Now for Teribus; my replies follow excerpts of your statements.

California and Texas were "invaded" by white anglo-americans were they? Quite a good proportion of the white europeans in Texas were already there, Scots who having left Scotland and who did not wish to live under British rule in Canada were one rather large group.

To claim the republic of Texas was not an Anglo-American establishment is absurd. Almost all the civil and military leaders were American. Sam Houston was born in Virginia, Jim Bowie in Kentucky, James Fannon in Georgia, Ed Burleson in North Carolina, Ben Milam in Kentucky, William Travis in South Carolina, etc., etc. The Texas Declaration of Independence very specifically states that the independent Texans were separating from Mexico in order to "continue to enjoy that constitutional liberty and republican government to which they had been habituated in the land of their birth, the United States of America. Funny, but Scotland isn't mentioned in there at all.

In other words, they set up the Republic of Texas in order to be Anglo-Americans living under American laws, which is why they allowed themselves to be annexed by the U.S. a mere nine years later.

It is true that the Mexicans allowed the Anglo-American settlers initially to come in, settle, and become Mexican. But it turns out they didn't want to be Mexican, they wanted to be American. So they attacked Mexican forces, took over the land, and joined back up with the US. This would be like a group of my friends deciding to "emigrate" to Canada, settling there, then forming an army, starting a war, taking over a bunch of land, and giving it freely to the U.S. as a 51st state. I think the Canadians would consider that an invasion orchestrated by Americans.


Regarding your quotes relating to the 1832 Worcester v Georgia decision. You omit to clarify that what you quote is not the wording of a Treaty but the judgement of US Supreme Court Justice Marshall, and it also omits the fact that this judgement did not supercede the terms of the 1830 Indian Removal Act.

Huh? When did I say it was the wording of a treaty? I said it was a decision. I also fail to see the relevance of the Removal Act, which was in violation of the very treaties this SC decision upheld. As I said before, just because these treaties had become inconvenient, and were ultimately illegally violated by the US, does not mean they never existed.

So to reiterate: In 1832 the Supreme Court found that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign country, and by the way specifically cited a previous 1802 law that was in force BEFORE the Removal Act you mention.

Next point in which you are attempting to say that the USA was a greater threat to world peace during the "cold war" than the Soviet Union.

Boy, it's annoying when you try to tell people what they're attempting to say. It's a well-known power tactic in verbal jiu jitsu, but I won't fall for it. What I was attempting to say was exactly what I said: that judging by our record of past action, the US was more likely to employ WMD than the USSR. We had used an atomic bomb, the USSR never had. That's a pretty clear record.

As to whether, or not, Saddam Hussein was ever a "CIA Asset", it is a pity you didn't print the whole article - it is pretty obvious from that article that he Saddam was in the pay of the Egyptians, that the CIA at the time were working with the Egyptians is not disputed, but that is not the same as saying that Saddam Hussein knowingly worked for the CIA .

Irrelevant. I said he was a CIA asset. Asset is a term for anyone from whom the CIA regularly extracts intel, whether they know it or not. Some of our greatest assets are the folks who don't know they are giving us intel: spies whose cover is blown, etc. My point was that, for many years Saddam was being handled and run by the CIA. Many of his successes and those of his party were orchestrated by us. And, the article makes it pretty clear that he DID know of our involvement at some points; for example, when we encouraged him to demand a raise from the Egyptians! Certainly after the Baathist takeover he was aware of our friendly stance toward him, as we supplied intel on the suspected communists so he could have a Stalin-style purge. Thanks, Uncle Sam!

If I had said he was an agent, that would have been a different matter.

As to Kuwait, it has never been part of Iraq (...) A parallel in the history of Britain, England has always thought of Scotland and wales being theirs, them thinking that, and that being the case are two very different things.

Also irrelevant. I was not saying that Saddam's claims on Kuwait were valid, merely that he viewed the matter as a border dispute and that April Glaspie agreed with him. In much the same way, the US doesn't openly intervene in the troubles in Northern Ireland. That doesn't imply that British claims are valid, and it doesn't imply they aren't.

Oh, the conversation between Saddam and the US Ambassador (In which Saddam was given the "green light", nudge, nudge, wink, wink). As can be seen from the reaction of that lady's superiors back in Washington - She Fucked Up - and both she and Saddam were told that in no uncertain terms within days of that interview taking place. On that issue I am wrong about damn all.

Oops, you put a word in the wrong place. You must have meant to say "I am damn wrong about all." :-)

Glaspie said to the head of state of the country to which she was the US ambassador that she had received specific instructions from the US Secretary of State on the matter. I find it hard to believe she was lying. I find it much easier to believe the administration hung her out to dry after it decided to re-classify Saddam as a "madman."

Thanks for the information I didn't know that Nader was running, must admire that lad's stamina - and sense of humour.

He has not announced this yet, but I suspect he will.

One thing I did uncover as I was scrambling about, that I was unaware of before and has not been mentioned anywhere else, and this might have been of interest to the current US administration, US intelligence agencies and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In January 1999 UNSCOM reported to the United Nations, in February 1999, Russia signed a contract with Iraq to upgrade Iraq's air force, wonder why they thought they might that doing??

Wonder what you thought you might that saying?? (sorry, I couldn't resist. But I really don't know what you are trying to imply!)