On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 04:17 AM, Richard Barker wrote:

> Hi
>
> Maybe I didn't make my point clear, so I will try and summarise.
>
> First of all I was trying to clarify that most 'anti-war' people, are
> not
> just anti all wars, they are just against this one.

I wasn't against WWII or Korea. I was against Vietnam and Iraq.

> Secondly, we have seen numerous Emails telling us that Saddam is a
> nasty
> person and must be removed.  No one is denying that, but there are
> lots of
> countries with nasty dictators running them and some of them are
> friends of
> the US.

Let's kill all those dictators too.  :-))

> Thirdly, we are told this is about Iraq potentially being able to
> attack the
> US.  These awful acronym has now appeared, WMD, which I assumed meant
> nuclear weapons.  Again Iraq doesn't seem to have any, but a number of
> other
> antagonistic countries do and I have heard no talk of invading North
> Korea,
> Israel or Pakistan.  If this is about chemical weapons, Saddam, indeed
> might
> have them, but again, so do a number of other countries.  Before this
> conflict began it would have been nice to have some independent proof
> of
> these weapons existing and that they could and were willing to attack
> Europe
> and/or the US.

Why must we be reasonable and even-handed?  :-))

> Fourthly, we are told that this is about liberating the people of
> Iraq.  Now
> this is the most far-fetched claim.  The reason I attached the list of
> UN
> proposals, that the US had ignored or had chosen not to agree with,
> was to
> show that in my opinion, the US (government) only cares about the US
> (corporate).  It doesn't appear to have any interest in the world's
> problems.  On top of that you have a number of other countries with
> very
> poor human rights and yet some of those are ignored or they are even
> allies
> of the US.

You mean our government is corporate-driven? Heavens-to-Betsy.

> If you accept what I am saying you will see that the reasons for this
> conflict are extremely dubious.  I suspect it is only about oil.  That
> would
> fit with the background of the US government personnel and the reason
> no
> other countries are being invaded is that this is the only the one
> with the
> large, under used, oil field.

Do you think??

> If this was about liberating people or genuinely reducing the risk of
> war to
> the world then it would get a lot more support, but it would also have
> to be
> applied to all countries and not just Iraq.

Even-handedness again? Surely you don't expect reasonable people to
agree.  :-))

> Sorry if some of my mails seem a bit reactionary, but I'm often very
> busy
> and don't a large amount of time to articulate my point of view in the
> depth
> I would like.

You did this time.

> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cortlandt Wilson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 02 April 2003 21:51
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: War again and a bit of a rant
>
>
> Richard,
>
> It's sad that you don't have the wherewithal to make your point
> explicit.
> Your message drips with innuendo and invites inferences without
> standing for
> anything.
>
> I assume that your laundry list of complaints is to show that the US
> has
> "dirty hands" and therefore our "dirty hands" means that the US must be
> wrong now.     It seems to me that you have a dressed-up form of a
> personal
> attack.
>
> This kind of enfeebling moral perfectionism that would pretty well rule
> everyone out.   If I were apply a similar type of argument to your
> statement
> I would conclude that based upon the cheesy method of argument you use
> here
> therefore most things you say are cheesy.   I say that only to
> illustrate,
> reducio ad absurdum, why I reject such arguments.
>
> Cortlandt Wilson
> (650) 966-8555
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On
>> Behalf Of Richard Barker
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:15 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [HP3000-L] OT: War again and a bit of a rant
>>
>>
>> "If removing this psychopath and his regime from power isn't
>> justified in
>> the
>> eyes of the world, what do you consider justice?"
>>
>> This is the whole problem, obviously the US is not doing it because
>> Saddam
>> is not a nice person.
>>
>> Saudi Arabia    Autocracy, poor human rights
>> Egypt                   Dictatorship
>> Israel          War criminal as prime minister, in violation of UN
>> resolutions, nuclear weapons.
>> Pakistan                Military dictatorship, nuclear weapons
>> North Korea             Dictatorship, on the verge of having
>> nuclear weapons
>> Iraq                    Democratically elected president (very dubious
>> though), no evidence of nuclear weapons and a poor human
>> rights record
>>
>> So who do we choose to invade, without UN backing, Iraq.
>>
>> Here's a few home truths you might want to consider (borrowed from a
>> more
>> articulate Email):
>>
>>
>> 1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the
>> 1972
>> Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the
>> first time
>> in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord.
>>
>> 2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144
>> nations
>> including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a
>> London
>> conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the
>> Convention
>> by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US
>> Under
>> Secretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at
>> the
>> same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan and Syria of
>> violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or
>> supporting
>> evidence.
>>
>> 3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms,
>> July
>> 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it.
>>
>> 4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights
>> Commission,
>> after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of
>> $244
>> million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN
>> budget
>> from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood
>> virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access
>> to
>> HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food,
>> and
>> calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.)
>>
>> 5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The
>> Hague to
>> try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes
>> and
>> crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was
>> approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In
>> October
>> 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001
>> the US
>> Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill
>> that would
>> keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the
>> proposed
>> ICC. [In fact advocating use of force to "rescue" Americans
>> charged with war
>> crimes - RR]
>>
>> 6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December
>> 1997
>> by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with
>> Russia, China,
>> India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President
>> Clinton
>> rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South
>> Korea
>> against North Korea's overwhelming military advantage." He stated
>> that the
>> US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by
>> President Bush
>> in August 2001.
>>
>> 7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared
>> "dead"
>> by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush
>> administration
>> shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord,
>> mainly by
>> watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval.
>>
>> 8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to
>> discuss, even
>> at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic
>> surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon"
>> program).
>>
>> 9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation
>> and
>> Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to
>> crack down
>> on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens.
>>
>> 10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production
>> of
>> anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001.
>>
>> 11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism,
>> bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa
>>
>> 12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial
>> nations
>> (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001:
>> the US
>> was the only one to oppose it.
>>
>> 13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In
>> the UN
>> in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the
>> tenth
>> consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of
>> 167 to
>> 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition).
>>
>> 14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and
>> ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by
>> President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US
>> is one
>> of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or
>> nuclear
>> power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the 1.1 UN
>> Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition
>> to the
>> Test Ban Treaty.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dave Swanson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 02 April 2003 14:38
>> To: 'Richard Barker'; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: RE: [HP3000-L] OT:RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Sec of State Powell's
>> Integr ity (was: Quote s of the Day)
>>
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>>
>> Ok, simple question,
>>
>> If killing 500,000 human beings does not qualify Saddam Hussien as
>> one of
>> the most brutal dictators in the history of the world, then what does?
>> that's a middle of the road figure, some sources place it as low as
>> 100,000
>> others on the opposite end of the "We love Saddam" meter place it
>> as high as
>> 2.5 million. Popular informed opinion places the actual figure at
>> closer to
>> 300,000 - 500,000.
>>
>> Ok another simple question,
>>
>> If removing this psychopath and his regime from power isn't
>> justified in the
>> eyes of the world, what do you consider justice? Do we need to dig up
>> every
>> single body, find every single smoking gun, load em all up in a truck
>> and
>> dump them on your doorstep?
>>
>> I've never seen a kilo of cocaine up close, but I know that there is
>> enough
>> of it being smuggled into our schools to know that I want the police
>> to do
>> everything in their power to get it off the streets up to and
>> including
>> invading countries that are the source of these poisons.
>>
>> I don't need to see Saddam line truckloads of people up and shoot
>> them in
>> the head to know he has done it, is capable of doing it, and will do
>> it
>> again.
>>
>> One more question for ya, and lets try and lob it over the fence this
>> time,
>>
>> When does "Justice" take over? When the gun is being held to YOUR
>> head?
>>
>> Yeah, waiting till the police had a smoking gun and brain matter all
>> over a
>> sidewalk with boatloads of evidence to put the gunman away is a much
>> better
>> form of justice than stopping him from killing in the first place.
>>
>> I dunno, but I prefer my world where people try and stop a crime when
>> they
>> see a crime. And Saddam has committed crimes, even you don't deny it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Barker [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 8:12 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [HP3000-L] OT:RE: [HP3000-L] OT: Sec of State Powell's
>> Integrity
>> (was: Quote s of the Day)
>>
>>
>> How many times do we have to state this.  Everyone or at least the
>> vast
>> majority of people believe that Saddam is not a nice person.  Nobody
>> is
>> supporting Saddam, no one his ignoring is alleged war crimes.  Some
>> people
>> do not believe that this war is justified and so are against it.  This
>> doesn't mean they wouldn't have supported the allied forces in the
>> WW2 or
>> that they wouldn't have supported the war of independence.
>>
>>> We now very clearly see some of the weapons that the inspectors "did
>>> not
>>> find" and we are finding the chemical labs that hans blix and sean
>>> penn
>> said
>>> were not there.  We are seeing al qaeda fighters joining in the
>> fray, again
>>> demonstrating thier connection to saddam.
>>
>> I'd like to see a bit more evidence of this than some journalist
>> saying it
>> is the case, I'm not sure I would even trust the US Government, if
>> they said
>> the same.  Saddam and his colleagues say that Iraq is winning the
>> war, does
>> that make it true.
>>
>>> But because saddam is a left wing dictator, he has
>>> the support of the liberal/left of this country and his actions are
>>> therefore acceptable.
>>> Sure, they (and the U.N.) tried to make it appear as though saddam's
>> actions
>>> were seen as polically incorrect by pretending to make weapons
>> inspections.
>>
>> Oh dear, here we go again.  Jim, I assume you are American.  In the
>> schools
>> in the US, do they teach everyone that left wing or socialist
>> politics is
>> evil and all right wing, capitalist ideals are good.  Saddam is a
>> right wing
>> dictator, his name even appears under the definition of 'right wing'
>> in the
>> Encyclopaedia.  I'm also sure there are a number of people, who would
>> consider themselves 'right wing', but still do not support the
>> military
>> action.  Why do so many people try and group all the people who are
>> against
>> this war (which is the vast majority of the world) into this little
>> box.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I would be a little more worried about the backlash from this war.
>> After
>> 9/11, America, had real world-wide support, but now, it is
>> probably the most
>> hated country in the world.  Unfortunately, I fear, that the problems
>> will
>> now escalate for the American people because of the actions of it's
>> government.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jim Mc Coy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>
>> This person is part of the same crowd that thinks President Bush is a
>> war
>> criminal for going after terrorists and the regimes that support
>> them, but
>> does not consider saddam hussein's actions to be criminal.
>>
>> There is no one that is pro-war - at least not on our side.  There
>> are those
>> who do understand that sometimes war is the only solution and is
>> persued
>> only as a last resort - just as in this case.
>> If you are "anti-war" keep this in mind:
>>
>> If it were not for war, we would not have the freedom that we have
>> today.
>> We would still be subject to the British throne.  So if you are
>> "anti-war"
>> then you have to be "anti- American independence".
>> After centuries of slavery in this country, it took a war to finally
>> end it
>> completely.  If you are "anti-war" then you would have to be willing
>> to
>> accept slavery.
>> If you are "anti-war" then Hitler and the Holocost would have had to
>> have
>> been acceptable to you.
>> If you are "anti-war" in this case, then the events of 9/11 must also
>> be
>> acceptable to you - just as gassing of the kurds, the torture and
>> murder of
>> thousands of other Iraqi's, and saddam's desire to build nuclear and
>> chemical weapons for the expressed purpose of attaking Israel and the
>> U.S.
>> also must be acceptable to you.
>>
>> If President Bush suddenly launched an attack on FL or CA and began
>> murdering and torturing millions of democrats, these same anti-war
>> leftists
>> would be screaming for the U.N. to send in troops to kill him and
>> bring an
>> end to the blood bath.  But because saddam is a left wing dictator,
>> he has
>> the support of the liberal/left of this country and his actions are
>> therefore acceptable.
>> Sure, they (and the U.N.) tried to make it appear as though
>> saddam's actions
>> were seen as polically incorrect by pretending to make weapons
>> inspections.
>>
>> We now very clearly see some of the weapons that the inspectors "did
>> not
>> find" and we are finding the chemical labs that hans blix and sean
>> penn said
>> were not there.  We are seeing al qaeda fighters joining in the fray,
>> again
>> demonstrating thier connection to saddam.
>>
>> What we need in this country  today are more people like President
>> Bush and
>> Secretary Powell and our soldiers, who are willing to stand up and
>> defend
>> America and alot less of those so eager to see it destroyed.
>>
>> JM
>>
>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>
>> ==================================
>> This message contains confidential information and is intended solely
>> for
>> the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you
>> are not
>> the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
>> this
>> email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received
>> this e-mail
>> by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email
>> transmission cannot
>> be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
>> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be
>> incomplete. The
>> sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or
>> omissions in
>> the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email
>> transmission.
>> If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No
>> contracts
>> may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
>> communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
>> attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no
>> liability
>> for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
>> ==================================
>>
>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>>
>> ==================================
>> This message contains confidential information and is intended solely
>> for
>> the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you
>> are not
>> the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy
>> this
>> email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received
>> this e-mail
>> by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email
>> transmission cannot
>> be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
>> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be
>> incomplete. The
>> sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or
>> omissions in
>> the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email
>> transmission.
>> If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No
>> contracts
>> may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
>> communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
>> attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no
>> liability
>> for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
>> ==================================
>>
>> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> ==================================
> This message contains confidential information and is intended solely
> for
> the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you
> are not
> the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this
> email. Please inform the sender immediately if you have received this
> e-mail
> by mistake and delete this email from your system. Email transmission
> cannot
> be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be
> intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or be incomplete.
> The
> sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions
> in
> the contents of this message, which arise as a result of email
> transmission.
> If verification is required please request a hard copy version. No
> contracts
> may be concluded on behalf of Virgin Express SA/NV by means of email
> communication. Finally, the recipient should check this e-mail and any
> attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no
> liability
> for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
> ==================================
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *