Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (61535)	12/13/2002 5:27:37 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi Neocon; Re: "It is provocative to say that Bush has " zero respect for international treaties", when that clearly does not apply to treaties that were actually ratified ..." Silly me, to have failed to realize that this was your complaint. Of course the US is in violation of treaties that it did ratify. Every major country has done this throughout history, and we're no exception. Of course we have good reasons for violating treaties, but that doesn't distinguish us from anyone either. The "no fly" zones in Iraq are the most present example. Another was the deliberate targeting of civilian facilities in Bosnia as well as in every war we've ever fought in, LOL. Note that these have been supported by both Republican and Democratic regimes. Re: "Later, despite noting the difference between signing and ratification, she did imply that signing was sufficient to bind the current administration." You don't have a link to this "implication", because it didn't happen. You made it up. (Maybe my teasing you will influence you to go and get a link. Certainly I'm not going to go through 61,535 FADG posts and try and figure out where you went wrong.) Re: "Carl complains about the "piling on", but the condemnation of the administration was worded in a way that was bound to offend some posters." Let me make sure I get the logic straight here. It's not okay to "offend some posters", but it is okay to pile on, with erroneous accusations in response? -- Carl