 | | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) But what you don't understand is that this is an asset. Unencumbered by world regard, we can do anything, anywhere. Who's going to stop us? Chris (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) ...meanwhile, the USA's reputation overseas nosedives. Scott A (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
I think it is time Oz re-joined the Empire. ;) Scott A (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Some quick research turns up that I am a little out of date - he's been (URL) charged> now. Its an interesting document. The rest of the summary seems pretty much spot on. (URL) seems to have been more or less the state of play before the (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) I don't think Bush'll be in trouble over this one. He can just smirk out of the TV at us and say that 'Merica was made safer for the three or four years that they were held illegally and that he was willing to do whatever it took. Many of my (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Gawd! If you're presenting an accurate view, that really is disgusting. They should have demanded their people back long ago. Chris (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Yup. Indeed, as I understand it Australia is one of the few (perhaps the only) country with nationals involved who has NOT asked for them back. Apparently at the time our dudes did whatever undisclosed thing that they may at some stage be (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) Tony B.Liar may be up for re-election next year. His closeness to Bush has become a major electoral (URL). To mitigate this, he is trying show he is not 100% lapdog. As a result, the UK Attorney General noisily (and rightly) (URL) rejected> (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) I get the feeling Bush has painted himself into a corner with this one: If he releases these guys people will wonder why they were ever held to start with. If these guys do get their day in court, it is clear that the "evidence" will be (...) (20 years ago, 29-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
(...) (URL) David Hicks to serve any sentence in Australia>, these questionable detentions seem to be heading in the right direction. Let's hope the Military Tribunals do not end up being (URL) show trials>. ROSCO (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Some wins for freedom from the Supremes
|
|
3 important cases today, although one would wish for wider findings (as always) (URL) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Robbery, Reconstruction or Quagmire?
|
|
(...) I expect you are correct. I was trying to highlight the chaos in Iraq to show how little Iraqis are benefiting from the billions of $$$ which are being transferred to Bush’s corporate buddies in their name. Scott A (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Taking the bait (was Re: Fair use and allusion?)
|
|
(...) (much snippage) (...) Ok, fair enough. I will try to do better going forward. (...) Here's someone else that just popped up making the same, or a similar, point. (URL) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) So what about Saudi Arabia? It seems like you keep dodging the fact that SA is a much, much, much more significant player than Iraq given the very criteria that you just listed. Do you imagine that it could have anything to do with the very (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Robbery, Reconstruction or Quagmire?
|
|
I find myself largely in agreement with Scott. But there is this: (...) Actually, they leave them because when the truck gets a flat in an insecure zone, they would rather torch the truck and leave it a flaming wreck than have their personnel (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) It did. (...) Sure, let's get rid of the veto. Lets go back and look at all the resolutions against Israel. Would the NeoCons in Washington like that? Scott A (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Add to that the UK and a growing number of your own countrymen. (...) ...and Bush wanted to remove him at the expense of the Iraqi people. Scott A (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Robbery, Reconstruction or Quagmire?
|
|
(...) John, do you really believe this codswallop? This (URL) article> argues that security costs are eating up 25% of reconstruction contracts and that insurance brokers selling sudden-death policies to contractors in Iraq have doubled their (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) Name all those that you feel see it as "obvious", subtract that from everyone else, and you will have "a great deal". (...) Seems obvious even to you that is NOT about freeing the people of Iraq, but controlling the flow of oil (which was (...) (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
|
(...) That seems to imply you think the current war wasn't a legitimate opportunity. But I know that can't be right... ROSCO (20 years ago, 28-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
