[117165] in Cypherpunks
Re: Sanctions (2)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Haggerty)
Fri Aug 27 15:03:24 1999
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 11:31:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199908271831.LAA28879@hipmail19.gohip.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: "John Haggerty" <jhaggert@streetforce.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com, secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net
Reply-To: "John Haggerty" <jhaggert@streetforce.com>
I hope some of these discussions have been archived I have had some trouble with
e-mail overload and have not been able to respond to any of these. I still
maintain the US is in a bad position and we need to protect our interests.
Saddam is a vile evil man who should have been assassinated by some covert group
several years ago but nobody would have tried. If the military let me I would
gladly go in with some large new experimental weapon and take him out myself.
>Date: 27 Aug 1999 16:15:35 -0000
>From: Secret Squirrel <secret_squirrel@nym.alias.net>
>To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>Subject: Re: Sanctions (2)
>
>(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))
http://kernel.freeservers.com *THE* best source for Linux Kernel Info
e2compr give your cheap hard drive better use with compression
------------------------------------------------------------
Separate hype from hope on Wall Street. Visit http://www.streetforce.com
