<OT> Re: we shall remember them

[Net Llama!]

That's a beautiful analogy, however it doesn't address anything i've 
said.  I'm not debating, nor am i denying that Saddam is a nut job. 
What I am saying is that the US govt's reasoning for thumbing its nose 
at international majority opinion is flawed & hypocritical.

On 10/20/02 11:24, ronnie gauthier wrote:

> uhh.
> how about this.
> I'm your asshole neighbor. We hate each other. You are stronger than
> me. I am far crazier than you. You are scared of my unpredicability.
> You have a very nice field of hay that you sell for a living. In our
> community you know I have been looking for matches but no one will give
> me any. I flap my lips and throw rocks at your house. Every once in a
> while you slap me, knowing that the most I can really do is throw
> another rock. This afternoon as I was entering my house I turned and
> waved and flashed a box of stick matches at you.
> Are you going to come slap me again now? Can you slap me before I light
> your hay on fire? Are you willing to trade a slap for burnt hay?
> Now you sit and must listen to me tell you I will burn you out all the
> while wishing you had just killed me and been done with it....last
> week.
>
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 10:23:44 -0700
> "Net Llama!"  wrote:
>
>
> >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

  12:10pm  up 8 days, 28 min,  1 user,  load average: 0.26, 0.43, 0.46