 | | Re: Leaks (was Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
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...
|
|
(...) 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...
|
|
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)
|
