 | | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) This is absolutely correct (at least from the legalistic viewpoint). If the UN is to have any credibility, it must enforce its sanctions. If its sanctions are worthless, then the UN loses stature and encourages unilateral action. What the (...) (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 like to be shown that I'm wrong. It shows that I'm not so bogged down in my zeal to be right that I can actually say, "Well, I'm wrong--let's figure out what right actually is..." (...) Asked *and* answered--it's up to the UN to decide what (...) (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 prefer the term "role model" (...) Do you think the world should respect the "freedom and liberty" of terrorists the way the US has treated Orlando Bosch: (URL) to the justice department in George Bush Sr's administration, Bosch had (...) (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...
|
|
(...) Let's face facts; the US has an appalling record when it comes to respecting UN resolutions. [I see nothing that makes me think that's about to change.] Because of that, and other issues, a lot of countries [and their populations [even the (...) (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...
|
|
(...) Thanks for the link - I was curious as to what it actually said. Reading through it, no, we aren't in breach of it as far as I can tell, and all that we need prove is that Iraq is dragging its feet in any way. I understand many nations want (...) (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, 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)
|
