hello, tim.
tim wrote:
<< then why was N Korea doing exactly the same things
during the Clinton Administration? >>
someone pelase corect me if i've got this wrong, but my understanding has
been that the agreement(s) drafted under the clinton administration were
specifically about plutonuim we
Hello
Mike,
Not that I support what the Bush administration is
doing or done but if your comment below is true then why was N Korea doing
exactly the same things during the Clinton Administration? Just curious. If
memory serves me correctly the Clinton administration signed an agreement wi
Hello Mike
"The reason N Korea is starving it's people and almost killing
itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush
administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest."
Can anyone point to a credible source that outlines the timeline for
the above policies of
"The reason N Korea is starving it’s people and almost killing itself
to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had
developed a policy along the lines you suggest."
Can anyone point to a credible source that outlines the timeline for
the above policies of N Korea?
-M
"The reason N Korea is starving its people and almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest."
Nice Rick. IMO, that analysis, is one of the most important and least emphasized in the broken and no
If you follow up this logic,
Today it is many in the world who hate Americans (not me). So if you find
them uninvited on your territory, i.e. Iraq, it is ok to kill them? In
this case they are more dangerous than cats, because the are "trigger
happy" and can easily kill you by "mistake". As a res
Jason,
I have to disagree with assumptions with respect to N. Korea. While
North Korea and South Korea were "talking about steps which could lead
to re-unification" and during the Clinton Presidency, North Korea was
still developing the technology and infrastructure to build nuclear
weapons.
N
Like the psychopathic neighbor who periodically kills a cat for no reason.
"I'm a loose cannon, and you better not [EMAIL PROTECTED] with me (or even
look like
yer THINKIN' about it!)
I believe this is in fact their chosen image, and in many cases their
actual nature. To me VERY distur
Dear Jason,
On the face of it your suggestion seems like it should work but in
practice it has not. The reason N Korea is starving it’s people and
almost killing itself to get nuclear weapons is precisely because the
Bush administration had developed a policy along the lines you suggest.
Beca
Addison
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:02 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Greetings Rick
>Dear Keith,
>
>If this is true it is very disturbing
Yes! I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. I've been watching it
iew of it, and neither does
the rest of the world, nor huge swathes of America either. Thank God.
Regards
Keith
Jason Schick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Addison
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:02 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainableli
no wonder usa has lots of enemies
-Original Message-
From: Ken Provost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 June 2005 1:02 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
on 5/31/05 12:37 PM, Jason Schick at [EMAIL PROTECTED
"War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."- Karl Von Clausewitz
If war without provocation serves to satisfy a political ambition, I doubt that there will be a second thought on the matter -- especially considering the simple minds who have found their way to the top of the
f Keith Addison
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 12:02 PM
To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] A Revolution in American Nuclear Policy
Greetings Rick
>Dear Keith,
>
>If this is true it is very disturbing
Yes! I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. I've been wa
on 5/31/05 12:37 PM, Jason Schick at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This is not disturbing to me at all. What it does is warn our enemies, and
> we do have legitimate enemies, that we will not necessarily wait to be
> struck first.
Like the psychopathic neighbor who periodically kills a cat for
Dear Keith,
If this is true it is very disturbing
Yes! I'd be surprised if it wasn't true. I've been watching it
building, bit by bit, for the last couple of years, and not just via
Jonathan Schell (who usually gets it right anyway).
as it implies that the US has adopted a "first strike"
whole, but I did want to throw out a comment on MAD and WMDs.
I don't see the expansion of the MAD doctrine to include non-nuclear
WMDs as being logically inconsistent. Given the very premise of MAD is
that certain actions are unwinnable given the assurance of retaliation,
the *exclusion* of
If this is true it is very disturbing as it implies that the US has
adopted a "first strike" policy which is a change that I can't imagine
the congress going along with. Contrary to what Schell says the US has
had a policy that we would not be the first to use nuclear weapons and
to that en
18 matches
Mail list logo
