 | | Re: Who are we to judge? —Ross Crawford
|
| | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Stanley writes: [snip] (...) So it's OK for GWB to unilaterally dismiss the notion of neutrality? I too am not particularly happy with this particular line. Though my government (and myself) are behind the US in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Who are we to judge? —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | (...) I don't think he's dismissing neutrality - do you? Should a nation continue to host terrorist training camps would you consider it neutral? Should a nation harbour terrorists knowingly and refuse to turn them out or turn them over would you (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who are we to judge? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) I expect people to clean up their own messes. Holds for my kids, holds for litterers (I have in the past almost been punched for tossing cigarette butts back into the open windows of cars that they just came out of :-) ), holds for polluters, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who are we to judge? —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) I would like to bring the people responsible to justice. Just not by whatever means necessary. I believe in a measured approach that risks as few American (and other peoples') lives as possible. I'd just like to point out that if bin Laden is (...) (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who are we to judge? —Dave Low
|
| | | | (...) Try this, for an idea on why that stance may have to shift: (URL) the Obvious" here: (URL) ) --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
