 | | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | I snipped a BUSHEL of irrelevant misdirection. This is a question about 1441, not the US second amendment or anything else (...) OK, then, David. Stripped of all the other non topical stuff in your post, you concede that Iraq is in material breach (...) (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... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | (...) Since rants often go on tangential tirades, well, sorry 'bout that. But I wouldn't call it 'misdirection', I'd call it 'selective reading' on the part of the US. (...) And now that Powell has conclusively proven that the US is in breach of (...) (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... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | More misdirection. Herewith is a link to 1441 (one of many out there) full text. Go read it. (URL) resolution REQUESTS assistance from member states in providing info on Iraq's non compliance. It makes no statement about what happens if they decline (...) (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... —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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... —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) In my honest opinion--no--which is sad. But any force that invades Iraq should be under a mandate by a united coalition, not by the US. My prayers, however, are for peace. Dave K (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... —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Okay, I was just trying to force a reality check. Perhaps there is some other avenue open rather than war. (...) I don't see why it would be to the United States' advantage to have it any other way. This threatened unilateral action is a load (...) (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... —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Oooh, pistols at 10 paces! That'd be great. Maybe jousting--Bush in a suit of armour would be an interesting picture. Possible way of resolving all future issues--let the leaders (...) (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... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Welcome to the moral high group; it's more crowded than you think. ;) Scott A (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... —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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... —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | 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... —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | 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... —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
