Subject:
|
Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 6 Feb 2003 07:39:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > > But a country that throws out Kioto, ideas about international Courts, and
> > > other things, and yet holds up some piece of paper written in 1776 as a
> > > higher authority when today in their very streets people are dieing because
> > > of it... then I quite understand the narrow scope of judgement that
> > > Americans hold.
> >
> > I think you would do better to stick to the international affairs since they
> > pertain to the subject rather than mixing in criticism of the
> > Constitution/Bill of Rights, which is the core concept of the US and will
> > probably side-track the dicussion.
>
>
> My point, parenthetical to be sure, is that "Oh we'll uphold a document
> written a long time ago--every jot and tittle--but a UN sanction (the US
> being one of the founding members of the UN, I may add here) that pertains
> to the here and now... well, we're not going to trouble ourselves with that
> piece of parchment..." A document which was set out to find a peaceful
> settlement to the current issue, *signed* by the United States, and which is
> (again I say) flagrantly disregarded--by the Iraqis? Sure! But also by the
> *only* country that seems to be hell-bent on invading said country.
I think whatever point you may have had in mind was lost in your wording.
If you wish to speak of people in the US dieing because of a 200+ year old
internal document, you have left the arena of international law and diplomacy.
Be that as it may, you seem to be admitting Iraq is violating the settlement
but feel the US is wrong for attempting to enforce it? Perhaps I need for
you to expand on this so I can understand your position better.
>
> So again--
> international coalition = ignored
Wimps who weren't going to back up the piece of paper in the first place
(mind you, I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong, but let's face it,
everyone was more than happy to let the US take the heat on enforcing it,
and now they are unhappy because that continues to happen).
> International law = ignored
Hey, I didn't vote for the guy! :-)
> Any peaceful aid by the United States = no
"Aid"? I'm not certain how you mean the word.
>
> > >
> > > Hey FBI guys, come spy on me for a while--I'll make you some nice lemon tea
> > > for your time sitting out there in your car.
> >
> > FBI, internal, CIA, external. You, being on the external, will get CIA
> > spooks. FBI: serve lemon tea. CIA: serve screech (they'll probably like
> > it, though). :-)
> >
> > -->Bruce<--
>
> Thanks for the clarification--I'm going to go buy me some electronics
> that'll send a loud screech into their headphones... ;)
Don't know about Canada, but that is illegal here. They'd probably get
revenge by enticing you across the border ("Lego Sale: 95% off on pre-1990
sets! Hundreds in stock. Canadians welcome to cross border") and then
arrest you - or confiscate all your Lego and do terrible things to it! :-O
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
