From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Subject: Re: LRedir? Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 03:05:44 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-msdos-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20030321110544.33942.qmail@web14709.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Hans Lermen Cc: linux-msdos@vger.kernel.org, b.j.smith@ieee.org, Davros 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