>What struck me, rather, was its humanism. We see what we wish to see, I
>guess.

I claim it is communist propaganda because it contains unproven assumptions
and incorrect data.  How is that 'humanism'?  "Humanism" as in 'human
error'?

>It's not that pre-emptive strikes per se are new, it is the doctrine of
>pre-emptive strikes as a declared (illegal) tool of one nation
>against another that may pose a threat at some undetermined future date.
>A concept so flimsy that if all nations employed it we'd descend
>into anarchy.

But that is not what he said!  He said pre-emptive strikes have not been
done in the political history or the world, this is not true!

>>As far as new diseases are concerned, the biggest threat comes from Iraq.
>Could you clarify that comment?

I believe Iraq has bio-engineered diseases.  I also believe he will use
them if not stopped.

As far as WMD's are concerned, I have been given an enormous volume of
stuff.  I don't have time to wade through it all.  What I did
look at would involve torturing the term WMD to make 'bug spray' into
a 'chemical weapon'.  If we are going to nit pick over what a WMD is,
then I would have to say 'Get Real'.

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