Re: I must admit. . .

Cypherpunks write code?  Make people use it. . .




---mib <mib@io.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 12:25:50PM -0800, you wrote:
> > I wonder sometimes whether or not there is hope for us to ever stop
> > this tyrrany.  I've seen a bunch of us diss the strike saying it was
> > an outlandish and foolish idea, but I hadn't seen anyone of you come
> > up with something better.
> 
> Cypherpunks write code?
> 
> - d.
> 

==
"Be sand in the gears of the machine." Henry David Thoreau
            


_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Joel O'Connor wrote:

> Cypherpunks write code?  Make people use it. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---mib <mib@io.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 12:25:50PM -0800, you wrote:
> > > I wonder sometimes whether or not there is hope for us to ever stop
> > > this tyrrany.  I've seen a bunch of us diss the strike saying it was
> > > an outlandish and foolish idea, but I hadn't seen anyone of you come
> > > up with something better.
> > 
> > Cypherpunks write code?

Whoops. Wrong subject. You were talking about the strike against
the Wassenaar agreement. 

Not the Iraqis... :) Duh, duh! Too much TV. I am sorry. :)

Well, here's my idea on how to fight the Wassenaar agreement:

I think the best method to fight the WA is with education.
Educate people. Help them use PGP with their applications.

Help integrate PGP into e-mail programs, make it's use easy.

I for one would like sendmail integrated with PGP. For example:
sendmail asks receiving server if it has PGP, and please give 
your public key, I have mail for you.. Then send the e-mail 
encrypted, while the receiving sendmail decrypts it and delivers
forwards. This is not very effective, but it would help some.

Also, you could have your sendmail enforce the PGP option that
no unsecure servers or forwardings would be considered acceptable,
and the e-mail should be returned if such were encountered.

This would eliminate at least *some* of the e-mail spooks there.
I realize it is no not very good, but it is better than nothing 
at all.

++ J

> I for one would like sendmail integrated with PGP. For example:
> sendmail asks receiving server if it has PGP, and please give 
> your public key, I have mail for you.. Then send the e-mail 
> encrypted, while the receiving sendmail decrypts it and delivers
> forwards. This is not very effective, but it would help some.

I think this is a great idea. First time I'll play with making a POP client (an idea that appeals to me once in a while) I'll think about it...

Mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In <000301be2a14$9e5a8ec0$22fcb3c3@roknet.ro>, on 12/18/98 
   at 01:26 AM, "Marcel Popescu" <mdpopescu@geocities.com> said:

>> I for one would like sendmail integrated with PGP. For example:
>> sendmail asks receiving server if it has PGP, and please give 
>> your public key, I have mail for you.. Then send the e-mail 
>> encrypted, while the receiving sendmail decrypts it and delivers
>> forwards. This is not very effective, but it would help some.

>I think this is a great idea. First time I'll play with making a POP
>client (an idea that appeals to me once in a while) I'll think about
>it...

Wouldn't it be more efficient to use TLS or SSH as an encryption protocol
between the POP3d and the POP3 client? This could also be used for
sendmail<->sendmail transactions.

This still does not address local storage on the POP3d server. I am
looking to setting up procmail to automatically PGP encrypt incomming
messages and the forwarding them to a local account so even if the sender
does not have PGP once the message is received by the PGP mail forwarder
the messages will be PGP encrypted (I have had several people contact me
looking for solutions to ISP's snooping on their mail without relying on
the senders using PGP).



- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III  http://www.openpgp.net
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 5.0 at: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Tag-O-Matic: OS/2: Your brain.  Windows: Your brain on drugs.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i OS/2 for non-commercial use
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000
Charset: cp850

wj8DBQE2eZOrlHpjA6A1ypsRAgVDAKCpsNkbUjYCe77XBFHXnQDjZveHIwCg81zI
UQM3ssGqYt/sQ+674XepePs=
=GLQh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Joel O'Connor wrote:

> Cypherpunks write code?  Make people use it. . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---mib <mib@io.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 1998 at 12:25:50PM -0800, you wrote:
> > > I wonder sometimes whether or not there is hope for us to ever stop
> > > this tyrrany.  I've seen a bunch of us diss the strike saying it was
> > > an outlandish and foolish idea, but I hadn't seen anyone of you come
> > > up with something better.

Kill Saddam Hussein instead of thousands of normal Iraqi people. 

Everyone is touting how he is behind every nasty thing that the 
Iraq does, so just kill or capture and imprison him. Don't take
it out on all the Iraqis.

Now, how's that for an alternative?

But I doubt it will happen. 

The UK+USA need an icon, a person to embody as THE international
satanic terrorist threat to all civilized nations. Otherwise their
current military expenditures would look ridiculously high and
unnecessary, now that the Russians don't pose any threat. This is
also why terrorist horror scenarios and stories are increasingly
used to justify incredible expenditure. The military is engaged
in creating a threat to justify their existence and continued 
economic well-being. Saddam is worth much, much more to them when
he is alive and well in Iraq.

The fact, however, is that any loony Unabomber cooking some anthrax
in his cellar in the US, would be able to harm the US more than the
whole nation of Iraqis right now, or in the years to come. Welcome
to Echelon and big brother surveillance justification.

++ J

If ANTHRAX recipes are so easily obtainable, if it is so easy to make, so
easy to disseminate, and public knowledge to boot, POST IT HERE, POST IT
HERE.

24 hour time limit, IF IT IS EASY, You shouldn't have any trouble making
the deadline now should you? And none of that "I don't want to give away
inappropriate information" pussy shit. It is wholly relevant, not
inappropriate, and will MAKE ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND THE LIST.

DO IT. DO IT. DO IT,

http://www.hiphopmusic.com/anthrax.html

(apologoes if the quoting on this isn't quite right).
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so
let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the
second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thos. Jefferson					petro@playboy.com

At 10:03 PM 12/17/98 +0200, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
--snip--
>
>Everyone is touting how he [saddam hussein, (Reeza!)] is behind every nasty thing that the 
>Iraq does, so just kill or capture and imprison him. Don't take
>it out on all the Iraqis.

Make a martyr of him, in other words?

>Now, how's that for an alternative?

Perfectly acceptable to me personally. Please show how it will result in proving that Iraq does not, and will not in the near or forseeable future possess weapons of mass destruction that may be utilized against neighbors, foreign or domestic. Or how it will result in turning the public opinion, iraqi and/or american, touted by the biased US press in such a fashion that it would result in a munificent display of openness, agreeablility, and welcoming to the UN inspectors by the iraqi hosts. Or show how Hussein is now trustworthy, and thereby qualified by the MIB office of the USG to possess said weapons.

>But I doubt it will happen. 
>
>The UK+USA need an icon, a person to embody as THE international
>satanic terrorist threat to all civilized nations. 

I nominate SKOD.
SKOD's been around, for a long, long year,
he Stole many a man's soul and faith,,,,

any boogey man in a pinch, yes???

>Otherwise their
>current military expenditures would look ridiculously high and
>unnecessary, 

"It is a doctrine of war not to assume the enemy will not come,
but rather to rely on one's readiness to meet him..." 

--  Sun Tsu

You FOOL. 
You deserve to be subjugated. 
Don't expect me to willingly go with you. 
Don't try to take me with you,,, you will bleed.

>now that the Russians don't pose any threat. This is
>also why terrorist horror scenarios and stories are increasingly
>used to justify incredible expenditure. 

Terrorist threats are increasingly used to justify invasions of privacy, meanwhile real threats to Freedom and Primacy are neglected because all the Doves endlessly recite the litany of fatalism: The Evil Russian Empire Is Dead, Eradicate Our Own Military. 

In the face of a dovish regime, anything that will work is used to justify expenditure for the military. GET IT RIGHT.

The installed power base seeks to stabilize and solidify its possession of the reins of authority. MUSH,,, MUSH,,,, MUSH,,, I SAID MUSH,,,, <CRACCKKK>

>The military is engaged
>in creating a threat to justify their existence and continued 

EAT MY MILITARY FUCKING SHORTS YOU PUSSY FUCKWAD FAGGOT SON-OF-A-BITCH. The powers of the military are being abused by CIVILIANS who cannot fathom the true purpose of the military, think the military doesn't earn its pay. I have something for YOU to earn, you ewe you.

>economic well-being. Saddam is worth much, much more to them when
>he is alive and well in Iraq.

OH YEAH, OH YEAH, THAT is why we dropped leaflets advocating the iraqis do everything in their power to maintain their present, totalitarian regime. GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU GREASY STAIN ON THIS MAILING LIST.

>The fact, however, is that any loony Unabomber cooking some anthrax
>in his cellar in the US, would be able to harm the US more than the
>whole nation of Iraqis right now, or in the years to come. Welcome
>to Echelon and big brother surveillance justification.

OH YEAH, OH YEAH BABY, You are on a roll, tell it like it is, 
</sarcasm>


Like the good doctor in nevada who appeared on national tv TWO WHOLE FUCKING DAYS BEFORE the feds ransacked his lab, only to have their entire "just cause" falter and be riddled with inexcusable and inexplicable faults, to ultimately be thrown out for lack of evidence? 

If ANTHRAX recipes are so easily obtainable, if it is so easy to make, so easy to disseminate, and public knowledge to boot, POST IT HERE, POST IT HERE. 

24 hour time limit, IF IT IS EASY, You shouldn't have any trouble making the deadline now should you? And none of that "I don't want to give away inappropriate information" pussy shit. It is wholly relevant, not inappropriate, and will MAKE ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND THE LIST. 

DO IT. DO IT. DO IT, 


you make me want to vomit.

shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.

Don't try to do any good deeds for me, you Do Gooder Piece Of Shit.

BTW, Fuck You.

Reeza!



DH Key available on request


If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention 
of doing you good, you should run for your life.

-stolen from a cypherpunk sig

At 04:41 PM 12/22/98 -0500, Petro wrote:
>If ANTHRAX recipes are so easily obtainable, if it is so easy to make, so
>easy to disseminate, and public knowledge to boot, POST IT HERE, POST IT
>HERE.
>
>24 hour time limit, IF IT IS EASY, You shouldn't have any trouble making
>the deadline now should you? And none of that "I don't want to give away

Well, depending on time zones, I may have just missed your deadline,
but it's pretty close.  It shouldn't be that tough to do - 
get some anthrax*, and go find a flock of sheep and ask for volunteers 
willing to help their country.  Any that don't run away fast enough
will do, so herd them into pens where you can manage them.
Give them some skin cuts and dust them with your starter supply.
When they get infected enough and die, collect the pus from the wounds
and handle it carefully, preferably with gas masks and rubber gloves.
Now that you've replenished your starter supply, deposit the used sheep on the 
Pentagon's front step, light some black candles, ring the doorbell, and run.

Alternatively, if you don't like killing poor cute mammals that are
even dumber than Democrats, you can grow the stuff in Petri dishes.

More seriously, though, anthrax isn't some exotic hard-to-grow disease;
before modern sanitation and plastic brush bristles, there were at least 
occasional problems with anthrax infection in shaving brushes and
hairbrushes made with bristles from infected pigs, and training for barbers
included sterilizing brushes to prevent it.  The trick is in making sure
you don't get infected yourself, and also in manufacturing it in
military quantities and militarily-convenient delivery systems.
If all you're trying to do is smuggle it into the Pentagon cafeteria
or the Yankee Stadium hot dog stands, rather than take out a whole city
like government-employed terrorists do, it's not that tough.

A more appropriate distribution approach would be for a US-based Iraqi
to fire a Stinger missle at one of the US Army's Chemical or Biological
Warfare development facilities.  After all, the White House has announced
that blowing up weapons of mass destruction is a Good Thing....


[ *Anthrax is a naturally-occurring organism, so it's not cheating to
start the process with "get some Anthrax" rather than by synthesizing it.]


				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote:
:At 10:03 PM 12/17/98 +0200, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
:>Everyone is touting how he [saddam hussein, (Reeza!)] is behind every
:nasty thing that the 
:>Iraq does, so just kill or capture and imprison him. Don't take
:>it out on all the Iraqis.
:
:Make a martyr of him, in other words?
Is it better that we make martyrs of the entire population?  We are busy
starving the country out of existence right now, and he is the Head of
State: that means he understands the Rules Of The Game (all heads of state
shall serve at the pleasure of the USG, and shall be subject to elevation
or executuion at any time, and for no reason other than some USG whim).  
Taking a more formal position, i.e., The Good Of The Many, I agree the USG
should just go ahead and execute him, rather than make a policy of
deliberately toruring an entire country.  Even the Good Of The Few
arguments go in favor of this "option".

Of course, the better option would be that we mind our own business for a
change, but we all now how well *that* would go over...

:>Now, how's that for an alternative?
:
:Perfectly acceptable to me personally. Please show how it will result in
:proving that Iraq does not, and will not in the near or forseeable future
:possess weapons of mass destruction that may be utilized against
:neighbors, foreign or domestic.

*WHY* is it any of our business whether he owns weapons of *any* kind?  WE
own them, and we USE them: Does this give other nations the right to
embargo us, and to bomb us into oblivion if we refuse to allow THEM to
tell US what to do?

Our concern for his weaponry should only be an issue *IF* he uses them, as
with *OUR* weaponry.  Yours is the classical anti-gun argument, and it's
no more effective at the international level than at the state level.


: Or how it will result in turning the
:public opinion, iraqi and/or american, touted by the biased US press in
:such a fashion that it would result in a munificent display of openness,
:agreeablility, and welcoming to the UN inspectors by the iraqi hosts.
Who in the hell is the UN to force their "inspectors" on a sovereign
State?  Again, would you allow this in your home, by the USG?  It's the
same thing.

: Or
:show how Hussein is now trustworthy, and thereby qualified by the MIB
:office of the USG to possess said weapons.
The USG has no right to "qualify" any foreign nation state for the
posession of weapons - this is a right of all persons and states.

<much blathering and foaming at the jowls snipped>
:Reeza!
:DH Key available on request
Note that your DH Key is a "munition"...  Shouldn't you be "qualified" to
have it by the USG - strictly for the safety of the world, of course...


Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@mfn.org

--
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote:

> At 10:03 PM 12/17/98 +0200, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
> --snip--
> >Everyone is touting how he [saddam hussein, (Reeza!)] is behind every
> >nasty thing that the Iraq does, so just kill or capture and imprison
> >him. Don't take it out on all the Iraqis. 
>
> Make a martyr of him, in other words?
> 
> >Now, how's that for an alternative?
> 
> Perfectly acceptable to me personally. Please show how it will result in
> proving that Iraq does not, and will not in the near or forseeable future
> possess weapons of mass destruction that may be utilized against
> neighbors, foreign or domestic. Or how it will result in turning the
> public opinion, iraqi and/or american, touted by the biased US press in
> such a fashion that it would result in a munificent display of openness,
> agreeablility, and welcoming to the UN inspectors by the iraqi hosts. Or
> show how Hussein is now trustworthy, and thereby qualified by the MIB
> office of the USG to possess said weapons.

It won't. But please show how bombing the shit out of all the Iraqis will
accomplish this either? I would imagine getting rid of the lunatic leader
and establishing a civilized democracy with human rights in place, would
result in a state that would not be as prone to be as aggressive or
inclined to use weapons of mass destruction. Or isn't that the ultimate
goal?

But you are right, I must admit, that not *all* democracies are
non-aggressive, with USA coming to mind as an example. It seems that
rotten people with no moral values at the top, result in aggressive
foreign policies, no matter what the nation.

The bombing will only result in creating more frustrated individuals with
personal vendettas against the US. (People with dead children/wives, etc.)

With your logic, the US is on a road to kill every non-american on this
planet, in order to ensure their own safety. 

Actually, this has been evident quite some time in the US foreign policy: 
The *only* lives that matter are the American ones. It is also very evident
in the US film industry (national propaganda/brainwashing machine). Just
how many war movies have you seen where the US special-forces squads
venture into the vietnam/arabs and kill hundreds or thousands of people in
order to save a few US prisoners? Try thinking that in reverse, an Arab
squad coming into the US, and killing hundreds of US citizens to save a few
arabs, for a change. Seeing a few movies like that would do some good to a
lot of americans in restoring their respect for universal human life. 

Anyway, the point I am trying to make in this, is that the americans don't
in general seem to put any value on human life, *unless* it is an american.
This is evident everywhere: in their film industry, their foreign politics,
and even Bill Gates' donation policies. It seems to be a fact ever more
blatant. 

Anyone else notice this?

> >The military is engaged
> >in creating a threat to justify their existence and continued 
>
> EAT MY MILITARY FUCKING SHORTS YOU PUSSY FUCKWAD FAGGOT SON-OF-A-BITCH.
> The powers of the military are being abused by CIVILIANS who cannot
> fathom the true purpose of the military, think the military doesn't earn
> its pay. I have something for YOU to earn, you ewe you.
> 
> >economic well-being. Saddam is worth much, much more to them when
> >he is alive and well in Iraq.
> 
> OH YEAH, OH YEAH, THAT is why we dropped leaflets advocating the iraqis
> do everything in their power to maintain their present, totalitarian
> regime. GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU GREASY STAIN ON THIS MAILING LIST.

Did I hit a nerve or something?

Usually people resort to name-calling only when feeling badly inferior
or in lack of any real facts to represent in defence of their case,
and in general this justifies the strong doubt that the person in
question is in fact a juvenile.

I'm sorry, but I won't waste my time on blathering kids like you. 

(Please note: I've Cc:ed the root at your site, as you appear to be so
childish, and I wouldn't know what a child is doing with a .mil account,
so you must be using your parent's account or a hacked account,
both of which are in general very much against the rules..

Or, in the unlikely case that you are actually an adult, please consider
this as an exemplary sample of Mr Zeebra's skills in delivering verbal
attacks in defence of his country. Surely you recognize his superiors
language skills and the qualifications he has for the assignation to the
national ultra secret verbal cyber-warfare attack squad, designed to
destroy the egos and PCs of all those who have not bought in to the US
military propaganda.)

In any case, I realize this is the wrong list for this discussion. 
Please continue in private, like a good netbaby, if you feel like
more name-calling. I've already added you to my filters.

++ J

> >The fact, however, is that any loony Unabomber cooking some anthrax
> >in his cellar in the US, would be able to harm the US more than the
> >whole nation of Iraqis right now, or in the years to come. Welcome
> >to Echelon and big brother surveillance justification.
> 
> OH YEAH, OH YEAH BABY, You are on a roll, tell it like it is, 
> 
> <</sarcasm>
> 
> Like the good doctor in nevada who appeared on national tv TWO WHOLE
> FUCKING DAYS <bold><underline>BEFORE</underline></bold> the feds
> ransacked his lab, only to have their entire "just cause" falter and be
> riddled with inexcusable and inexplicable faults, to ultimately be thrown
> out for lack of evidence? 
> 
> If ANTHRAX recipes are so easily obtainable, if it is so easy to make, so
> easy to disseminate, and public knowledge to boot, POST IT HERE, POST IT
> HERE. 
> 
> 24 hour time limit, IF IT IS EASY, You shouldn't have any trouble making
> the deadline now should you? And none of that "I don't want to give away
> inappropriate information" pussy shit. It is wholly relevant, not
> inappropriate, and will MAKE ME APOLOGIZE TO YOU AND THE LIST. 
>
> DO IT. DO IT. DO IT, 
> you make me want to vomit.
> 
> 
> shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
> 
> 
> Don't try to do any good deeds for me, you Do Gooder Piece Of Shit.
> 
> 
> BTW, Fuck You.
> 
> 
> Reeza!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DH Key available on request
> 
> 
> 
> 	If you see a man approaching you with the obvious intention 
> 
> 	of doing you good, you should run for your life.
> 
> 
> 				-stolen from a cypherpunk sig
> 
>

At 12:41 PM 12/21/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
>
>*WHY* is it any of our business whether he owns weapons of *any* kind?  WE
>own them, and we USE them: Does this give other nations the right to
>embargo us, and to bomb us into oblivion if we refuse to allow THEM to
>tell US what to do?
>
>Our concern for his weaponry should only be an issue *IF* he uses them, as
>with *OUR* weaponry.  Yours is the classical anti-gun argument, and it's
>no more effective at the international level than at the state level.

This would be a valid argument, if he had not already sanctioned Kuwait.
OOPS. Did you forget that?

Your arguments would be better applied to Somalia and Bosnia than they are
to Iraq. Our presence in those countries was of a slightly different
character than it is in Iraq now isn't it???

Hmmm???

>:Reeza!
>:DH Key available on request
>Note that your DH Key is a "munition"...  Shouldn't you be "qualified" to
>have it by the USG - strictly for the safety of the world, of course...
>
>Yours, 
>J.A. Terranson
>sysadmin@mfn.org

well J.A., my DH Key is just as much a "munition" as my house key, legal
definitions not-withstanding.
============================================================================
DH Key available upon request.


The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.


	"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."

				-- my older sister

On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Reeza! blathered thusly:
:>*WHY* is it any of our business whether he owns weapons of *any* kind?  WE
:>own them, and we USE them: Does this give other nations the right to
:>embargo us, and to bomb us into oblivion if we refuse to allow THEM to
:>tell US what to do?
:>
:>Our concern for his weaponry should only be an issue *IF* he uses them, as
:>with *OUR* weaponry.  Yours is the classical anti-gun argument, and it's
:>no more effective at the international level than at the state level.
:
:This would be a valid argument, if he had not already sanctioned Kuwait.
:OOPS. Did you forget that?

Hrmm... And we have never "sanctioned" (gotta love those innocuous
euphemisms) any soveriegn State?  What good for the goose is not good for
the gander?  I repeat, *what gives us the RIGHT* to determine his weaponry
or lack thereof?

:Your arguments would be better applied to Somalia and Bosnia than they are
:to Iraq. Our presence in those countries was of a slightly different
:character than it is in Iraq now isn't it???
Yes indeed.  In these two countries we were there only to watch over the
slaughter, not to perpetuate it ourselves.  Mustv'e ruined your Military
Day (tm), huh Reeza?

:>:Reeza!
:>:DH Key available on request
:>Note that your DH Key is a "munition"...  Shouldn't you be "qualified" to
:>have it by the USG - strictly for the safety of the world, of course...
:>
:>Yours, 
:>J.A. Terranson
:>sysadmin@mfn.org
:
:well J.A., my DH Key is just as much a "munition" as my house key, legal
:definitions not-withstanding.

I see the law means much to you.  This why you joined the military? Or is
it that they wouldn't take you over at James Bond School?

:The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.
:
:
:	"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."
:
:				-- my older sister

She must've heard your "Eat my military shorts" comment...


Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@mfn.org

--
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

At 02:29 PM 12/22/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Reeza! blathered thusly:

Cute.

>Hrmm... And we have never "sanctioned" (gotta love those innocuous
>euphemisms) any soveriegn State?  What good for the goose is not good for
>the gander?  I repeat, *what gives us the RIGHT* to determine his weaponry
>or lack thereof?

Perhaps if you cited a few examples, your counter-point would have some
weight. 

>:Your arguments would be better applied to Somalia and Bosnia than they are
>:to Iraq. Our presence in those countries was of a slightly different
>:character than it is in Iraq now isn't it???
>Yes indeed.  In these two countries we were there only to watch over the
>slaughter, not to perpetuate it ourselves.  Mustv'e ruined your Military
>Day (tm), huh Reeza?

(yawn) not really. Actually, any involvement we have with the UN gets on my
nerves. Interesting, the way you ignore the differences between "internal
conflict" and "aggression against a sovereign neighbor".

>:well J.A., my DH Key is just as much a "munition" as my house key, legal
>:definitions not-withstanding.
>
>I see the law means much to you.  This why you joined the military? Or is
>it that they wouldn't take you over at James Bond School?

There is Law, then there is law. Much has been said about both on this list. 
I think you are chastizing me for criticizing a Bad Law. Since I haven't
broken any Laws by offering to send my public key to anyone who requests
it, I wonder why you even bring it up. 

>:The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common
sense.
>:
>:
>:	"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."
>:
>:				-- my older sister
>
>She must've heard your "Eat my military shorts" comment...

I'll tell her you said that,,, I bet she laughs at you too. ;)

Reeza!
============================================================================
DH Key available upon request.


The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.


	"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."

				-- my older sister

At 08:18 PM 12/22/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>
>:>Hrmm... And we have never "sanctioned" (gotta love those innocuous
>:>euphemisms) any soveriegn State?  What good for the goose is not good for
>:>the gander?  I repeat, *what gives us the RIGHT* to determine his weaponry
>:>or lack thereof?
>:
>:Perhaps if you cited a few examples, your counter-point would have some
>:weight. 
>
>How about Iraq itself???

Do you view our bombing Iraq as sanction? Or as retaliation for their
sanction of Kuwait? Later, is our bombing of Iraq sanction, or follow
through on our warning in light of Husseins continued thwarting of UN
inspectors? 

I don't think Iraq measures up as an example of a sovereign nation the US
sactioned. You would have been better off listing the anti-terrorist
strikes in the Sudan and Afghanistan, but even those were not "sanctions"
in the same sense that Iraq-Kuwait were.

>:>:Your arguments would be better applied to Somalia and Bosnia than they are
>:>:to Iraq. Our presence in those countries was of a slightly different
>:>:character than it is in Iraq now isn't it???
>:>Yes indeed.  In these two countries we were there only to watch over the
>:>slaughter, not to perpetuate it ourselves.  Mustv'e ruined your Military
>:>Day (tm), huh Reeza?
>:
>:(yawn) not really. Actually, any involvement we have with the UN gets on my
>:nerves. Interesting, the way you ignore the differences between "internal
>:conflict" and "aggression against a sovereign neighbor".
>
>I don't see any difference when *we* are the ones injecting ourselves into
>it.  Why don't you point them out to me?

Lead the horse to water, and make him drink? The evidence is there to be
seen, one need only be willing to see. Yes, that knife cuts both ways.
Boils down to ideological differences. 

I believe in defense through a strong offense (threat of retaliation) and
carrying out that retaliation when provoked. I do not see eye to eye with
everything the UN does, that does not mean I'm willing to allow one
expansionist dictator to sanction another country and gain control of
enough of the worlds oil supply to impact the well-being of my country. Nor
does it mean we (the US) should become totally isolationist. With the hue
and cry from the world community, I believe our/the UN retaliation against
Iraqs sanction of Kuwait is, and always will be justifiable.

I view Somalia and the Bosnia fiascos differently, they are internal
conflicts. In Bosnia, there is the added factor of "ethnic cleansing". 

I'm reminded of the truisms about how a drowning man will accept help from
any source, and that a wild animal will bite the hand that feeds it. I'm
personally leary of any involvement with those internal conflicts because
it is interfering with that 'survival of the fittest' thing. 

Reeza!
============================================================================
DH Key available upon request.


The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.


	"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."

				-- my older sister

On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Reeza! finally got to the point of the matter:

<massive snip>
:, that does not mean I'm willing to allow one
:expansionist dictator to sanction another country and gain control of
:enough of the worlds oil supply to impact the well-being of my country.

I believe this is the the only true argument here.  The US (and you) are
not "pleased" with the fact that the one place on the planet that has the
worlds largest oil deposits is not beholden to the USG.  If Hussein were
to have remained a US puppet, he could do pretty much as he damn well
pleased, anywhere he damn well pleased - just as long as OUR oil prices
didn't escalate.  

	Weren't the old days wonderful?  A time when the USG could force
countries like Iraq to sell oil at or below cost?  And isn't that the
entire point of "allowing" Iraq to sell oil at the rate of some 50 billion
dollars every six months (IIRC)?  On the one hand, we "embargo" all food
and medicines, for their own good of course, and on the other hand we are
"willing" to forego that embargo, *if it benefits us*.  

	This has ZERO to do with Kuwait or weaponry, and *everything* to
do with the US id - we want *what* we want, *when* we want it, and at the
*price* we want it, *OR ELSE*.

Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
sysadmin@mfn.org

--
If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...
--------------------------------------------------------------------

At 07:50 PM 12/24/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Dec 1998, Reeza! finally got to the point of the matter:
>
><massive snip>
>:, that does not mean I'm willing to allow one
>:expansionist dictator to sanction another country and gain control of
>:enough of the worlds oil supply to impact the well-being of my country.
>
>I believe this is the the only true argument here.  The US (and you) are
>not "pleased" with the fact that the one place on the planet that has the
>worlds largest oil deposits is not beholden to the USG.  If Hussein were
>to have remained a US puppet, he could do pretty much as he damn well
>pleased, anywhere he damn well pleased - just as long as OUR oil prices
>didn't escalate.  

Lots of dictators around the world do pretty much as they please anyway.
Remember it was a world community effort to force Hussein back and restore
Kuwait, NOT something the US undertook solely upon its own.

>	Weren't the old days wonderful?  A time when the USG could force
>countries like Iraq to sell oil at or below cost?  And isn't that the
>entire point of "allowing" Iraq to sell oil at the rate of some 50 billion
>dollars every six months (IIRC)?  On the one hand, we "embargo" all food
>and medicines, for their own good of course, and on the other hand we are
>"willing" to forego that embargo, *if it benefits us*.  

The USG could force countries like Iraq to sell at or below cost? You are
forgetting OPEC, the international bankers cartel and other organizations
where the reins of power are really located. 

>	This has ZERO to do with Kuwait or weaponry, and *everything* to
>do with the US id - we want *what* we want, *when* we want it, and at the
>*price* we want it, *OR ELSE*.

But of course. by manufacturing a boogey man to blame all the evil on, no
one would ever suspect there was a 3rd party involved, now would they?

This is growing old, lets take it offlist if you want to pursue it.

On Wed, 23 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote:

:Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 06:11:38 +1000
:From: Reeza! <howree@cable.navy.mil>
:To: Missouri FreeNet Administration <measl@mfn.org>
:Cc: Jukka E Isosaari <jei@zor.hut.fi>, Joel O'Connor <ogrenivek@yahoo.com>,
:    mib <mib@io.com>, cypherpunks@toad.com
:Subject: Re: I must admit. . .
:
:At 02:29 PM 12/22/98 -0600, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote:
:>
:>On Tue, 22 Dec 1998, Reeza! blathered thusly:
:
:Cute.
:
:>Hrmm... And we have never "sanctioned" (gotta love those innocuous
:>euphemisms) any soveriegn State?  What good for the goose is not good for
:>the gander?  I repeat, *what gives us the RIGHT* to determine his weaponry
:>or lack thereof?
:
:Perhaps if you cited a few examples, your counter-point would have some
:weight. 

How about Iraq itself???

:>:Your arguments would be better applied to Somalia and Bosnia than they are
:>:to Iraq. Our presence in those countries was of a slightly different
:>:character than it is in Iraq now isn't it???
:>Yes indeed.  In these two countries we were there only to watch over the
:>slaughter, not to perpetuate it ourselves.  Mustv'e ruined your Military
:>Day (tm), huh Reeza?
:
:(yawn) not really. Actually, any involvement we have with the UN gets on my
:nerves. Interesting, the way you ignore the differences between "internal
:conflict" and "aggression against a sovereign neighbor".

I don't see any difference when *we* are the ones injecting ourselves into
it.  Why don't you point them out to me?

Yours,

J.A. Terranson
A *thinking* citizen of the United States Of America - damn few of us
left...

At 06:05 AM 12/22/98 +0200, Jukka E Isosaari wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Reeza! wrote:
>
>> Perfectly acceptable to me personally. Please show how it will result in
>> proving that Iraq does not, and will not in the near or forseeable future
>> possess weapons of mass destruction that may be utilized against
>> neighbors, foreign or domestic. Or how it will result in turning the
>> public opinion, iraqi and/or american, touted by the biased US press in
>> such a fashion that it would result in a munificent display of openness,
>> agreeablility, and welcoming to the UN inspectors by the iraqi hosts. Or
>> show how Hussein is now trustworthy, and thereby qualified by the  MIB
>> office of the USG to possess said weapons.
>
>It won't. But please show how bombing the shit out of all the Iraqis will
>accomplish this either? I would imagine getting rid of the lunatic leader
>and establishing a civilized democracy with human rights in place, would
>result in a state that would not be as prone to be as aggressive or
>inclined to use weapons of mass destruction. Or isn't that the  ultimate
>goal?

Ostensibly, the reason for bombing Iraq is to remove their ability to engage in hostilities. We all know how that is supposed to work

>But you are right, I must admit, that not *all* democracies are
>non-aggressive, with USA coming to mind as an example. It seems that
>rotten people with no moral values at the top, result in aggressive
>foreign policies, no matter what the nation.
>
>The bombing will only result in creating more frustrated individuals with
>personal vendettas against the US. (People with dead children/wives, etc.)
>
>With your logic, the US is on a road to kill every non-american on  this
>planet, in order to ensure their own safety. 

I'm not so sure- we did not engage in hostilities against Iraq until AFTER they invaded Kuwait. We did cease and desist when requested by other middle east sovereignties who were members of the UN coalition. 

>Actually, this has been evident quite some time in the US foreign policy: 
>The *only* lives that matter are the American ones. It is also very evident
>in the US film industry (national propaganda/brainwashing machine). Just
>how many war movies have you seen where the US special-forces squads
>venture into the vietnam/arabs and kill hundreds or thousands of people in
>order to save a few US prisoners? Try thinking that in reverse, an  Arab
>squad coming into the US, and killing hundreds of US citizens to save a few
>arabs, for a change. Seeing a few movies like that would do some good to a
>lot of americans in restoring their respect for universal human life. 
>
>Anyway, the point I am trying to make in this, is that the americans don't
>in general seem to put any value on human life, *unless* it is an american.
>This is evident everywhere: in their film industry, their foreign politics,
>and even Bill Gates' donation policies. It seems to be a fact ever  more
>blatant. 
>
>Anyone else notice this?

You shouldn't base your life lessons on what appears on the boob tube. I'll be the first to agree the US media is wholly engaged in propaganda, that Hollywood uses films to convey political messages. Their success is dependant on a couple of factors, among them being whether the viewer is a person capable of rational thought, or a sheeple.

>> >The military is engaged
>> >in creating a threat to justify their existence and continued 
>>
>> EAT MY MILITARY FUCKING SHORTS YOU PUSSY FUCKWAD FAGGOT SON-OF-A-BITCH.
>> The powers of the military are being abused by CIVILIANS who cannot
>> fathom the true purpose of the military, think the military doesn't earn
>> its pay. I have something for YOU to earn, you ewe you.
>> 
>> >economic well-being. Saddam is worth much, much more to them when
>> >he is alive and well in Iraq.
>> 
>> OH YEAH, OH YEAH, THAT is why we dropped leaflets advocating the iraqis
>> do everything in their power to maintain their present, totalitarian
>> regime. GET A FUCKING CLUE YOU GREASY STAIN ON THIS MAILING LIST.
>
>Did I hit a nerve or something?

Yes. Something.

>Usually people resort to name-calling only when feeling badly inferior
>or in lack of any real facts to represent in defence of their case,
>and in general this justifies the strong doubt that the person in
>question is in fact a juvenile.

Or to give greater emphasis to what is being said. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, sound bites don't work on a mailing list.

>I'm sorry, but I won't waste my time on blathering kids like you. 
>
>(Please note: I've Cc:ed the root at your site, as you appear to be so
>childish, and I wouldn't know what a child is doing with a .mil account,
>so you must be using your parent's account or a hacked account,
>both of which are in general very much against the rules..

This should be interesting.

>Or, in the unlikely case that you are actually an adult, please consider
>this as an exemplary sample of Mr Zeebra's skills in delivering verbal
>attacks in defence of his country. Surely you recognize his superiors
>language skills and the qualifications he has for the assignation to the
>national ultra secret verbal cyber-warfare attack squad, designed to
>destroy the egos and PCs of all those who have not bought in to the US
>military propaganda.)
>
>In any case, I realize this is the wrong list for this discussion. 
>Please continue in private, like a good netbaby, if you feel like
>more name-calling. I've already added you to my filters.

and with a sniff and hoisting of the nose, you would step away, without defending the earlier position, only criticizing mine. You poor excuse for a respondee, put on your blinders, install your filters, stick your head into that hole in the sand.

Attn; root@cable.navy.mil- Hi!

Reeza!
============================================================================
DH Key available upon request.


The affairs of Men rarely rely on the dictates of logic, or even common sense.


"Yeah, they mostly rely on something below the belt."

-- my older sister

On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 02:42:44PM +0000, Joel O'Connor wrote:
> Cypherpunks write code?  Make people use it. . .

Vee have vays...

- d.