[kj] Hypo-pathetically speaking - US a Terrorist State(s)

[peter.west410]

You asked me a question Ade,And I gave you the answer:How does that make me
Hard-work?
     Who's the person from here who works for The Guardian?Here's tomorrows
headline:
    "Ade from the gathering declares USA a terrorist state"
U.N holds an emergency meeting to avert an escalation of crisis.

And why are all your E-Mails sent as "High priority":
   Hey Jester,Go and check in your stable,I think someone's nicked your
high-horse.
    PW
667(Even Worse)



----- Original Message -----
From: "ade" <ade at the-lab.zetnet.co.uk>
To: "'A list about all things Killing Joke (the band!)'"
<gathering at misera.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 9:23 AM
Subject: RE: [kj] Hypo-pathetically speaking - US a Terrorist State(s)


> As you say, we'll try better.
>
> The main point I was trying to make (but Peter is hard work ;) is that
> obviously there was no need to go into Iraq, but more importantly is the
> fact that less people would've died under that Evil Regime. The US bring
> peace to Iraq & what do we get? Thousands upon thousands of deaths & such
a
> playground the terrorist have never seen before! 24 hour press to capture
> them looking scary for us lot watching our tellies at home. Scaring the
> pensioners.. coercing them to vote in the Right...
>
> If the US cares so much for democracy, let's see it go up against North
> Korea or any of the other countries that treat their people like sh!t.
> "We're bringing peace to the world!!" - if that's the HONEST belief of the
> US govt & half the people, I declare the US a Terrorist State !!!
>
>
>
> ade666
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gathering-bounces at misera.net [mailto:gathering-bounces at misera.net]On
> Behalf Of GregSlawson at aol.com
> Sent: 03 November 2004 00:44
> To: gathering at misera.net
> Subject: Re: [kj] Hypo-pathetically speaking
>
>
> In a message dated 11/2/2004 4:51:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> peter.west410 at ntlworld.com writes:
>
>
>
>
> The U.N was set up after WW11,It was supposed the represent every country
in
> the world.
>    The idea was that if any future conflicts arise ,Then all the worlds
> leaders(There is more than one world leader, Americans) could m.eet up and
> resolve the dispute without resorting to a war.
>    I think it failed because no-one takes any notice of it's resoulotions
> and it doe snt have any fire-power (Army)to back up its demands.
> It's a bit like communism really:A good idea ,but does nt work in
practice.
>    PW
>
>
>
> True--Peter is finally making some sense in recent posts. I add that the
UN
> doesn't work because the US vetoes any useful resolutions, and at other
> times it is just seen as a rubber stamp for what the US wants.
> An for the statement about it being like communism, I agree that it
hasen't
> yet worked in practice (I'm a communist so I have to remain optimistic).
The
> reason is that it wasn't implemented right--it was done in a half-ass way,
> so to speak. We'll try it right in the future.
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


> _______________________________________________
> Gathering mailing list
> Gathering at misera.net
> http://four.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/gathering
>