 | | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes (after rearrangement): (...) I have given a link to it elsewhere in the thread... As with any text, it's subject to interpretation, and as with any resolution of a deliberative body, it's couched (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes: \>Again, demeaning the point of the other side by belittling it with terms (...) Would the (alleged) US violation have any meaning without the Iraqi (alleged) violation? Further, you didn't answer (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Of course we look out for our own interests-- anyone who claims they don't look out for theirs as well is a liar. (...) I don't recall making that assertion (because I didn't). (...) Because "international law" doesn't respect freedom and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | International Law and Enforcement
|
|
(...) This is a real interesting question to me. How do we extend the concepts of law in the US to the rest of the world? If we say that no non-US citizen has the right to enforce anything on us, then we similarly have no right to enforce anything (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) It did its job? Was its "job" to find evidence of material breach [and so allow the war to start] or disarm iraq and avoid war? I know what I'd like it to do. Scott A (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) The last round of inspections were not without their "problems". Despite that, the achievements are still remarkable. Some highlights: 1. Removal of significant amounts of weapons usable nuclear material. 2. Accounted for 817 of 819 missiles (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Welcome to the moral high group; it's more crowded than you think. ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
More misdirection. Herewith is a link to 1441 (one of many out there) full text. Go read it. (URL) resolution REQUESTS assistance from member states in providing info on Iraq's non compliance. It makes no statement about what happens if they decline (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) Since rants often go on tangential tirades, well, sorry 'bout that. But I wouldn't call it 'misdirection', I'd call it 'selective reading' on the part of the US. (...) And now that Powell has conclusively proven that the US is in breach of (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
I snipped a BUSHEL of irrelevant misdirection. This is a question about 1441, not the US second amendment or anything else (...) OK, then, David. Stripped of all the other non topical stuff in your post, you concede that Iraq is in material breach (...) (22 years ago, 6-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
