🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9107120444.AA00443@spls5.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp>, huw@spls5.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp (Huw Jonathan Rogers) writes:
[ in reply to remarks by david@campfire.uucp ]

|> 	I personally object to your remarks in any case because
|> they are nothing less than treasonous  - a deliberate defamation
|> of the honorable actions of the allied military in the Gulf War.

If this is treason, I join in it.  (From Errol Flynn's version of
ROBIN HOOD: "You speak treason!"  "Fluently!").  The actions of
allied forces in the final hours of the war were by no means honorable --
they consisted of the slaughter of tens of thousands of troops that
were attempting to retreat and were on the way out of Kuwait towards
Iraq.

Perhaps in your country, treason has a different meaning, but in the
US, dissent against a war is emphatically not treason.  It requires
giving aid and comfort to an enemy, and the courts have ruled that
physical aid and comfort (e.g. espionage or gun-running or such) is
required for an act to be treason

This topic is not appropriate for gnu.misc.discuss.  I could punt it
to alt.desert-storm but you might not have access to that group.
Any other suggestions?

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck