Debate : 10828


Off-Topic / Debate / 10828

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) As a card-carrying Libertarian, the foreign policy plank is probably the part of the platform I disagree with the most. Regardless of what domestic policies we persue (libertarian ones, I hope), our national interest doesn't change. Now, I (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Daniel Jassim

(...) And what is our national interest, besides economic imperialism? (...) What are our national interests, besides economic imperialism? (...) Perhaps I misunderstand you, but are you saying that only Americans have rights, such as those of (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Economic imperialism, whatever that might be, surely doesn't fall within *this* libertarian's definition of what an appropriate national interest ought to be. Can you define what you mean a bit more? What I think Mark is getting at is that the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

(...) But there's a reason that the past is in the past. The world as Jefferson (whose idea of property, by the way, included certain individuals who were not duly compensated for their labor in his service) perceived it is largely irrelevant to the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Somewhat, yes. Largely? Not sure. Certainly the ability to rain defeat on your enemy 12000 miles away in a matter of a few hours is a major difference, though. (...) I don't give deific status to anyone or anything (other than, perhaps, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes (...) As is the ability to keep tabs with one's home nation in microseconds rather than months. The reason I mention this, and the reason I basically reject the "entangled alliances" caution, is (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) <snip> (...) Well, yes and no. While it may be easier to project power now than then, it was already easier in 1914, and I would argue that entangling alliances made WW I flare up worse and faster than if it had been just Austro Hungary (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) The meaning of alliance in 1914 was already different than that in the 1780s. The point in 1914 that caused the war was very simply and plainly--as several recent studies and unearthed documents have confirmed--that the German leadership (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's the COBOL equivalent (minus the nuances about pre/post incrementation) to ++Lar (increment Lar by 1 in C++) Try this then... 10 SET L = L + 1 (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Ross Crawford

(...) I thought the BASIC syntax was 10 LET L = L + 1 ???? ROSCO (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Who said it was BASIC? :-) ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Jason J. Railton

(...) Yeah, it could be: LAR @ 1 + ? Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Jason J. Railton

(...) Argh! Can't even get that right. LAR @ 1 + . Jason J Railton (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) Heh. That reminds me of my favorite footnote... In the introduction to Struggle for Mastery in Europe, AJP Taylor says something about European diplomats of the time being generally honest. Then in the footnote, he says something like, "It is (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Daniel Jassim

(...) In the good old days it was colonialism and empire building--theft and occupation of other lands and exploitation of the native people and resources. We can't do that anymore today, everybody is watching everybody, so we build an economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I give up. Why? I've never been in favor of it. Or government aid to anyone else except in certain very special situations. ++Lar (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

(...) Dan: Permit me to take a guess, both for clarity's sake and also to make sure that I understand what he's saying. He's referring not to the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but rather the (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) policies (...) and (...) Well, exactly what our national interests are is certainly a matter for debate. I was just saying that whatever we decide they are, it is fine to use force to protect them. But if by economic imperialism, you mean free (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Dave Schuler

(...) I hadn't realized that Libertarians endorsed state-sponsored killing of anyone, which would be the most likely source of this kind of assassination attempt (other than attempts internal to that nation.) In addition, Harry Browne is neither a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) Yeah, I was hoping Gorman would get the nomination myself. Assasination is probably not something most Libertarians would agree with, and I'm sure it's not in the platform. I think his idea was to put bounties on people, like, $1 million for (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Libertarian Propaganda —Daniel Jassim

(...) I mean dominating other nations through unethical trading practicing or harsh sanctions or expoitating human labor and natural resources of other nations. There's no morality in using force to "defend" our greedy business ventures and economic (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) debate. (...) to (...) place (...) foreign (...) to (...) So if trade is bad, then shouldn't the Iraqis be grateful that they are sanctioned? Now they don't have to worry about American economic imperialists exploiting their labor and natural (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Maybe I should explain the sanctions against Iraq better. It's not about trade with America, it's not about business with America, it's about starving and killing innocent men, women and children and destroying the infrastructure of Iraq. The (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) So if a business, American or otherwise, trades with Iraq, selling food, tools, whatever, and they make lots of money -- is that bad or good? Are they economic imperialists? Are they exploiting the Iraqis? What about buying oil from Iraq? Does (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) That's an entirely different subject. My point is to allow Iraq to function as country by lifting the sanctions that have destroyed the nations infrastructure and demoralized and destroyed the lives of so many innocent people. (...) There's an (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Santosh Bhat

(...) The sad thing is that Economic sanctions barely harm those that make the nations decisions. Any person in goverment or in a powerful position will still get their fine food, medical facilities and luxury goods. Thats a fact about such corrupt (...) (23 years ago, 14-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How do you determine the fair price? That's a serious question, you speak of fair trade (which tends to be a code word here in the US for unfree trade), but how do you know what is fair? Who (or what mechanism) determines it? (...) What are (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Once again, here's another one of your little challenges, Larry. You don't say whether you agree or not, you just throw out some more bullsh*t questions to fish for another fight. If you DON'T AGREE that there are ethics in business and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you have some issues here you need to deal with. Everything is challenges, fighting, giving inches, not being wrong. No inclusivness, no common ground, no exploration of issues. Your idea of agreeing is that everyone you talk to agree (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Pardon me, but are you describing me or YOU here?! I think you're a bit confused, you just described several aspects of your on-line self in that paragraph. Get a grip on reality, my friend, and realize that you mostly stir up trouble here and (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'll let your own words and posts speak for themselves and let it go at that. I'm satisfied with my characterisation. (...) Suppose they didn't do that though? Take FAO for an example... they sell well above prevailing retail and don't price (...) (23 years ago, 15-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Denial is a powerful thing. As I said, we agree on much more than we disagree, why focus on the points of disagreement. <snipped discussion on Toys R' Us> You asked for my opinion on fair pricing, I gave it. I'm satisfied with my opinion or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It's not that the example doesn't suit me, it's just that it's incomplete. I gave an example similar to your scenario of pricing above the prevalent retail and asked if it was fair or not under your definition. I think you need to give another (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yes, I would agree because "willing" is the operative here. But I'm talking about "having to" situations, where prices are dictated by a dominating power rather than made by mutual, good faith agreements. I'm talking about dirty trade (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) Where do you get this ridiculous notion from? Are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you think we'll never get off this planet in the next billion years? I suppose you believe we haven't really been to the moon already? (...) That isn't going to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Ridiculous? What gives with the insults, Tom? Have I done something wrong to you? Mind your tone and read it again. "Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen with mankind" as in everything we do begins here on this planet. This is (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) On the attack again, Daniel? Calling something a ridiculous notion is hardly an insult, it's just a characterization of the notion itself. The very idea that someone might find fault with something you say gets to you, doesn't it? Here I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) I haven't attacked anyone, Larry. Telling someone to "mind their tone" is hardly an attack. And I didn't call Tom's notions or opinion ridiculous or any other thing. If you want to play games and jump and nitpick what I say, twist it to mean (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sorry for butting in, then, because I can see that you and he are doing *so well* at dealing with the actual assertions and issues... I don't know what I was thinking suggesting that you might be wrong about something or that you might be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Personally, NO, because the earth has a history of mass extinctions that take place every so many million years apart. So, within a billion years there can be any number of mass extinction events followed by the rise of "new" organisms to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) No, the only thing that inflated this was your blatant lack of clarity. You seem to put VOLUMES of extra background into: "Everything that has ever happened or will ever happen with mankind has taken place on this tiny, blue world. Since we (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

There were many ways you could have approached my statement that reflected a desire for more clarity, yet you chose to be rude and obnoxious. You chose hostility over diplomacy. That's your game and I'm not impressed. You are the one with the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) My point is that while that is true NOW we would be foolish to let it be so for a billion, a million, or even a thousand years longer. Manifest destiny! Ad Astra Per Aspera. Our destiny is not to remain here, every single one of us, for the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Yup! Small steps leading to bigger, and bigger steps. Think of how far we've come just in one century! At the same time, as Carl Sagan said, we are still in our stage of "global infancy" and need to get past the petty, destructive differences (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Shiri Dori

(...) Selçuk both gave the quote, and couldn't remember who said it. Either way though, I still like the quote in its out-of-Stalin context. ("The death of one is a tregedy, the death of millions is a stastic.) The way Stalin used it, it's (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) That was the quote! Thanks Shiri! Dan (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) I think you need to read your own wording. "Since we all must share this one small world for the next billion years" Those are YOUR words. Do you seriously believe this? Can you be so pessimistic about our progress as to think we'll still be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) You're taking this further and further away from the reality of what I wrote and choosing a negative interpretation. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not mine. You could have picked so many ways to address my comment, but you chose (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) Don't think so? Think again. And is that supposed to be some kind of threat? Now who needs a lesson in diplomacy? (...) Bite me. Some people lose the right to be treated mannerly, and I think you have, IMO. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

Whatever. If you're saying you behave this crude in person, why don't you come down here to LA and show me? Otherwise, keep the bullsh*t to yourself and stop hiding behind your computer. Learn some manners. Dan (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Boy Larry, I am SO glad you started the 'Libertarian Propaganda' thread. (s) This is just do damn enlightening. Matt [Remember, the (s) stands for sarcasm, in case anyone misses it] (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Yeah, Larry! It's your fault that Tom is rude and that Daniel wants to fight him over it. Shame on you. Actually, I have found it wildly instructive to force myself to appreciate someone who is being rude to me. In certain usenet forums that I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I AM a troublemaker with a warped view of reality, trying to get some sort of club going, you know. What can I say, I love it when a plan comes together. (s) Seriously I ought to try to take your advice (that I snipped), but it's hard, I (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Why do I see Larry, and a bunch of other Libertarians, walking around in a pack, wearing leather and satin jackets, snapping their fingers and executing high dance kicks? 8?) (...) Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...*ga.....s..sorry Larry...*guffaw*... Matt (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Now, see? If you were truly using the criteria as you stated before*, I would have expected a smiley emoticon, or at least an (s), to help a reader understand the state of mind the statement had been given in. Did you really intend that as a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) The (s) thing is new to me. Emoticons are OK sometimes, I use them when I think there's a doubt about my intent. (...) I thought I was going along with you. And I thought it was clear...sometimes I miss. Sorry. Chris (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) <snipped some stuff> (...) Hey, I don't want to fight Tom or anybody, Chris. If Tom feels he can constantly take a nasty tone with me on-line, that's his choice. It doesn't impress me. If he says he's this way in person, he's welcome to come (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Well, it kind of sounded (in two different notes) like you were inviting him to "step outside" about it. I'm not used to that kind of attitude. I am occasionally so put off by a note that I feel an urge toward violence. That is an immaturity (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) I see what you mean. Physical solutions are not my thing. I was hoping that my statement would be a reality check of sorts. Either way, his crude behavior toward me will remain on-line as far as I'm concerned. (...) Yes, I always welcome Tom's (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) I was going to post some other drivel (about on the level of the above - actually, I did post, but I Cancelled it), but I'll just drop it with... <insert picture of gorilla beating chest here> <yawn> And I really will drop it. If Dan wants to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

Whatever. I'm not impressed. Learn some manners and treat people with a little dignity. You choose to be rude and insulting on-line, that's your choice. You choose to pigeon hole people in this forum, that's your choice. See where it gets you in (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

Insults, insults, insults. Everything is insults with you. If you're not crying about getting them, you're dishing them out. (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

I'm giving you an honest appraisal of what I perceive to be your problem of treating me rudely on-line. I haven't called your comments ridiculous or idiotic, nor have I previously approached you with sarcasm or cynicism. Nothing you can say will (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

I'd much rather be rude than a threatening bully (used to be one when a child, when not being bullied, and choose not to be that kind of person again). You have been far more rude than me in this. That's it, I'm done commenting on your threats and (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

I've made no threats to seek you out and do you any harm. If you wish to continue your hostility just know that you can ONLY do it on-line with me. Remember, that's your limit and that's the way it is. YOU suggested otherwise so if YOU would like to (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) Look Dan, (is Dan right?) You're still inviting him to step outside. You aren't staying in the bar to smash a bottle over his head, but you ARE inviting some kind of further agression. Why? What if he did come down to LA, ring your doorbell, (...) (23 years ago, 18-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) <snipped my comments> (...) HE is the one who initially chose to be aggressive, not me. I never offered any deliberate provocation and never insulted his views, opinions or statements. When I told him to mind his tone (and this is not the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

(...) My last word on this - you are the only one showing hostility. I may be rude (In your mind), but if you equate rudeness to hostility, you have issues you need to work out with a therapist. That's it, I'm done with you. You can say all you want (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

It is your choice to put things on the petty level of "winning" or "losing." In my opinion, I find that attitude quite cowardly and childish and only contributes to the impression that you take little responsibility in your actions. Since rudeness (...) (23 years ago, 19-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think you meant "darn" enlightening, bub. :-) Well I am not sorry for starting the thread, but I am sorry that it seems to be demonstrating what has been said about some people in the past as being valid. Some people more than others, but it (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Matthew Gerber

(...) Oops...sorry to all the kiddies out there! X-P (All joking aside, I figure if I can hear words on the Simpsons at 6:00 in the evening, I can type them here...then we can ALL live like kings...DAMN, HELL, ASS KINGS!) (...) Yepp-ers...'tis true. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Tom Stangl

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Christopher Tracey

(...) Can you provide cites on this? (...) How successful are you at this Daniel? I try to as much as I can. I'm curious about your attempts. Reply offline if you would like. (...) I seriously thought about this when I learned LEGO was shutting down (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Well, whenever I'm considering buying anything I always look at where the product was made. Generally, I look for the product made in the U.S.A., Japan or in Western European countries because, as far as I know, their labor laws coincide with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) I just read an interesting piece in The New Republic about the sanctions on Iraq: (URL) that the Iraqi govt. IS able to get food from other nations, but it exports it to pay for luxuries for the party elite. It supports the case that sanctions (...) (23 years ago, 16-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Daniel Jassim

(...) Seems so, according to that one report and I don't doubt for a minute that Saddam wouldn't take the money from the so-called "oil-for-food" program to build palaces and let Iraqis suffer. Even if this report were 100% true, it doesn't change (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Tom Stangl

Yeah, let's do it RIGHT - drop the sanctions, and assassinate the bastard. That's the simplest fix ;-) (...) -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Sanctions (was: Libertarian Propaganda) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Might theoretically be simplest but I doubt it. Better: Drop the sanctions, drop restrictions on private individuals giving aid, and let his own people do it. What Bush I did to the Iraqi opposition, leading them on, then leaving them out to (...) (23 years ago, 17-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)