Re: LRedir?

[Vlad <vlad_orel@yahoo.com.au>]

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 01:39 am, Hans Lermen wrote:
> well, the syntax is described in the docs:
>
>    C:> lredir d: LINUX\FS/home
>
> (RTFM)
Care to explain what RTFM is an acronym for? :-)
Well actually I read the man pages and I couldn't find
it (it's in the readme). My gracious apologies.

On Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:49 am, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> First off, I hate this junk on a technical list.
Off-topic?
OK, I think I understand your views.
Hundreds of innocent civilians are dying as we speak.
But no "junk" on this list.

I see, however, that you have totally ignored the
lredir question and simply *added* to the war
argument.

> Watch where you throw the term "War Hawk" because it
points at as many 
> Democrats as Republicans.
Does this mean that all Americans are war hawks?

> Fourth, I like to look outside the US.  I have
looked at papers from Japan
> to Saudi Arabia, and anyone who acknowledges the
reality of the situation,
> it is the fault of Saddam Hussein and no one else. 
Especially the
> Japanese, who have a constitution forbidding war.
The Japanese have 40,000 US troops permanently
stationed in Okinawa. As for Middle East issues,
www.mideastfacts.com has been found by me to be of
great help.

> Fifth, even Hans Blix says that inspections are
useless without the
> cooperation of Iraq.  He has repeatedly stated that
there is no way to
> "inspect compliance" without 100% Iraqi cooperation,
and that cooperation
> has been limited.
Hans Blix has also said that the inspections need more
time, and progress is being made. Or should I say
_was_ being made.

> Lastly, to quote Democrat Senator Joeseph Bidden,
"This is not pre-emption,
> it is enforcement.  It is enforment of resolution
876 and the clarification
> of that resolution in resolution 1441."
That is the isolated view of an individual.
Resolution 678/687 was to remove Saddam from Kuwait,
an action the US initially was not disagreeable with.

Have you seen the US logic? It says: 1) if no weapons
of mass destruction are found, then Iraq has not made
a full and complete declaration (which is it's duty),
therefore it is a breach of the resolution 2) if
weapons of mass destruction are found it is a breach
of the resolution.

Serious consequences is not interchangeable with "all
means necessary". A resolution for war would never be
passed, as the US admitted.

> In a nutshell, the US finally said the ceasefire is
over, after 12 years of
> non-compliance to its terms.  Otherwise any future
ceasefire will be a
> joke.
3 permanent members of the UN Security Council did not
believe so. The majority of the UN Security Council
did not believe so. They asked for more time (30 days)
to let the peace process have a chance. Why do they
not allow to attempt peace? The only thing worse than
failure is the fear of trying something new. 

Thank you, good night and god bless America (and those
who defend her).
- Vlad

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com