From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Feb 17 2003 - 08:27:57 MST
In a message dated 2/17/2003 12:59:38 AM Central Standard Time,
oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au writes: Wait a second... the US has weapons
of mass destruction (and seems to want them),"
##Emlyn, please don't make such unfounded charges without any evidence. Of
course I do understand why you wouldn't offer evidence of that charge --
there isn't any. On the other hand there is a great deal of evidence that
the US doesn't want to drop WMDs. This list has moments when we get a little
rowdy but for the most part folks voluntarily restrict themselves to a
mannerly presentation of evidence and logical argument. You can do that
can't you?
You continue, "has invaded its neighbours,"
## Gee, and the Mexicans & Canadians haven't said a single word about that.
Where, when, & what are you talking about Emlyn? Are you discussing Germany
during the Second World War? Are you talking about when we made the drug
bust in Panama? Or are you discussing when we took the anti aircraft weapons
away from the construction workers in Grenada that were threatening our
medical students?
You continue again, "is fairly experienced at trying to control the world's
supply of oil,"
##Now you inserted enough modifiers in that sentence that it is hard to
decide if you really meant what you said or not. Like other countries the US
has tried to bargain down the price of oil. But, what I don't get is this --
you are perceptive enough to notice all the things the evil rascally US has
done wrong and still you didn't notice that the US had effectively occupied
Saudi Arabia during the First Gulf War. Then when the reason for their being
invited there had been accomplished the US loaded up and departed. Imagine
that, they had the oil supply of Saudi Arabia right under their thumbs and
they gave it back without delay and without discussion? Of course a fact
like that wouldn't make it through your "selectometer" would it?
You continued yet again, "and has used chemical weapons on at least its own
troops and certainly on the citizens of other countries (think Vietnam)."
##Yes, I remember going through gas mask training three times during my
tenure
in the Navy. I imagine others had the same experience. To convince us that
we really were in tear gas they made us remove our masks; march to the front
of the room, recite name, rank and serial number; and then march out of the
room. If you rushed at any point you had to go to the rear of the line and
wait without a mask. Stories have been repeated that to get Viet Cong out of
tunnels the US used the same gases we use on criminals in this country. You
evidently thought we would be ever so much nicer if we had killed them
instead of getting them to surrender.
Then you wrote this, "I'm sure other countries would fit that bill, too.
North Korea would probably fit rather well if it had oil, which is morally
equivalent unless you propose that having power over some of the world's oil
is somehow morally damning."
##Emlyn, I don't know what you were trying to say in that last little bit.
Please take it back and rewrite it.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 17 2003 - 08:30:15 MST