Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: KLP who wrote (56192)	7/26/2004 7:51:30 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 794001

Noticed you didn't have a comment on this... Sorry, I didn't realize you were expecting a response. I didn't read past the first couple of paragraphs. I have been skipping over the partisan bullshit, especially the gotcha semantic stuff like what "relations" Iraq had with al Qaeda. This looked like more of the same. can you tell me what is the difference? Good grief, no. I never did pay much attention to the Yugoslavia thing and I remember even less. Perhaps Steven Rogers could give you a thorough analysis. My recollection was that Europe as represented by NATO was the international consensus for Yugoslavia. A local problem dealt with locally by local international consensus. The only available venue for an international consensus on Iraq was the UN. There was no local international consensus. The local international body (is it the Pan Arab Union?) was sure not about to approve.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next