It is fully your opinion that I was being rude.
As for a remark about the french, you are WRONG. I did not make a remark
about the french. I only concurred about the humor in a posting much in the
same way that others find humor in the post by Bruce Collins. Does it bother
me? Nope, I take it for what it is, a little bit of humor.
Your understanding with what a dictator is, differs from my definition.
Since other countries diagreee with the US, your logic would indicate that
they are dictators.
You should read a little more carefully.
What I posted
> >As to the nuclear threat that Iraq poses, I submit that there is evidence
> >that they would use them due to the past use of chemicals weapons in an
> >intended offensive manner. How do you know that Iraq does not have
nuclear
> >programs that are oriented to weapons creation?
>
Your response
> Furthermore, no proof has been presented by anybody about a nuclear threat
> from iraq. The only threat currently is from North korea and
india-pakistan.
>
Note that I never stated that Iraq HAS nuclear weapons. Only that they have
a stronger tendency to use them if they do aquire them based upon their past
use of chemicals weapons.
As of the use of Agent Orange, you again missed the point. The original
position was that Agent Orange was used (/intended? i dont know this part as
a fact from the author) as a WMD. Something that I have noted as not be
correct. The concept of intent and outcomes are two different aspect.
The intend of automobiles is to provide transportation. The outcames is that
they kill thousands.
Based on your line of logic, they should do more testing before allowing the
use of automobiles.
Joe
SpellChecker still not working
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Baier" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "HP3000 List" <[log in to unmask]>; "Joe Andress"
<[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: FW: [HP3000-L] OT : Understanding both sides
> I must agree with Richard.
> calling the leaders of all other countries that don't agree with
> yours "loudmouth" is very disrespectful. The remarks about the french
> military was better either.
>
> I don't have all the facts but if friends can't disagree on important
> issues, then one of them acts like a dictator.
> Furthermore, no proof has been presented by anybody about a nuclear threat
> from iraq. The only threat currently is from North korea and
india-pakistan.
>
> as for chemical warfare, the result of agent orange to a chemical weapon
> was the same even if it was not supposed to be.
> Maybe testing before use would help.
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:08:38 -0600, joe andress
<[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >Richard
> >
> >I fail to see how I have been rude or disrepectful of anyone's opinion.
You
> >appear to be the one who makes the judgement that I am disrespectful
> because
> >I disagree with your opinion. MMMMM, guess my opinion counts for nothing
> >them. But then, you do say that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> Seems
> >like you have a problem with making your mind up.
> >
> >As for the list monitor quirp, I just a regular list member who is
express
> >his opinion. You can ignore me is you wish. That is totally up to you.
> >However, I am entitled, as anyother member of the list, to express my
> >opinion. It would appear that you dont agree. Your opinion, I accept it
> >without comment.
> >
> >The US developed and use the atomic weapon over 45 years ago. The weapon
> was
> >use 2 times as we are aware. The weapon and its related weapons have not
> >been used again. There is no evidence that they have been used.
> >
> >Iraq, on ther other hand, has chemical weapons. They have proven that
they
> >have used them on several occurances.
> >
> >As to the nuclear threat that Iraq poses, I submit that there is evidence
> >that they would use them due to the past use of chemicals weapons in an
> >intended offensive manner. How do you know that Iraq does not have
nuclear
> >programs that are oriented to weapons creation?
> >
> >As for the last part of your post, President Bush has been to the UN a
> >number of times. I dont recall anything about the US being totally bound
by
> >the UN. I also dont recall anywhere President Bush subscribed to the
> >principles of a dictatorship. Only that Iraq honor the commitment that
Iraq
> >made. I guess you read something or heard something that I didnt.
> >
> >But then again, it might be your expressed opinion, something I can't
have
> >or express.
> >
> >
> >Joe
> >Spellchecker not working
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Richard Barker" <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:28 AM
> >Subject: [HP3000-L] FW: [HP3000-L] OT : Understanding both sides
> >
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion and it most cases
> everyone
> >> on this list maintains a certain level of diplomacy and decorum.
> >> Unfortunately recently the new list monitor (or at least he seems to
be)
> >> Joe, seems to just be disrespecting everyone who even slightly
disagrees
> >> with him.
> >>
> >> I suppose I should just ignore him.
> >>
> >> Joe, there are other countries in the world and other people who don't
> >> necessarily share Bush's and your opinion on how the world should be
run.
> >> Why should we have to suffer the problems that this unilateral, non UN
> >> supported, action creates. Iraq probably does not have nuclear weapons
> >and
> >> even if they did, what evidence do you have that they would use them.
> The
> >> only country that has ever used them, is your own, so who is more
likely
> >to
> >> use them again.
> >>
> >> The idea of the UN is effectively a form world wide democracy, by just
> >using
> >> it when you want, then ignoring it when it suits you means that maybe
> >> America doesn't really believe in the principle of a democracy only a
> >> dictatorship.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: joe andress [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> >> Sent: 12 March 2003 18:19
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : Understanding both sides
> >>
> >>
> >> Iraq can simply prevent any deaths of Iraqi people and destruction of
> >their
> >> infrasturction by ONE person following the compact that HE allowed to
be
> >> signed.
> >>
> >> HE is the one person who can stop any and all actions. NO one else has
> >> started anything. ONLY HE can stop it.
> >>
> >> And for the ignorent ones, its not G W Bush.
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Richard Ali" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 10:17 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT : Understanding both sides
> >>
> >>
> >> Ken Hirsch points out:
> >> >Negotiators were never able to agree on a definition of "aggression",
> >> so the ICC does not currently have any jurisdiction over an alleged
> >> crime of starting a war.
> >>
> >>
> >> The deaths we inflict upon the Iraqis and damage to their
infrastructure
> >> would be the crimes, not the "starting" of the aggression.
> >>
> >> I had a quick look at your link and found: "The Court has jurisdiction
> in
> >> accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:
> >> (a) The crime of genocide;
> >> (b) Crimes against humanity;
> >> (c) War crimes;
> >> (d) The crime of aggression.".
> >>
> >> Not had a chance to go through it in detail but doesn't point (d) cover
> >what
> >> I'm talking about? I admit that I could be wrong since I've only had a
> >quick
> >> look.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Richard Ali
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Richard Ali
> >> Smith & Williamson Corporate Services Limited
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The contents of this email are confidential to the intended recipient
and
> >> may not be disclosed. Although it is believed that this email and any
> >> attachments are virus free, it is the responsibility of the recipient
to
> >> confirm this.
> >>
> >> Smith & Williamson Corporate Finance Limited - A member of M&A
> >International
> >> Inc. http://www.mergers.net Registered in England No. 4533970.
> Regulated
> >> by the Financial Services Authority
> >> Smith & Williamson Investment Management Limited, Registered No.
976145.
> >> Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
> >> Smith & Williamson Pension Consultancy Limited - Independent
> Intermediary.
> >> Registered No. 3133226. Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
> >> Smith & Williamson Unit Trust Managers Limited, Registered No. 1934644.
> >> Regulated by the Financial Services Authority.
> >> Smith & Williamson Limited - A member of Nexia International.
> Registered
> >> in England No. 4534022. Regulated by the Institute of Chartered
> >Accountants
> >> in England & Wales for a range of investment business activities.
> >>
> >> Registered Office: No. 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
> >> Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.smith.williamson.co.uk
> >>
> >> Nexia Audit Limited - A member of Nexia International. Registered in
> >> England No. 4469576. Registered to carry on audit work and regulated by
> >the
> >> Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales for a range of
> >> investment business activities.
> >>
> >> Registered Office: No. 1 Riding House Street, London W1A 3AS
> >> Telephone: 020 7637 5377 http://www.nexiaaudit.co.uk
> >>
> >> * 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 *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
