 | | Re: What about the first?
|
|
(...) Are you crazy? Anything which does not support the war is "irrelevant" [see France, Nato, the UN, public opinion, etc]. Don't make the mistake of thinking that the "Hawks" are interested in rational thought! Scott A (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The beginning of the end of NATO?
|
|
(...) Ya. I for one would LOVE to see some real investigative reporting into the theory that France is blocking things because they have lots and lots of business deals in the hopper that would go forward if sanctions are eventually lifted but which (...) (22 years ago, 13-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) War? Troops sent in to fight? Was Clinton building up the forces, daring Saddam to 'slip up even just a little bit'? (...) I would if I could, but there's a tinpot dictator in charge of that country that, so the rumours go, is more of a (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What about the first?
|
|
After Turkey's invocation of NATO's article 4, one other article cries loudly that there can be no NATO support of US intervention in Iraq: (URL) 1 The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Future Speech Text of George W. Bush?
|
|
(...) But then again, they can argue they were "balancing things up" after giving the Israelis the Bomb. Because they did that... just to spite the US! What the French were not expecting was Eisenhower's (?) change of ideas on the matter (...) (22 years ago, 12-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
