[117157] in Cypherpunks
Re: Sanctions (2)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Secret Squirrel)
Fri Aug 27 12:38:14 1999
Date: 27 Aug 1999 16:15:35 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
Message-ID: <58a4f79641bd041754c3c80027eb0ff3@anonymous>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Reply-To: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
(continued from Sanctions (1))
> Face it pal, your "Leaders" in D.C. are yanking
> you around like a fucking puppet, all the while
> trampling the rights of the rest of the world
> underfoot like so many blades of grass.
I'm not your pal, I have contempt for most of the
stuffed shirts in D.C., the U.S. is in no position
to trample on the rights of the people of the
entire planet, and in the end I'm far more concerned
about my rights, here, which D.C. _is_ in a position
to seriously damage.
> "Allies"?
>
> Do you know that Chatel Slavery is still LEGAL and
> PRACTISED in that little pissant country we were
> "defending"?
Let's say you are taken to the airport and offered the
choice of one of two one-way flights -- one to Iraq
and the other to Kuwait. Unfortunately, that is
descriptive of the alternatives in most of that area.
American/Canadian/British concepts of liberty are
not practiced in the Arab world. If you're so sure you
have the answers, then go there and fucking fix it
yourself. If you think I'll agree that Iraq should have
been allowed to overrun and keep Kuwait because of
the points you raise, you're smoking that bad commie
dope again.
> That the reason Hussien was Ticked Off at them was
> that they were drilling slantwise into HIS oil fields?
I've heard that before. I don't know it as a fact. But
you try to justify Iraq overruning Kuwait on that basis?
Fuckwit!
> That Bush, through one of his Consulates let Hussien
> know that we wouldn't object if he took those pumps,
> and the rest of the oil fields by force, but he went
> a little too far, so we had to go "bomb him back to
> the stone age".
>
> Fucking hypocrite.
Fucking moron! If you're the asshole on the block and
I tell you I wouldn't mind if you helped yourself to
the stuff in Joe's house, and you go for it and get
yourself blown away or beaten to a pulp in the process,
even by _me_, you're only reaping the consequences for
being a clueless fuckwit.
>>When civilians of such aggressive regimes suffer,
>>that is just too fucking bad. See the principle
>>enunciated above about responsibility.
>
> So when Bin Lauden Nukes NY City, since they are just
> civilians of one of the most aggressive regimes
> currently on this planet, it's Ok? You won't mind?
As I said before, whether I mind or not has no bearing
on the _fact_ that people bear the consequences of
the leaders they tolerate in office. That applies
regardless of any "objective" right or wrong or truth
or falsehood or political philosophies. The plain fact
also is that some people and groups are not reasonable
and can't be dealt with on any basis. If you leave them
alone, they will kill you. If you fight them and lose,
they will kill you. If you ignore them, they will sneak
up behind you and stab you in the back. Those are the
ones who present us with a Hobson's Choice: damned if
we dispatch them and possibly dead or injured if we
don't. The same dilemmas arise in individual real life
and are largely undealt with in glib libertarian
discussions.
>You are writing as if the U.S. were storming into Iraq
>and shooting our way to the oil wells. That is hardly
>what is going on. We're not taking any oil from Iraq.
>On the contrary, we are encouraging Iraq to leave its
>oil in the ground for the future, a very responsible,
>conservationist position, in my opinion. We are doing
>
> Your opinion is stupid.
Your IQ is abysmally low, apparently. You failed utterly
to recognize sarcasm. You are a clueless fuckwit.
(continued in Sanctions (3))
