<OT> Re: we shall remember them

[Net Llama!]

Ya know, i've been trying to stay out of this wildly off topic thread, 
but i'm getting sucked in anyway.

What I have completely failed to grasp is the administration's logic 
(amongst other things).  Mr. Bush has stated that one of the reasons why 
the US must strike Iraq first is because Iraq has failed to obey the 
UN's rules & regulations that it had agreed to after the Gulf War.  Yet 
at the same time, Mr. Bush states if the UN doesn't provide him with a 
resolution that permits him to strike Iraq, he'll just do it anyway, 
because the UN risks becoming nothing more than a "society of debators", 
akin to the League of Nations.

Can someone explain to me why the US has a right to ignore UN rules, yet 
Iraq does not?  I have no argument that Hussein is a nut job of the 
first order, however this sounds like first class hypocricy to me.


On 10/20/02 04:23, Collins wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 09:40:32 -0700 Ken Moffat
> wrote:
>
> >dep wrote:
> >
> >
> >>several reasons.
> >
> >Well spoken, thank you; an excellent, coherent response. I'd like to
> >
> >hear the administration make their case so clearly.
> >
>
>
> No offense intended, but maybe you haven't been listening closely
> enough.  I've been hearing the same "excellent, coherent response"
> from this administration for a long time.  From the opposition, I've
> only heard the same threadbare arguments that were used to justify
> inaction prior to WWII.  The administration has clearly stated its
> case:  If the UN won't take immediate action to control this madman,
> we will.
>
>

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman                       	       netllama at linux-sxs.org
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: 		    http://netllama.ipfox.com

  10:15am  up 7 days, 22:33,  1 user,  load average: 0.11, 0.37, 0.31