of his capture he appeared to have been held
captive for at least 2-3 weeks.
Oh come on.
A whole platoon of random troops would have to be part of a big
conspiracy.
At 09:20 AM 12/22/2003, James A. Donald wrote:
This is war. Rule of law does not apply. Rules of war do
apply. And rules of war say that the US army can not only give
Saddam a dental examination, it can nail Saddam's head to a
post in Baghdad with a nine inch nail, because he was captured
out
On 21 Dec, Michael Kalus wrote:
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing,
because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on
Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human
rights, just like everyone else, which
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2003-12-21 03:50Z) wrote:
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing,
because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on
Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human
rights, just like everyone else, which
At 2:06 PM -0500 12/19/03, Michael Kalus wrote:
I don't think Castro is a bad guy either.
Ah. I feel much better now. Thank you for sparing me the rest of your
drivel from now on...
Plonk!
Cheers,
RAH
--
-
R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Internet Bearer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing,
because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on
Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human
rights, just like everyone else, which
Michael Kalus (2003-12-22 00:28Z) wrote:
As Bill Stuart pointed out, this is not an American war. This is a
war (or so the U.S. claims) based on alleged violation of an
agreement between Iraq and the UN. It seems to me that American
Courts or American Tribunals have no authority to
Michael Kalus (2003-12-21 13:14Z) wrote:
How can we offer him procedural guarantees enjoyed by U.S. residents
when we won't be the ones conducting procedure at his trial? He's
going to be tried in the ICC or by Iraqis in Iraqi courts. We have
no good evidence that he's committed crimes
35 matches
Mail list logo
