twilight2000-digest Saturday, February 14 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 010 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Russians Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Loren Wiseman Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer [none] Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: T2k webring: Copyrights Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Dirty Iraqi Bastards Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: T2k webring: Copyrights Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: INTSUM update Re: Iraq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:10:34 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Russians The problem the Russians have is that they know that if Iraq allows open inspections , the Americans will discover that they have been marketing forbidden technology , directly, to the Iraqi government. That it's also why the U.S. is so adamant to go in. It embarasses 2 governments for the price of one. Leary Peter Vieth wrote: > > > http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html > > Saul, > > This is Grady. I'm one of the silent members of the list. I was > > curious what you think about Russian threats against the US if we take > > action against Iraq? Personally, I believe that we can never trust the > > Russians, and we should be more wary of a few of our Allies. Drop me a > > line and lwt me know what you think. Later. > > Grady. > > I don't think Russia is too much of a threat anymore-- it seems unlikely > that they would risk any overt conflict with the U.S, although they > might supply Iraq with supplies. I think we should be trying to figure > out what Saddam is up to. Iraq had a good chance of winning in the > previous war but they couldn't have built up their military yet (lets > hope). He's crazy but is he that stupid? > I, personally, would like to know what the Chinese are up to. > -- > Peter Vieth > Fitek@ix.netcom.com > IGZ Handle: Fitek > ICQ UIN: 3660410 > Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html > Apocalypse Software E-mail: Apocalypsesw@rocketmail.com > Apocalypse Software web page: http://www.keast.com/apocalypse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:10:33 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer > Huh? Sometimes you have to fight. Is war "bad?" I think the issue is >"what is the point of the war?" None of us can deny that sometimes there >must be war. I can. Saddam is not standing up to America for any noble cause. >Is massacring Kurds and invading and killing your neighbors a noble >cause? Saddam is merely another self-serving dictator, like Castro, Kim >Il Sung, Hitler, and like Lenin and his successors. Yes, Saddam is a dictator. Though, I disagree that Lenin was- his successors, surely. But not Lenin, he was no dictator. If you'd like to discuss this point further (though I do not want to stray from the topic) I'd be happy. America did not lose >lives to "imperialist" ambitions but to a deranged tyrant, and it was >certainly less than was lost by Iraq to Iran, to Stalin's paranoia, and >the countless other lives lost to the other crazy >nationalist/socialist/communist leaders who claim(ed) to work for the >good of those they oppress(ed). Ok. I was not refering to the American lives lost during the Gulf war, for as you seem to like, the numbers don't weigh very well relatively. My reference was to America's past endeavours, putting the CIA aside, and the thousands upon thousands of deaths they helped along, I meant the confrontation in Vietnam. On the 'imperalist' ambitions... I spent some time in the Middle East (the United Arab Emirates) ... for about a year some time ago. I spoke with a good deal of people about what had happened, and learned (basically) that Iraq was very brutal to the Kuwaiti people. This in mind, I find it hard to except that America's efforts were not driven by that thing they adore so: economics. That's a big corner of the oil market Sadam would have had... > I am sometimes glad to see anyone standing up to some established >person or group, but there is a difference between being a defiant >innocent and a defiant criminal. America punishes criminals. Heh. Maybe. > Is Saddam hiding weapons in palaces? I don't think so. But he has shown >little discretion in his use of chemical weapons in the past and since >he lost the war he is in no place to dictate terms to the winners. Perhaps not. >There was one main motivating reason for my family's flight to the West: >Communism. While thousands of people tried to flee and millions more >dreamed of escaping the prison called the Soviet Union, how many outside >it were and are so enamoured of the former Soviet Union, that wonderful >classless society? Well, I know that during the 20's and 30's there were a great many Westerner's in complete admiration of the Soviet Union. Mr. Churchill, whether causing that admiration false, or seeing it to be false, certainly put an end to whatever was- The thousands of sheep who continue to see the >illusion rather than the reality of the magician's trick, those who are >too blinded by the garish glitter of it to notice the deception of the >swindler. The communist leaders were criminals, like pickpockets or >rapists, on a larger scale. The genius of communism is that the person >being robbed doesn't always know it, especially that the thief is their >"friend." Yes. They were not Communist, ... by no measure of the term. >You write on your page: > >"I did have the fortune of learning about the Soviet Union, however. It >[....] and I even came to the impression that they all looked >the >same as well." > >Viktor Suvorov, disinformation or not, was right on this also. The >Soviet Union did not need to send a single soldier into a country to >control it. All the proof is here. I've missed something, please elaborate. - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:12:06 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer >Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as long as >he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. Let's not forget he >acquired and used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1980's, another words >during Reagan and Bush administrations. None of the atrocities he committed >back then caused embargos, airstrikes, or even prevented congressional >delegations from beating a path to his door and Bob Dole from proclaiming that >Saddam Hussein was someone we could do business with. It is a height of >hypocrisy for us to pretend to take the moral high ground right now, when we >were guilty of doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the Russians and >the French of doing right now. If any more of our troops die it is only >because of our own shortsighted and hypocritical foreign policy in the Middle >East. We allowed Saddam to become who he is right now because it suited our >ends, pure and simple. Well said Mike. - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:05:20 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 19:12 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: OK, so what I'm about to say will be contentious at best. So what - I'm used to being disliked, as I'm an ex-military policeman . The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the oilfields. Pure and simple. And THAT was his big mistake. It provided a threat to the stability of price to the rst of the world's oil, and thus a threat to the economies of those contries, which they wouldn't stand for. OPEC pricing aside, military actions to hike oil prices is another thing entirely. Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. And especially as he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice way to go out, folks. And you wonder why the world is worried... >>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as long as >>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. True, but that's realpolitik for you. >>Let's not forget he >>acquired and used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1980's, another words >>during Reagan and Bush administrations. True. And decidedly stupid of him. If he hadn't used it, we'd've been none the wiser. >>None of the atrocities he committed >>back then caused embargos, airstrikes, or even prevented congressional >>delegations from beating a path to his door and Bob Dole from proclaiming that >>Saddam Hussein was someone we could do business with. It is a height of >>hypocrisy for us to pretend to take the moral high ground right now, when we >>were guilty of doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the Russians and >>the French of doing right now. I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. >>If any more of our troops die it is only >>because of our own shortsighted and hypocritical foreign policy in the Middle >>East. We allowed Saddam to become who he is right now because it suited our >>ends, pure and simple. I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have happened. But the hindsight is always 20:20. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:36:33 EST From: GDWGAMES@aol.com Subject: Loren Wiseman > Loren Wiseman is currently working for Steve Jackson Games, heading the > GURPS: Traveller project for them. He has an AOL account that he can be > reached at: > GDWGAMES@aol.com He also subscribes to this list. In addition, I can be reached at LKW@IO.COM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:57:18 -0500 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Saul Basgen wrote: > >Viktor Suvorov, disinformation or not, was right on this also. The > >Soviet Union did not need to send a single soldier into a country to > >control it. All the proof is here. > > I've missed something, please elaborate. Oh, he's merely accusing you of treason for daring to write what you think in the home of the brave, land of the free. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:47:41 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer >The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by >Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam >was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the >oilfields. Pure and simple. This way or that.... ... things are easy to understand, with pure and simple... >Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his >stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough >of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. Are his rockets able to see the Mediterranean? And especially as >he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've >seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice >way to go out, folks. I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. >And you wonder why the world is worried... What the world worries... which part? >>>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as >long as >>>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. > >True, but that's realpolitik for you. Heh. A good system, two seperate parties- one in favour, the other not... one the scape goat... the other not. >I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral >standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. Curious, those things we consider a threat to us. Chechnya was not a threat to the United States of America. Bosnia-Heregovina is. India and Pakstan was not. Iraq is. > >I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to >pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have >happened. Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care with practicing thier domination. Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:54:26 -0500 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Pmj6@aol.com wrote in an excellent message: > Saddam Hussein was someone we could do business with. It is a height of > hypocrisy for us to pretend to take the moral high ground right now, when we > were guilty of doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the Russians and > the French of doing right now. If any more of our troops die it is only Let us remember that it is all about oil. Let's also remember that many of the nations the U.S. is busy protecting from Saddam and which were U.S. allies during the Gulf War commit as bad or worse atrocities against human rights as Iraq, yet the U.S. sees no reason to act against them, because they stay in line. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:49:56 -0500 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Peter Vieth wrote in his flame response to a message which probably did not belong on this list: > Huh? Sometimes you have to fight. Is war "bad?" I think the issue is War is the killing of other human beings. Sometimes it is unavoidable, yes. > Il Sung, Hitler, and like Lenin and his successors. America did not lose Or Pol Pot, or Suharto, or Jiang Zemin, or countless other dictators the U.S. has supported -- much as it did Saddan in years gone by (as well as Stalin). > innocent and a defiant criminal. America punishes criminals. Yes, the world cop in action -- without regard for how the rest of the world feels. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:42:00 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer > > I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to > pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have > happened. > > But the hindsight is always 20:20. > I was under the impression that Sunnite Saudi Arabia would not allow the Coalition to finish Saddam off because then Iran, a Shi'ite country, might become too powerful. Maybe Israel wouldn't be happy about that either. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html Apocalypse Software E-mail: Apocalypsesw@rocketmail.com Apocalypse Software web page: http://www.keast.com/apocalypse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:06:28 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Matt Aistrich wrote: > > Saul Basgen wrote: > > > >Viktor Suvorov, disinformation or not, was right on this also. The > > >Soviet Union did not need to send a single soldier into a country to > > >control it. All the proof is here. > > > > I've missed something, please elaborate. > > Oh, he's merely accusing you of treason for daring to write what you think in the > home of the brave, land of the free. If that is what you want to think... Feel free. My problem is not with Saul but with the Communist ideology. I can say that right? - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:13:16 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Matt Aistrich wrote: > > Yes, the world cop in action -- without regard for how the rest of the world feels. I doubt the Kuwaitis were offended, or the Bosnians, etc, etc. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:25:10 +0800 From: Guo Rong Subject: [none] unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:34:23 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 23:13 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >Matt Aistrich wrote: >> >> Yes, the world cop in action -- without regard for how the rest of the world feels. > >I doubt the Kuwaitis were offended, or the Bosnians, etc, etc. Very true. Had the UN - let's not forget, it was a COALITION, not just the US - who have, admittedly, probably the most powerful armed forces in the world - who gave that meglomaniac psychopathic thug a boot between the legs. If the Kuwaitis were offended, they showed it in a bloody wierd manner. As to the Bosnians. Go see the news videos; If the UN/WEU/EC hadn't stepped in, they'd be in a hell of a lot worse shape that they are now. And the US didn't start the UNPROFOR/IFOR missions. The EC did, led by Britain. The US - sorry , guys, but this is how the press reported it - hummed and hawed, worried by the Vietnam factor. You eventually got there, though. Thanks - we can use the assists! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:44:53 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: Saul - This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. >>The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by >>Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam >>was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the >>oilfields. Pure and simple. > > This way or that.... ... things are easy to understand, with pure and >simple... >>Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his >>stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough >>of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. > > Are his rockets able to see the Mediterranean? No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. > And especially as >>he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've >>seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice >>way to go out, folks. > > I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most >desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's all there, in black and white. >>And you wonder why the world is worried... > > What the world worries... which part? The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful ignorance, the lucky sods. >>>>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as >>long as >>>>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. >> >>True, but that's realpolitik for you. > > Heh. A good system, two seperate parties- one in favour, the other not... >one the scape goat... the other not. ...looks about right... >>I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral >>standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. > > Curious, those things we consider a threat to us. Chechnya was not a >threat to the United States of America. Bosnia-Heregovina is. India and >Pakstan was not. Iraq is. OK, so I simplified it a little. The fact remains, India and Pakistan are rather much our responsibility, as Partition, and then seperate indipendance, was overseen by us (the UK). If we cocked it up, we're a bit responsible, aren't we. Chechnya is a mess. Bosnia I've talked about already! >>I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to >>pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have >>happened. > > Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. >Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. >Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care >with practicing thier domination. I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... Later! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:29:38 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 22:42 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >> >> I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to >> pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have >> happened. >> >> But the hindsight is always 20:20. >> > >I was under the impression that Sunnite Saudi Arabia would not allow the >Coalition to finish Saddam off because then Iran, a Shi'ite country, >might become too powerful. Maybe Israel wouldn't be happy about that >either. Hmm... I recall it as the politicians, but you may be right. Either way, we should never have stopped when we did. Power vaccuums aside, I'd rather worry about a country with a rational, if rather fundamentally religeous, leader, that a bloody psychopath with weapons of global destruction. Man's a bloody menace to us all. The sooner he's history, the sooner I breathe easier. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:26:28 PST From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: T2k webring: Copyrights > I don't mean to sound to pessemistic Teemu, but don't worry about >them saying no... they won't... they just won't bother to take the >fucking time to write you back. Quite honestly, I think just calling >a file Twilight:2000 and throwing it on the web is a breach of a >trademark. I'm pretty sure >they could shut down all of our sites on that kind of permise. > I have an adventure- Gateway to the Spanish Main (given to me by >someone who's name I do not want to incriminate) in Word. I havn't >put it up however. I suppose that Tantalus would notice a direct >copyright infrignment- moreso than some people trying to keep a game >alive. My fear would be that, on noticing that infringment, they >might go full blown and do the Paramount thing... > Well, I just received a confirmation from writers of those sourcebooks, and I have their permission to translate and publish text in WWW-pages, so I am starting that work right away. Niemi ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:19:53 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Although it is true oil and money is a large motivational factor in the U.S. actions....the one thing that most people are to cynical to admit is that the attitudes of the American people still influences their leaders and their leaders still have the same basic moral upbringing. While I'm sure that money plays a large part in their politics, I also know that the Americans are a fine, decent, people who do not hold individual life and liberty cheap. True they try to throw their weight around..but they are a powerful nation and the temptation is always there. But....they do sometimes act because of a sense of moral duty. Saddam on the other hand holds life very cheap and is only too willing to commit genocide. To leave weapons, capable of world destruction, in the hands of this morally challenged cretin, who has no honour or sense of compassion, would be an act of irresponsible behaviour. He not only endangers us but all future generations. The islands near Scotland that were used for Anthrax testing during WWII are still Quarantined. As far as I am concerned ... The U.S. deserves a thanks or two. Do not get me wrong! I have friends from the middle east, including one from Iraq, and they are fine people with fascinating cultures and rich histories and are extremely moral. But an unscrupulous leader can be found in any generation and any nation. If you have a dog with rabies...you put it to sleep! Goodnight Saddam where ever you are!!! Leary Hebert A proud Canadian (ex-military, Armoured, LdSH (RC)) Roger Stenning wrote: > At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: > > Saul - > > This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in > advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. > > >>The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by > >>Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam > >>was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the > >>oilfields. Pure and simple. > > > > This way or that.... ... things are easy to understand, with pure and > >simple... > > > > >>Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his > >>stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough > >>of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. > > > > Are his rockets able to see the Mediterranean? > > No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he > has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the > globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - > he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio > weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's > dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. > > > And especially as > >>he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've > >>seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice > >>way to go out, folks. > > > > I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most > >desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. > > Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go > nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot > less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each > weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's > all there, in black and white. > > >>And you wonder why the world is worried... > > > > What the world worries... which part? > > The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful > ignorance, the lucky sods. > > >>>>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as > >>long as > >>>>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. > >> > >>True, but that's realpolitik for you. > > > > Heh. A good system, two seperate parties- one in favour, the other not... > >one the scape goat... the other not. > > ...looks about right... > > >>I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral > >>standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. > > > > Curious, those things we consider a threat to us. Chechnya was not a > >threat to the United States of America. Bosnia-Heregovina is. India and > >Pakstan was not. Iraq is. > > OK, so I simplified it a little. The fact remains, India and Pakistan are > rather much our responsibility, as Partition, and then seperate > indipendance, was overseen by us (the UK). If we cocked it up, we're a bit > responsible, aren't we. Chechnya is a mess. Bosnia I've talked about already! > > >>I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to > >>pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have > >>happened. > > > > Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? > > Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather > insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. > > >Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. > >Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care > >with practicing thier domination. > > I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... > > Later! > > _____________________________________________________________ > Cheers, > > Roger > (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) > > MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. > ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! > > e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk > > Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ > INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: > http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html > ICQ UIN: 7742586 > _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:47:43 EST From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer In a message dated 98-02-13 22:23:21 EST, you write: > I spoke with a > good deal of people about what had happened, and learned (basically) that > Iraq was very brutal to the Kuwaiti people. That is correct ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:47:42 EST From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Dirty Iraqi Bastards In a message dated 98-02-13 17:42:45 EST, you write: > Iraq had a good chance of winning in the > previous war but they couldn't have built up their military yet (lets > hope). He's crazy but is he that stupid? I wouldn't go so far as to say he had a good chance of actually winning (and here I assume you mean militarily) , but he did have a good chance of inflicting alot more casualties on the coalition war machine. Saddam used tactics he had used from the Iran/Iraq war and built up his forces and defences accordingly, but failed to realize that the Coalition wouldn't fight the war the way he wanted us to fight it. Sure he used weapons of terror against civilian targets, maybe he used chemical weapons against US troops, but overall the Iraqis (at the point of the ground operations) were so demoralized and hungry that they did indeed surrender in droves. And without ALOT of troops willing to fight for him against an array of that magnitude, it was hopeless. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:50:01 +0100 From: johnson@hrem.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Roger wrote: And the US didn't start the UNPROFOR/IFOR missions. The EC did, led by Britain. The US - sorry , guys, but this is how the press reported it - hummed and hawed, worried by the Vietnam factor. You eventually got there, though. Thanks - we can use the assists! And how much good did the UN missions do? They were only able to fire if fired upon. Gorazede, this was the safe haven overrun by the Serbs in June/July of 1995, still happened and Muslims were still getting massacred regularly. All the UN missions did was prolong the conflict. It was not until the U.S. together with NATO began bombing Bosnian Serb installatiuons that came to the peace talks. And afterwards how much of the peacekeeping force was American. Something like a third of the entire force of 30,000. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:31:39 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: T2k webring: Copyrights At 03:26 14/02/98 PST, you wrote: >Well, I just received a confirmation from writers of those sourcebooks, >and I have their permission to translate and publish text in WWW-pages, >so I am starting that work right away. GO FOR IT!! - And well done for getting their permission, Neimi! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:49:28 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 15:50 14/02/98 +0100, you wrote: >Roger wrote: > >And the US didn't start the UNPROFOR/IFOR missions. The EC did, led by >Britain. The US - sorry , guys, but this is how the press reported it - >hummed and hawed, worried by the Vietnam factor. You eventually got there, >though. Thanks - we can use the assists! > > And how much good did the UN missions do? They were only able to fire if >fired upon. Gorazede, this was the safe haven overrun by the Serbs in June/July >of 1995, still happened and Muslims were still getting massacred regularly. All >the UN missions did was prolong the conflict. It was not until the U.S. >together with NATO began bombing Bosnian Serb installatiuons that came to the >peace talks. And afterwards how much of the peacekeeping force was American. >Something like a third of the entire force of 30,000. > Let's not forget the reputation of the British troops, here. If some dumb fuck fired on us, he/she/it was most likely gonna be pushing up daisies the next morning. Even with those bloody silly RoE they saddled us with, we STILL did a damn good job. I'm not disparaging the US effort, which was, thankfully, timely and in sufficiant strength to make 'em sit up and take notice, but it was a multi-national force, and for all that inter-national bickering and messing about, did good. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:01:44 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: INTSUM update >Couple of questions for you, now, mate: Were there any images that failed >to load for you, and how did you like the content? Everything worked fine. The content is good, though skinny. I'm sure you have plenty on the way... Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:25:03 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Iraq >At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: > >Saul - > >This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in >advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. Yes, of course. : ) >No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he >has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the >globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - >he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio >weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's >dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. Perhaps. Peter does not like Communist Ideology. In reference to what the world has seen of 'Communist Ideology', I think it more appropriate to assign it the term of dictatorship. Was it anything more? Propaganda was very well done, but this is simply another tool for a dictator, and what better tool than touting Communist ideology? Roger, my fear is that what you say, is no less than what Peter dispises so- as so many of us do. He does not have the 'right' to have weapons of such and such, so he ought to be killed (by people who have chemical and biological weapons more advanced and capable ten fold), so that the world may have peace. For, in the name of stability and union, we can only have one side with those most horrible weapons. Should someone stand up, they must be knocked down- for surely the imperialists do not wish to give up thier domineering hand of control. Let the 'coalition' forces take over Iraq.... then... Iran... perhaps later Syria, Jordan... Then North Korea, ... we are not taking over the world, simply bringing peace, establishing order! I >Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go >nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot >less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each >weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's >all there, in black and white. Black and white. :) .... so I suppose on the grand scale of justice, North Korea nuking millions of people (if indeed they have that capability) is less bad than Anthrax. Maybe so. Surely economics do not sit on either side of the scale... >> What the world worries... which part? > >The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful >ignorance, the lucky sods. Show me some educated folks in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, New Guinea, Russia (Siberia to a good extent), Argentina, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, Belize, Niger, Chad, Angolia, (... ...) that care about Iraq. Some, perhaps... >> Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? > >Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather >insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm sorry to have insulted. I don't mean to imply that the citizen's of the respective countries are imperialist peoples, but that the government's certainly are. My imperialist comments are directed mostly towards the United States, but England, France also have a part in it too. Imperialism... : 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. >>Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. >>Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care >>with practicing thier domination. > >I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... :) Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #10 ************************************ To subscribe to Twilight2000-Digest, send the command: subscribe twilight2000-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@MPGN.COM". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-twlight2000": subscribe twlight2000-digest local-twilight2000@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "twilight2000-digest" in the commands above with "twilight2000". From - Sat Feb 14 20:31:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by gepetto.dc.luth.se (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA09205 for ; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:26:28 +0100 (MET) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id OAA22224; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:24:28 -0500 Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:24:25 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA22214 for twilight2000-digest-outgoing; Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:24:22 -0500 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:24:22 -0500 Message-Id: <199802141924.OAA22214@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM> X-Authentication-Warning: phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM: majordom set sender to owner-twilight2000-digest@ using -f From: (twilight2000-digest) To: twilight2000-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM Subject: twilight2000-digest V1998 #10 Reply-To: twilight2000@mpgn.com X-UIDL: e104e41cd90ae8340233cfb356d9163e Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 44244 twilight2000-digest Saturday, February 14 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 010 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Russians Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Loren Wiseman Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer [none] Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: T2k webring: Copyrights Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Dirty Iraqi Bastards Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: T2k webring: Copyrights Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: INTSUM update Re: Iraq ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:10:34 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Russians The problem the Russians have is that they know that if Iraq allows open inspections , the Americans will discover that they have been marketing forbidden technology , directly, to the Iraqi government. That it's also why the U.S. is so adamant to go in. It embarasses 2 governments for the price of one. Leary Peter Vieth wrote: > > > http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight.html > > Saul, > > This is Grady. I'm one of the silent members of the list. I was > > curious what you think about Russian threats against the US if we take > > action against Iraq? Personally, I believe that we can never trust the > > Russians, and we should be more wary of a few of our Allies. Drop me a > > line and lwt me know what you think. Later. > > Grady. > > I don't think Russia is too much of a threat anymore-- it seems unlikely > that they would risk any overt conflict with the U.S, although they > might supply Iraq with supplies. I think we should be trying to figure > out what Saddam is up to. Iraq had a good chance of winning in the > previous war but they couldn't have built up their military yet (lets > hope). He's crazy but is he that stupid? > I, personally, would like to know what the Chinese are up to. > -- > Peter Vieth > Fitek@ix.netcom.com > IGZ Handle: Fitek > ICQ UIN: 3660410 > Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html > Apocalypse Software E-mail: Apocalypsesw@rocketmail.com > Apocalypse Software web page: http://www.keast.com/apocalypse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:10:33 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer > Huh? Sometimes you have to fight. Is war "bad?" I think the issue is >"what is the point of the war?" None of us can deny that sometimes there >must be war. I can. Saddam is not standing up to America for any noble cause. >Is massacring Kurds and invading and killing your neighbors a noble >cause? Saddam is merely another self-serving dictator, like Castro, Kim >Il Sung, Hitler, and like Lenin and his successors. Yes, Saddam is a dictator. Though, I disagree that Lenin was- his successors, surely. But not Lenin, he was no dictator. If you'd like to discuss this point further (though I do not want to stray from the topic) I'd be happy. America did not lose >lives to "imperialist" ambitions but to a deranged tyrant, and it was >certainly less than was lost by Iraq to Iran, to Stalin's paranoia, and >the countless other lives lost to the other crazy >nationalist/socialist/communist leaders who claim(ed) to work for the >good of those they oppress(ed). Ok. I was not refering to the American lives lost during the Gulf war, for as you seem to like, the numbers don't weigh very well relatively. My reference was to America's past endeavours, putting the CIA aside, and the thousands upon thousands of deaths they helped along, I meant the confrontation in Vietnam. On the 'imperalist' ambitions... I spent some time in the Middle East (the United Arab Emirates) ... for about a year some time ago. I spoke with a good deal of people about what had happened, and learned (basically) that Iraq was very brutal to the Kuwaiti people. This in mind, I find it hard to except that America's efforts were not driven by that thing they adore so: economics. That's a big corner of the oil market Sadam would have had... > I am sometimes glad to see anyone standing up to some established >person or group, but there is a difference between being a defiant >innocent and a defiant criminal. America punishes criminals. Heh. Maybe. > Is Saddam hiding weapons in palaces? I don't think so. But he has shown >little discretion in his use of chemical weapons in the past and since >he lost the war he is in no place to dictate terms to the winners. Perhaps not. >There was one main motivating reason for my family's flight to the West: >Communism. While thousands of people tried to flee and millions more >dreamed of escaping the prison called the Soviet Union, how many outside >it were and are so enamoured of the former Soviet Union, that wonderful >classless society? Well, I know that during the 20's and 30's there were a great many Westerner's in complete admiration of the Soviet Union. Mr. Churchill, whether causing that admiration false, or seeing it to be false, certainly put an end to whatever was- The thousands of sheep who continue to see the >illusion rather than the reality of the magician's trick, those who are >too blinded by the garish glitter of it to notice the deception of the >swindler. The communist leaders were criminals, like pickpockets or >rapists, on a larger scale. The genius of communism is that the person >being robbed doesn't always know it, especially that the thief is their >"friend." Yes. They were not Communist, ... by no measure of the term. >You write on your page: > >"I did have the fortune of learning about the Soviet Union, however. It >[....] and I even came to the impression that they all looked >the >same as well." > >Viktor Suvorov, disinformation or not, was right on this also. The >Soviet Union did not need to send a single soldier into a country to >control it. All the proof is here. I've missed something, please elaborate. - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 19:12:06 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer >Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as long as >he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. Let's not forget he >acquired and used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1980's, another words >during Reagan and Bush administrations. None of the atrocities he committed >back then caused embargos, airstrikes, or even prevented congressional >delegations from beating a path to his door and Bob Dole from proclaiming that >Saddam Hussein was someone we could do business with. It is a height of >hypocrisy for us to pretend to take the moral high ground right now, when we >were guilty of doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the Russians and >the French of doing right now. If any more of our troops die it is only >because of our own shortsighted and hypocritical foreign policy in the Middle >East. We allowed Saddam to become who he is right now because it suited our >ends, pure and simple. Well said Mike. - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 04:05:20 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 19:12 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: OK, so what I'm about to say will be contentious at best. So what - I'm used to being disliked, as I'm an ex-military policeman . The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the oilfields. Pure and simple. And THAT was his big mistake. It provided a threat to the stability of price to the rst of the world's oil, and thus a threat to the economies of those contries, which they wouldn't stand for. OPEC pricing aside, military actions to hike oil prices is another thing entirely. Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. And especially as he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice way to go out, folks. And you wonder why the world is worried... >>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as long as >>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. True, but that's realpolitik for you. >>Let's not forget he >>acquired and used chemical weapons against the Kurds in 1980's, another words >>during Reagan and Bush administrations. True. And decidedly stupid of him. If he hadn't used it, we'd've been none the wiser. >>None of the atrocities he committed >>back then caused embargos, airstrikes, or even prevented congressional >>delegations from beating a path to his door and Bob Dole from proclaiming that >>Saddam Hussein was someone we could do business with. It is a height of >>hypocrisy for us to pretend to take the moral high ground right now, when we >>were guilty of doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the Russians and >>the French of doing right now. I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. >>If any more of our troops die it is only >>because of our own shortsighted and hypocritical foreign policy in the Middle >>East. We allowed Saddam to become who he is right now because it suited our >>ends, pure and simple. I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have happened. But the hindsight is always 20:20. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:36:33 EST From: GDWGAMES@aol.com Subject: Loren Wiseman > Loren Wiseman is currently working for Steve Jackson Games, heading the > GURPS: Traveller project for them. He has an AOL account that he can be > reached at: > GDWGAMES@aol.com He also subscribes to this list. In addition, I can be reached at LKW@IO.COM ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:57:18 -0500 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Saul Basgen wrote: > >Viktor Suvorov, disinformation or not, was right on this also. The > >Soviet Union did not need to send a single soldier into a country to > >control it. All the proof is here. > > I've missed something, please elaborate. Oh, he's merely accusing you of treason for daring to write what you think in the home of the brave, land of the free. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 20:47:41 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer >The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by >Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam >was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the >oilfields. Pure and simple. This way or that.... ... things are easy to understand, with pure and simple... >Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his >stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough >of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. Are his rockets able to see the Mediterranean? And especially as >he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've >seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice >way to go out, folks. I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. >And you wonder why the world is worried... What the world worries... which part? >>>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as >long as >>>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. > >True, but that's realpolitik for you. Heh. A good system, two seperate parties- one in favour, the other not... one the scape goat... the other not. >I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral >standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. Curious, those things we consider a threat to us. Chechnya was not a threat to the United States of America. Bosnia-Heregovina is. India and Pakstan was not. Iraq is. > >I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to >pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have >happened. Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care with practicing thier domination. Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:54:26 -0500 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Pmj6@aol.com wrote in an excellent message: > Saddam Hussein was someone we could do business with. It is a height of > hypocrisy for us to pretend to take the moral high ground right now, when we > were guilty of doing exactly the same thing that we accuse the Russians and > the French of doing right now. If any more of our troops die it is only Let us remember that it is all about oil. Let's also remember that many of the nations the U.S. is busy protecting from Saddam and which were U.S. allies during the Gulf War commit as bad or worse atrocities against human rights as Iraq, yet the U.S. sees no reason to act against them, because they stay in line. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:49:56 -0500 From: Matt Aistrich Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Peter Vieth wrote in his flame response to a message which probably did not belong on this list: > Huh? Sometimes you have to fight. Is war "bad?" I think the issue is War is the killing of other human beings. Sometimes it is unavoidable, yes. > Il Sung, Hitler, and like Lenin and his successors. America did not lose Or Pol Pot, or Suharto, or Jiang Zemin, or countless other dictators the U.S. has supported -- much as it did Saddan in years gone by (as well as Stalin). > innocent and a defiant criminal. America punishes criminals. Yes, the world cop in action -- without regard for how the rest of the world feels. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 22:42:00 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer > > I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to > pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have > happened. > > But the hindsight is always 20:20. > I was under the impression that Sunnite Saudi Arabia would not allow the Coalition to finish Saddam off because then Iran, a Shi'ite country, might become too powerful. Maybe Israel wouldn't be happy about that either. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html Apocalypse Software E-mail: Apocalypsesw@rocketmail.com Apocalypse Software web page: http://www.keast.com/apocalypse ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:06:28 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Matt Aistrich wrote: > > Saul Basgen wrote: > > > >Viktor Suvorov, disinformation or not, was right on this also. The > > >Soviet Union did not need to send a single soldier into a country to > > >control it. All the proof is here. > > > > I've missed something, please elaborate. > > Oh, he's merely accusing you of treason for daring to write what you think in the > home of the brave, land of the free. If that is what you want to think... Feel free. My problem is not with Saul but with the Communist ideology. I can say that right? - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 13 Feb 1998 23:13:16 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Matt Aistrich wrote: > > Yes, the world cop in action -- without regard for how the rest of the world feels. I doubt the Kuwaitis were offended, or the Bosnians, etc, etc. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:25:10 +0800 From: Guo Rong Subject: [none] unsubscribe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:34:23 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 23:13 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >Matt Aistrich wrote: >> >> Yes, the world cop in action -- without regard for how the rest of the world feels. > >I doubt the Kuwaitis were offended, or the Bosnians, etc, etc. Very true. Had the UN - let's not forget, it was a COALITION, not just the US - who have, admittedly, probably the most powerful armed forces in the world - who gave that meglomaniac psychopathic thug a boot between the legs. If the Kuwaitis were offended, they showed it in a bloody wierd manner. As to the Bosnians. Go see the news videos; If the UN/WEU/EC hadn't stepped in, they'd be in a hell of a lot worse shape that they are now. And the US didn't start the UNPROFOR/IFOR missions. The EC did, led by Britain. The US - sorry , guys, but this is how the press reported it - hummed and hawed, worried by the Vietnam factor. You eventually got there, though. Thanks - we can use the assists! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:44:53 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: Saul - This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. >>The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by >>Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam >>was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the >>oilfields. Pure and simple. > > This way or that.... ... things are easy to understand, with pure and >simple... >>Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his >>stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough >>of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. > > Are his rockets able to see the Mediterranean? No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. > And especially as >>he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've >>seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice >>way to go out, folks. > > I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most >desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's all there, in black and white. >>And you wonder why the world is worried... > > What the world worries... which part? The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful ignorance, the lucky sods. >>>>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as >>long as >>>>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. >> >>True, but that's realpolitik for you. > > Heh. A good system, two seperate parties- one in favour, the other not... >one the scape goat... the other not. ...looks about right... >>I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral >>standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. > > Curious, those things we consider a threat to us. Chechnya was not a >threat to the United States of America. Bosnia-Heregovina is. India and >Pakstan was not. Iraq is. OK, so I simplified it a little. The fact remains, India and Pakistan are rather much our responsibility, as Partition, and then seperate indipendance, was overseen by us (the UK). If we cocked it up, we're a bit responsible, aren't we. Chechnya is a mess. Bosnia I've talked about already! >>I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to >>pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have >>happened. > > Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. >Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. >Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care >with practicing thier domination. I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... Later! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:29:38 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 22:42 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >> >> I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to >> pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have >> happened. >> >> But the hindsight is always 20:20. >> > >I was under the impression that Sunnite Saudi Arabia would not allow the >Coalition to finish Saddam off because then Iran, a Shi'ite country, >might become too powerful. Maybe Israel wouldn't be happy about that >either. Hmm... I recall it as the politicians, but you may be right. Either way, we should never have stopped when we did. Power vaccuums aside, I'd rather worry about a country with a rational, if rather fundamentally religeous, leader, that a bloody psychopath with weapons of global destruction. Man's a bloody menace to us all. The sooner he's history, the sooner I breathe easier. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 03:26:28 PST From: "Teemu Niemi" Subject: Re: T2k webring: Copyrights > I don't mean to sound to pessemistic Teemu, but don't worry about >them saying no... they won't... they just won't bother to take the >fucking time to write you back. Quite honestly, I think just calling >a file Twilight:2000 and throwing it on the web is a breach of a >trademark. I'm pretty sure >they could shut down all of our sites on that kind of permise. > I have an adventure- Gateway to the Spanish Main (given to me by >someone who's name I do not want to incriminate) in Word. I havn't >put it up however. I suppose that Tantalus would notice a direct >copyright infrignment- moreso than some people trying to keep a game >alive. My fear would be that, on noticing that infringment, they >might go full blown and do the Paramount thing... > Well, I just received a confirmation from writers of those sourcebooks, and I have their permission to translate and publish text in WWW-pages, so I am starting that work right away. Niemi ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 10:19:53 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Although it is true oil and money is a large motivational factor in the U.S. actions....the one thing that most people are to cynical to admit is that the attitudes of the American people still influences their leaders and their leaders still have the same basic moral upbringing. While I'm sure that money plays a large part in their politics, I also know that the Americans are a fine, decent, people who do not hold individual life and liberty cheap. True they try to throw their weight around..but they are a powerful nation and the temptation is always there. But....they do sometimes act because of a sense of moral duty. Saddam on the other hand holds life very cheap and is only too willing to commit genocide. To leave weapons, capable of world destruction, in the hands of this morally challenged cretin, who has no honour or sense of compassion, would be an act of irresponsible behaviour. He not only endangers us but all future generations. The islands near Scotland that were used for Anthrax testing during WWII are still Quarantined. As far as I am concerned ... The U.S. deserves a thanks or two. Do not get me wrong! I have friends from the middle east, including one from Iraq, and they are fine people with fascinating cultures and rich histories and are extremely moral. But an unscrupulous leader can be found in any generation and any nation. If you have a dog with rabies...you put it to sleep! Goodnight Saddam where ever you are!!! Leary Hebert A proud Canadian (ex-military, Armoured, LdSH (RC)) Roger Stenning wrote: > At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: > > Saul - > > This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in > advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. > > >>The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by > >>Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam > >>was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the > >>oilfields. Pure and simple. > > > > This way or that.... ... things are easy to understand, with pure and > >simple... > > > > >>Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his > >>stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough > >>of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. > > > > Are his rockets able to see the Mediterranean? > > No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he > has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the > globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - > he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio > weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's > dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. > > > And especially as > >>he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've > >>seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice > >>way to go out, folks. > > > > I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most > >desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. > > Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go > nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot > less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each > weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's > all there, in black and white. > > >>And you wonder why the world is worried... > > > > What the world worries... which part? > > The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful > ignorance, the lucky sods. > > >>>>Of course, America did not hurry to punish this particular criminal as > >>long as > >>>>he was doing our dirty work for us by invading Iran. > >> > >>True, but that's realpolitik for you. > > > > Heh. A good system, two seperate parties- one in favour, the other not... > >one the scape goat... the other not. > > ...looks about right... > > >>I was under the impression that ones own survival was a rather high moral > >>standpoint. Note the first few paragraphs I wrote above. > > > > Curious, those things we consider a threat to us. Chechnya was not a > >threat to the United States of America. Bosnia-Heregovina is. India and > >Pakstan was not. Iraq is. > > OK, so I simplified it a little. The fact remains, India and Pakistan are > rather much our responsibility, as Partition, and then seperate > indipendance, was overseen by us (the UK). If we cocked it up, we're a bit > responsible, aren't we. Chechnya is a mess. Bosnia I've talked about already! > > >>I'd go along with that, too. It's a pity the politicians decided not to > >>pursue the advance, or this mess we're experiencing now might never have > >>happened. > > > > Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? > > Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather > insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. > > >Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. > >Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care > >with practicing thier domination. > > I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... > > Later! > > _____________________________________________________________ > Cheers, > > Roger > (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) > > MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. > ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! > > e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk > > Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: > http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ > INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: > http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html > ICQ UIN: 7742586 > _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:47:43 EST From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer In a message dated 98-02-13 22:23:21 EST, you write: > I spoke with a > good deal of people about what had happened, and learned (basically) that > Iraq was very brutal to the Kuwaiti people. That is correct ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 09:47:42 EST From: KAPPAABZ@aol.com Subject: Dirty Iraqi Bastards In a message dated 98-02-13 17:42:45 EST, you write: > Iraq had a good chance of winning in the > previous war but they couldn't have built up their military yet (lets > hope). He's crazy but is he that stupid? I wouldn't go so far as to say he had a good chance of actually winning (and here I assume you mean militarily) , but he did have a good chance of inflicting alot more casualties on the coalition war machine. Saddam used tactics he had used from the Iran/Iraq war and built up his forces and defences accordingly, but failed to realize that the Coalition wouldn't fight the war the way he wanted us to fight it. Sure he used weapons of terror against civilian targets, maybe he used chemical weapons against US troops, but overall the Iraqis (at the point of the ground operations) were so demoralized and hungry that they did indeed surrender in droves. And without ALOT of troops willing to fight for him against an array of that magnitude, it was hopeless. Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:50:01 +0100 From: johnson@hrem.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Roger wrote: And the US didn't start the UNPROFOR/IFOR missions. The EC did, led by Britain. The US - sorry , guys, but this is how the press reported it - hummed and hawed, worried by the Vietnam factor. You eventually got there, though. Thanks - we can use the assists! And how much good did the UN missions do? They were only able to fire if fired upon. Gorazede, this was the safe haven overrun by the Serbs in June/July of 1995, still happened and Muslims were still getting massacred regularly. All the UN missions did was prolong the conflict. It was not until the U.S. together with NATO began bombing Bosnian Serb installatiuons that came to the peace talks. And afterwards how much of the peacekeeping force was American. Something like a third of the entire force of 30,000. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:31:39 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: T2k webring: Copyrights At 03:26 14/02/98 PST, you wrote: >Well, I just received a confirmation from writers of those sourcebooks, >and I have their permission to translate and publish text in WWW-pages, >so I am starting that work right away. GO FOR IT!! - And well done for getting their permission, Neimi! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:49:28 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 15:50 14/02/98 +0100, you wrote: >Roger wrote: > >And the US didn't start the UNPROFOR/IFOR missions. The EC did, led by >Britain. The US - sorry , guys, but this is how the press reported it - >hummed and hawed, worried by the Vietnam factor. You eventually got there, >though. Thanks - we can use the assists! > > And how much good did the UN missions do? They were only able to fire if >fired upon. Gorazede, this was the safe haven overrun by the Serbs in June/July >of 1995, still happened and Muslims were still getting massacred regularly. All >the UN missions did was prolong the conflict. It was not until the U.S. >together with NATO began bombing Bosnian Serb installatiuons that came to the >peace talks. And afterwards how much of the peacekeeping force was American. >Something like a third of the entire force of 30,000. > Let's not forget the reputation of the British troops, here. If some dumb fuck fired on us, he/she/it was most likely gonna be pushing up daisies the next morning. Even with those bloody silly RoE they saddled us with, we STILL did a damn good job. I'm not disparaging the US effort, which was, thankfully, timely and in sufficiant strength to make 'em sit up and take notice, but it was a multi-national force, and for all that inter-national bickering and messing about, did good. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:01:44 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: INTSUM update >Couple of questions for you, now, mate: Were there any images that failed >to load for you, and how did you like the content? Everything worked fine. The content is good, though skinny. I'm sure you have plenty on the way... Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:25:03 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Iraq >At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: > >Saul - > >This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in >advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. Yes, of course. : ) >No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he >has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the >globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - >he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio >weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's >dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. Perhaps. Peter does not like Communist Ideology. In reference to what the world has seen of 'Communist Ideology', I think it more appropriate to assign it the term of dictatorship. Was it anything more? Propaganda was very well done, but this is simply another tool for a dictator, and what better tool than touting Communist ideology? Roger, my fear is that what you say, is no less than what Peter dispises so- as so many of us do. He does not have the 'right' to have weapons of such and such, so he ought to be killed (by people who have chemical and biological weapons more advanced and capable ten fold), so that the world may have peace. For, in the name of stability and union, we can only have one side with those most horrible weapons. Should someone stand up, they must be knocked down- for surely the imperialists do not wish to give up thier domineering hand of control. Let the 'coalition' forces take over Iraq.... then... Iran... perhaps later Syria, Jordan... Then North Korea, ... we are not taking over the world, simply bringing peace, establishing order! I >Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go >nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot >less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each >weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's >all there, in black and white. Black and white. :) .... so I suppose on the grand scale of justice, North Korea nuking millions of people (if indeed they have that capability) is less bad than Anthrax. Maybe so. Surely economics do not sit on either side of the scale... >> What the world worries... which part? > >The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful >ignorance, the lucky sods. Show me some educated folks in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, New Guinea, Russia (Siberia to a good extent), Argentina, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, Belize, Niger, Chad, Angolia, (... ...) that care about Iraq. Some, perhaps... >> Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? > >Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather >insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm sorry to have insulted. I don't mean to imply that the citizen's of the respective countries are imperialist peoples, but that the government's certainly are. My imperialist comments are directed mostly towards the United States, but England, France also have a part in it too. Imperialism... : 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. >>Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. >>Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care >>with practicing thier domination. > >I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... :) Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #10 ************************************