To: Neocon who wrote (61337 ) 12/12/2002 2:29:40 PM From: Bilow Read Replies (1) | Respond to Hi Neocon; Re: "The whole thing started because zonder insinuated that we repudiated contractual obligations by setting aside "treaties we had signed". "Bush is clearly out to conquer the world. He is turning the US into a "rogue state" - zero respect for world opinion, zero respect for international treaties, an unhealthy appetite for unilateral military action to whomever he does not like. And now he is threatening nuclear bombs. #reply-18325160Bush has a fine respect for international treaties -- the ones the US has signed, that is. #reply-18325407I believe you are trying to say "ratification". US signed Kyoto Agreement AND the UN Charter, Nadine. #reply-18325591Gotta "Check your Premises" zonder. We never signed the Kyoto agreement. #reply-18326043Somebody tell Bill that the US signed Kyoto. I am off. Goodnight everyone. #reply-18326073... I fear that the fine points of US law are lost upon you but present it anyway because hope springs eternal. #reply-18326416Well, perhaps because this is not a fine point of US law. It is fairly simple. The US signed Kyoto. Then did not ratify, but that is another matter, one that I never contested. #reply-18328044I know you live in a beachfront feudal fairyland, but try please. #reply-18328050If we look back at where this whole topic sprung from, we will see that it was the technicality of the US having signed the treaty. I realize they did not (and would not) ratify. I said all that. The point is that there are some out there arguing that the US did not sign it. That is simply not true. A very simple, albeit small, point. #reply-18328056IMO, by Constitutional definition, it has not been signed. #reply-18329173MR. FLEISCHER: The treaty, as you know, was signed, but it was not ratified by the Senate. In fact, the Senate voted 95-0 against ratification of it. #reply-18330073
