--- begin forwarded text
Status: RO
To: "R. A. Hettinga" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Somebody
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 16:58:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil.
Who's ne
FWIW (Trivia)
> It is said that Simon Kenton could rel
Kevin Elliott wrote:
> 2) rifled muskets were not effective because of the ponderous reload
> time (I don't have precise figures, but the number 1/6th-1/10th the
> rate of fire of a smoothbore musket comes to mind)
There isn't that much difference in reload times - say 30 seconds for a
Kentucky r
> "MD" == Mike Diehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> And the middle east is the only place we meddle? I think not.
MD> But the middle east is the only place who has overtly attacked
MD> us.
A minor point about grammar and logic: places don't attack, overtly or
covertly, neither
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds >only
> >remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we >do, we
> >simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I either >decide to
> >not play, or I cheat. F
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 11:29 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely wish we could practice
> > our religion freely as well.
>
> And just who is stopping you? And what religion is it?
The Federal Govern
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Tyler Durden wrote:
> "Well, they have enough non-central leadership to all be against Israel and
> the US. And to have been at war against the Israelies since Bible times..."
>
> OK, Mike, this is a good example of the kind of "facts" that lead to fairly
> easy (though erro
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Mike Diehl wrote:
> Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds only
> remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we do, we simply
> can't win.
Life isn't a football game, quite 'trying to win' and I think you'd find a
lot of issues
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> At 14:06 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
> >> The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
> >> to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form". I believe it
> >> was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle f
ized now, or the CIA will lose a valuable
source of covert action funding.
From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Alif The Terrible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin Iraq to get the oil.
Who's ne
Date: W
At 14:06 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
The british got VERY upset with us because of a tendency
to shoot officers which was considered very bad "form". I believe it
was common practice to hang anyone found armed with a rifle for what
amounted to war crimes. But again, very poor rate
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:48 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> Well, there nuggets and the larger truth... Rifles were widely used
> as sniper rifles by the Americans. They were commonly available
> (though expensive) because they are a far superior hunting tool than
> a smoothb
--
On 19 Nov 2002 at 12:02, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> If you read between the lines of US history, you'll discover
> that America did not begin to succeed in the war until late
> in the war when the troops had become better trained and
> disciplined.
This is not my interpretation. Rather, the Am
At 10:37 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people
who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own
leaders and forms of goivernment and so on.
Yes, it's just a "new" form of warfare. During the Revolution
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we
> succeeded in the revolutionary war by "inventing a new form of
> warfare". The reality is that the british were marching in formation
> for very,
At 13:14 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote:
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 01:02 pm, Kevin Elliott wrote:
> Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we
> succeeded in the revolutionary war by "inventing a new form of
> warfare". The reality is that the bri
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 10:59 am, Tyler Durden wrote:
> >Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds
> > >only remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we
> > >do, we simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I
> > eit
Granted. I wish we could go back to isolationism, but as the worlds >only
remaining Super Power, that seems unlikely. No matter what we >do, we
simply can't win. When faced with a game I can't win, I either >decide to
not play, or I cheat. For the US, the first isn't an option.
Waitaminute.
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 08:26 am, Tyler Durden wrote:
> "If we left them alone, we'd be in constant
> fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that
> region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC."
>
> These are probably the same arguments used by our
"If we left them alone, we'd be in constant
fear of various types of terrorism funded by many governments in that
region. We'd always be a hostage to OPEC."
These are probably the same arguments used by our state department, and I
have to take exception with them. US involvement with the middle
All of your comments are very reasonable. I agree with most of them.
However, I have to take issue with your comments on drugs and employment, and
how we have hurt the Afghan people.
As to drugs and employment. I'm glad to see that you recognized that a
programer, like myself, has far fewer
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:22:48PM -0500, Mike Diehl wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 11:29 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
> >How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely wish we could practice
> > our religion freely as well.
>
> And just who is stopping you? And what religion is it?
[A edited copy of a piece I published Oct 4th in the International
Relations list. steve]
I think that most Western nation leadership will eventually support the U.S.'
military action against Iraq. However, they may do so not because they
necessarily think Bush is right that Saddam's weapons are
Harmon Seaver wrote:
> I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft.
What can you possibly mean by saying this? You lose all credibility for
real criticism when you utter such inanities. It's like comparing a
shoplifter with Jeffrey Dahmer. Either you're ignorant of wha
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:31:23AM -0500, Ken Hirsch wrote:
> Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> > I don't see that Saddam is any less moral than Dubbya and Asscruft.
>
> What can you possibly mean by saying this? You lose all credibility for
> real criticism when you utter such inanities. It's like co
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>It's all relative
Ya, very relative.
>-- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
> freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq had
> no freedom to lose. Is Saddam really any differen
On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
> freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq
> had no freedom to lose.
So...When Iraqis are tortured to death, it's not really that bad because
On Thursday 14 November 2002 11:29 pm, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely wish we could practice
> our religion freely as well.
And just who is stopping you? And what religion is it?
> > I can criticize my government and stay out of
> > pris
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 11:13:06AM -0500, Mike Diehl wrote:
> Dubbya has only been in office about a year and a half, and in that time, he
> has destroyed Freedom in this country? I don't think so. I'm still able to
> practice my religion freely.
How wonderful for you. Many of us sincerely
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 05:41:55PM -0500, Steve Furlong wrote:
> On Thursday 14 November 2002 12:16, Harmon Seaver wrote:
>
> >It's all relative -- what Dubbya and Asscruft have done to destroy
> > freedom in the US is far worse than anything Saddam has done. Iraq
> > had no freedom to lose.
>
[ I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but there might be someone out there who could
benefit from this. ]
Tyler Durden wrote:
>Aside from this is the issue of continued American dependence on oil, a dependence
>that could be greatly reduced if we put our minds to it, but we seem to be so
>addic
On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 03:10:13AM +0100, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Gary Jeffers writes:
>
> >The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get
> > Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> > theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
>
Gary Jeffers writes:
>The purpose of the coming Iraq war is to steal their oil. After we get
> Iraq oil, which arab country is next? If U. State can get away with the
> theft of Iraq, then why not just keep on stealing?
>
> The beneficiaries of this war are:
>
> 1. United State:
>
> 2. Corpo
ssues.
Anyone guess where's Waldo (Osama) now? My guess he's on the end of a bungee
being kicked into Iraq right now! (The other end of the bungee is in a US
chopper!)
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OPPOSE THE WAR! We are going to ruin
Hmm, interesting -- how come the original of this came never came thru
lne.com? And I think there's been at least a couple of others lately that I only
saw in someone quote -- wasn't 100% sure about them, but I am this one.
> Gary Jeffers writes:
>
> >The purpose of the coming Iraq war i
34 matches
Mail list logo
