tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post325461399648072063..comments2023-11-03T16:06:09.608+03:00Comments on A Citizen Of Mosul: News from Al-Mosul website News DeskTruth tellerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10184673505956673881noreply@blogger.comBlogger53125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-56026008078039953382011-01-17T16:58:05.645+03:002011-01-17T16:58:05.645+03:00[mt] "We understand the need for law and orde...[mt] "We understand the need for law and order, we depend on it to facilitate the free movement of people and trade with as few artificial barriers as is humanly possible in the real world."<br /><br /><a href="http://www.dodekanissaweb.gr" rel="nofollow">griechenland</a><br /><a href="http://www.charmnjewelry.com/sterling-silver-charms.htm" rel="nofollow">silver charms</a>mewmewmewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16228963688740207485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-87220689658215496212007-07-20T00:55:00.000+04:002007-07-20T00:55:00.000+04:00"Except that's not how the world is organised, is ...<I>"Except that's not how the world is organised, is it?"</I><BR/><BR/>I guess it's all in your perspective Bruno. You do remember that I'm Cuban, I live in a Cuban community, I stop every morning before I get to work and ask for a "colada"...<BR/>What city do you think I'm talking about?<BR/><BR/><I>US People != US foreign policy."</I><BR/><BR/>Yea sure. That's just like your understanding of US constitutional law.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-13266362408585161642007-07-19T10:38:00.000+04:002007-07-19T10:38:00.000+04:00[mt] "Most if not all of the people I know do not ...[mt] "Most if not all of the people I know do not see ourselves as members of a select club, but rather citizens of the world."<BR/><BR/>Except that's not how the world is organised, is it? <BR/><BR/>[mt] "We understand the need for law and order, we depend on it to facilitate the free movement of people and trade with as few artificial barriers as is humanly possible in the real world."<BR/><BR/>No comment. Don't get me started again.<BR/><BR/>[mt] "You might want to start with the basic assumption you seem to hold about the people of the US."<BR/><BR/>US People != US foreign policy.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with the US people. Your foreign policy, however, is another matter.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-13355320537873238052007-07-19T08:03:00.000+04:002007-07-19T08:03:00.000+04:00"Perhaps as a member of the strongest country"Most...<I>"Perhaps as a member of the strongest country"</I><BR/><BR/>Most if not all of the people I know do not see ourselves as members of a select club, but rather citizens of the world.<BR/><BR/>We understand the need for law and order, we depend on it to facilitate the free movement of people and trade with as few artificial barriers as is humanly possible in the real world.<BR/><BR/>I would suggest you and your friends take your own advice. You might want to start with the basic assumption you seem to hold about the people of the US.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-35349363333921938782007-07-17T11:54:00.000+04:002007-07-17T11:54:00.000+04:00I'm happy to leave the discussion as is. I do howe...I'm happy to leave the discussion as is. <BR/><BR/>I do however, suggest that you think a little on the nature of international law and what purpose it serves. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps as a member of the strongest country the purpose of this is not quite clear to you. I assure you, however, that the people from other, militarily weaker countries most certainly do see a purpose and need for it.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-75223451949011469012007-07-17T06:25:00.000+04:002007-07-17T06:25:00.000+04:00"Your problem is that you want there to be an "ext...<I>"Your problem is that you want there to be an "extra-special" dispensation for the US just in case it wants to continue bombing Iraq in spite of all the treaties it signed and the laws it would break."</I><BR/><BR/>I would gladly debate the validity of this, your latest flame, But I do not think that it would be proper to use TT forum in that manner while he is out. <BR/><BR/>You can do what you want, but I will either wait till he returns, or move the debate to a different forum.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-6323689530297004852007-07-16T14:11:00.000+04:002007-07-16T14:11:00.000+04:00[madtom] "You have during this whole debate made l...[madtom] "You have during this whole debate made light of sddams actions and tried to paint the US as the aggressor."<BR/><BR/>Rubbish, madtom. Saddam invaded Kuwait and was rightly thrown out. Legally so. Where did I ever argue about that?<BR/><BR/>Your problem is that you want there to be an "extra-special" dispensation for the US just in case it wants to continue bombing Iraq in spite of all the treaties it signed and the laws it would break. That "extra-special" dispensation simply DOES NOT EXIST. <BR/><BR/>Just face it, and move on.<BR/><BR/>Saddam was a bad egg that got what he deserved. <BR/><BR/>That STILL does not make American actions right, nor does it make them legal.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-57823311343163007972007-07-16T14:07:00.000+04:002007-07-16T14:07:00.000+04:00Keep safe, Truth Teller.Keep safe, Truth Teller.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-8303577520779215442007-07-15T16:31:00.000+04:002007-07-15T16:31:00.000+04:00Sorry every bodyI will be out of reach for the nex...Sorry every body<BR/>I will be out of reach for the next month.<BR/>See you later.Truth tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10184673505956673881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-75861076686760223582007-07-13T20:03:00.000+04:002007-07-13T20:03:00.000+04:00"I’m afraid, Madtom, that you’ll have to find me s...<I>"I’m afraid, Madtom, that you’ll have to find me specific EXAMPLES of where I expressed such an opinion."</I><BR/><BR/>What do you want me to do, quote back this entire dissuasion? Remember we are debating the legality, or lack there of, for the no fly zones, and how saddams action during that time lead directly to today's conflict.<BR/>You have during this whole debate made light of sddams actions and tried to paint the US as the aggressor. <BR/><BR/><I>"you know what … Saddam was by far the least worst option."</I><BR/><BR/>I rest my case<BR/><BR/><I>"There is no way to compare what Saddam did in 35 years with what the US and it's allies did in 4 years."</I><BR/><BR/>TT I don't have time right now, I'm on lunch break, but when I get back tonight I am going to quote back your own words, and we will see who is doing what to who.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-51698767185901979162007-07-13T13:03:00.000+04:002007-07-13T13:03:00.000+04:00Truth-Teller – Shukran for your comment. I find it...Truth-Teller – <BR/><BR/>Shukran for your comment. I find it amazing that our Amreekan friends are so obstinate about convincing YOU, an Iraqi, that your own eyes are lying to you. It really boggles my mind.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-13062709098756473632007-07-13T13:02:00.000+04:002007-07-13T13:02:00.000+04:00[madtom] “I never said that international law adop...[madtom] “I never said that international law adopted by the senate clashed with the constitution. I said that your interpretation of those laws and the UN charter clashed.”<BR/><BR/>No, Madtom, there is no clash. And my “interpretation” is correct. Again, you need to point out specifics.<BR/><BR/>[madtom] “Case in point. I doubt very much that the US will ever ratify the world court treaty.. Whatever it's called..”<BR/><BR/>That’s a complete red herring, sorry. <BR/><BR/>Just because the US made the UN Charters a part of its constitution, does NOT mean it has to automatically incorporate the World Court into that constitution. <B>IF</B> you agree to the WC (which would be a good thing IMHO) … <B>THEN</B> it becomes a part of your constitution, as a Treaty. But as pertains to the present discussion, it’s irrelevant.<BR/><BR/>[madtom] “Well in your case it would seem that anything saddam did made right. According to you he was as innocent as the wind blown snow, and it's the big bad US that is to blame for everything.” <BR/><BR/>LOL! Really? <BR/><BR/>I’m afraid, Madtom, that you’ll have to find me specific EXAMPLES of where I expressed such an opinion. You are going to find it hard to substantiate your lies, because unfortunately for you, I have not, and will not, express such an opinion. <BR/><BR/>Saddam did a lot of things wrong, and frankly I don’t think he was fit to be the ruler of a post-office, never mind a nation like Iraq. However, the truth is, that compared to the absolute chaos that the US has brought into Iraq, the sectarianism, the militias, the fight with Al Qaeda, the bloodsucking profiteers, the thuggish soldiers … you know what … <I>Saddam was by far the least worst option. </I><BR/><BR/>[madtom] “In our defense I would just point the reader to the history of the world prior to 1945 when the US took on the lead roll in world affairs and let the chips fall where they may.”<BR/><BR/>I <I>really don’t think that you want to go there, Madtom</I>. There are some NASTY surprises waiting for you back there. Here’s one of them:<BR/><BR/>“U.S. attacks into the countryside often included scorched earth campaigns where entire villages were burned and destroyed, torture (water cure) and the concentration of civilians into “protected zones” (concentration camps). Many of the civilian casualties resulted from disease and famine. Reports of the execution of U.S. soldiers taken prisoner by the Filipinos led to savage reprisals by American forces. Many American officers and soldiers called war a “nigger killing business”. […] From almost the beginning of the war, soldiers wrote home describing, and usually bragging about, atrocities committed against Filipinos, soldiers and civilians alike. Increasingly, such personal letters, or portions of them, reached a national audience as anti-imperialist editors across the nation reproduced them.[21]” <BR/><BR/>http://www.answers.com/topic/philippine-american-warBrunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-87404793348711052462007-07-13T10:49:00.000+04:002007-07-13T10:49:00.000+04:00madtom"Well in your case it would seem that anythi...madtom<BR/><BR/><I>"Well in your case it would seem that anything saddam did made right. According to you he was as innocent as the wind blown snow"</I><BR/><BR/>It is very clear that you are a looser. the discussion is not about Saddam, you behave exactly as our poppet government, when they are in trouble they said Saddam was so and so.<BR/> I will believe in you and your government whaen I see they behave the way the said, to stop the double standard in their policy.<BR/><BR/>I am non-politician, I can't keep in line with you in politics, but I feel what my people felt, There is no way to compare what Saddam did in 35 years with what the US and it's allies did in 4 years.<BR/>Ask the ordinary Iraqi people , not those who survive on the US presence.Truth tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10184673505956673881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-60556275377369162302007-07-13T01:44:00.000+04:002007-07-13T01:44:00.000+04:00Oh cry me a river.I never said that international ...Oh cry me a river.<BR/><BR/>I never said that international law adopted by the senate clashed with the constitution. I said that your interpretation of those laws and the UN charter clashed.<BR/><BR/>Case in point. I doubt very much that the US will ever ratify the world court treaty..Whatever it's called.. I forget.<BR/><BR/><I>"Might makes right,"</I><BR/><BR/>Well in your case it would seem that anything saddam did made right. According to you he was as innocent as the wind blown snow, and it's the big bad US that is to blame for everything.<BR/><BR/>In our defense I would just point the reader to the history of the world prior to 1945 when the US took on the lead roll in world affairs and let the chips fall where they may.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-31612548010524537862007-07-12T13:44:00.000+04:002007-07-12T13:44:00.000+04:00Again, Madtom, we are talking about international ...Again, Madtom, we are talking about international law, not US domestic law. My point is that the UN Charters are part of the "supreme law of the land" insofar as the US Constitution is concerned.<BR/><BR/>If you feel that the UN Charter clashes with authority granted to US legislative branches, you need to show how, and why, with reference to specific cases. <BR/><BR/>As I said again, the Charters are good laws, laws that the US itself helped create. It's just pretty sad that the US executive selectively ignores those laws when it wants.<BR/><BR/>How can it do this? <BR/><BR/>Easy. Might makes right, insofar as some people are concerned. It's a classic clash between legal restrictions and worldly power realities.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-37944296830882521952007-07-12T02:01:00.000+04:002007-07-12T02:01:00.000+04:00"The UN Charter is PRECISELY a "treaty "Yes Bruno ...<I>"The UN Charter is PRECISELY a "treaty "</I><BR/><BR/>Yes Bruno I know. But like I said it's your interpretation of the treaty that is the problem. If you tried to push your interpretation thru, someone would sue and the treaty would be vacated.<BR/><BR/>The specific powers granted to the branches can not be changed or modified by a treaty, they could only be modified by amendment. <BR/><BR/>You could try if you like, good luck.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-68923882600120117222007-07-11T15:22:00.000+04:002007-07-11T15:22:00.000+04:00[madtom] "WE here in the US do not for the most pa...[madtom] "WE here in the US do not for the most part subscribe to that radical interpretation of the UN or it's roll in international affairs or our collective security. Your interpretation is in fact un-constitutional and illegal in the US."<BR/><BR/>Madtom, I'm going to be kind to you here, and suggest that perhaps you have a, um ... limited understanding of your own constitution in that case. The UN Charter is part of it. Look it up and see.<BR/><BR/>Actually, no. I'll quote it for you:<BR/><BR/>Article 4, Clause 2:<BR/><BR/>"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."<BR/><BR/>The UN Charter is PRECISELY a "treaty made under the authority of the United States". The US was one of the original members that drafted it, to boot.<BR/><BR/>The UN makes PLENTY allowance for National sovereignty. The US is even "more equal" than most other countries by having a VETO on the most powerful body of the UN, the UNSC. And, I think that its a fair enough concession to the realities of global power balances that this is so.<BR/><BR/>The problem comes in where America thinks (as do you, apparently) that it has some sort of mandate from God to supercede the UN when and as it desires, when it can't achieve its aims through that organisation. The SAME organisation the US helped BUILD.<BR/><BR/>I'm thinking League of Nations, Germany about now.<BR/><BR/>Let's just hope I'm wrong.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-61354861765939166072007-07-11T04:41:00.000+04:002007-07-11T04:41:00.000+04:00"Let’s be rational for a moment, alright?"That is ...<I>"Let’s be rational for a moment, alright?"</I><BR/><BR/>That is the part that worries me. <BR/>What ever happened to your favorite word "sovereignty", by your interpretation of the UN's roll, the US, and every other country for that matter, would have to seed most of it to the UN. <BR/>WE here in the US do not for the most part subscribe to that radical interpretation of the UN or it's roll in international affairs or our collective security. Your interpretation is in fact un-constitutional and illegal in the US.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-68324451155573511342007-07-10T14:15:00.000+04:002007-07-10T14:15:00.000+04:00[bruno] "Saddam flew military jets over the US, Am...[bruno] "Saddam flew military jets over the US, America would be responsible for the ensuing war'<BR/>[madtom] “It would all depend on what actions America took.”<BR/><BR/>America would be 100% entitled to shoot them down. Sovereignty means sovereignty. Full stop.<BR/><BR/>[bruno] " that is United NATIONS – to decide on the appropriate action. Not America."<BR/>[madtom] “That is nonsense. Iraq was not at war with the UN. If Iraq failed to uphold the terms of the ceasefire, it was with the US and it allies not the UN.”<BR/><BR/>I rest my case. You’re an idiot. Iraq was PRECISELY at war with the UN, you dunce. My God, how long will it take for you to figure this out? THAT is the reason why the 1991 war was legal and THIS 2003 war was illegal. <BR/><BR/>Here:<BR/><BR/>“2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, <I>to use all necessary means</I> to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area;”<BR/><BR/>http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0678.htm<BR/><BR/>That is the money quote authorising “the US and its allies” to drive Hussein from Kuwait.<BR/><BR/>Let’s be rational for a moment, alright?<BR/><BR/>Israel for example, has flouted dozens of UN resolutions. Does that entitle <I>anybody</I> to go in there and steamroll the country? <BR/><BR/>Would that be legal? <BR/><BR/>NO. <BR/><BR/>Specific UN authorisation would be needed.<BR/><BR/>The Iraqi situation works the same way.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-2697843154497585682007-07-09T21:21:00.000+04:002007-07-09T21:21:00.000+04:00"Saddam flew military jets over the US, America wo...<I>"Saddam flew military jets over the US, America would be responsible for the ensuing war'</I><BR/><BR/>It would all depend on what actions America took. If we had lost a war to Iraq, and were still trying to threaten Canada, refused to abide by the ceasefire, were massing troops on the boarder, sending in small units to attack Canadian infrastructure, and just plain refusing to cooperate, and Iraq took action to protect it's ally Canada, then yes America would be guilty of needlessly prolonging the conflict and inviting an attack.<BR/><BR/>Anyone reading this can understand why these Bruno hypothetical are a waste on electrons<BR/><BR/><I>" that is United NATIONS – to decide on the appropriate action. Not America."</I><BR/><BR/>That is nonsense. Iraq was not at war with the UN. If Iraq failed to uphold the terms of the ceasefire, it was with the US and it allies not the UN. The UN is a diplomatic body where countries can take their grievances, but it is not the ultimate arbiter of all disputes. After failing to abide by 687 Iraq exposed itself to further hostilities.<BR/><BR/>And it was not just America, we had the British and even the French. I mean if even the French agree what do we need to go back to the UN for. The UN is not an independent body, but a grouping of nations. If you have already reached a consensus with members outside the UN what good does it do to go in, beyond exposing your self to delay after delay.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-8947043387573138362007-07-09T12:20:00.000+04:002007-07-09T12:20:00.000+04:00[madtom] “your still waving a piece of paper in th...[madtom] “your still waving a piece of paper in the air and claming that the US should not have flown the no fly zone flights. And that by doing so, was solely responsible for the saddams regime tactic of targeting and firing of US and British planes.”<BR/><BR/>Yes, that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. You have a little trouble in understanding the <I>meaning</I> of “sovereign” and the terms of Resolution 687. Your position is like me arguing that if Saddam flew military jets over the US, America would be responsible for the ensuing war if the US tried to shoot them down. That’s ridiculous. You clearly have no, repeat NO idea of what the legalities are in the matter, despite my pedantic step-by-step explanation of the facts.<BR/><BR/>[madtom] “Your telling me that your position is not appeasement?”<BR/><BR/>My position is one of upholding what is right and what constitutes international agreements and law. You’re making the argument that oath-breaking and treachery is a GOOD thing. No thanks.<BR/><BR/>[madtom] “Clearly Iraq had not in fact ceasefired, according to the UN.”<BR/><BR/>Even if I accept your interpretation, it is UP TO THE UN – that is United NATIONS – to decide on the appropriate action. Not America.Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-90723333965740838172007-07-07T08:15:00.000+04:002007-07-07T08:15:00.000+04:00"and to cross-border incursions, which threaten in...<I>"and to cross-border incursions, which threaten international peace and security in the region," </I><BR/><A HREF="http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm" REL="nofollow">688</A> April 1991<BR/><BR/>Clearly Iraq had not in fact ceasefired, according to the UN. <BR/>If you go in for that sort of fluff.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-91309024977789134282007-07-07T03:28:00.000+04:002007-07-07T03:28:00.000+04:00"There’s no “appeasement” or any other such twaddl...<I>"There’s no “appeasement” or any other such twaddle in 687. "</I><BR/><BR/>That distinction is irrelevant to our discussion here of your position, your still waving a piece of paper in the air and claming that the US should not have flown the no fly zone flights. And that by doing so, was solely responsible for the saddams regime tactic of targeting and firing of US and British planes.<BR/><BR/>I mean if that is not appeasement of tyranny, what is.<BR/><BR/>Nor dose it change the facts. Iraq fired on the US during the No Fly Zone flights, putting Iraq on a path to war, and giving the US every right to invade Iraq to take out the tyrant and his regime to remove the threat to world peace, energy supplies, and regional stability.<BR/><BR/>It was and still is in the US interest to support and protect our allies and the free flow or energy worldwide, not to mention the treat of Islamo fascist movement to the region and the world, as seen on 9/11 and 7/7, and the tube bombings, and last weeks attempts to kill civilians and tourist in a night club.<BR/><BR/>Your telling me that your position is not appeasement?madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-26889443623241138252007-07-06T12:52:00.000+04:002007-07-06T12:52:00.000+04:00[willbderd] “I said that the voerflights stopped t...[willbderd] “I said that the voerflights stopped the massacres, which they plainly did.”<BR/><BR/>No, you said:<BR/><BR/>[willbderd] “the crushing was far from over when the US began the overflights.””<BR/><BR/>There’s a big difference, right?<BR/><BR/>[willbderd] “A ceasefire does not end a war. The US remains at war with North Korea”<BR/><BR/>The North Korea situation is not analogous to the Iraqi situation. Perhaps I used the term ‘ceasefire’ a little liberally. Res 687 most definitely DID end the war. If you think it did not, then you need to quote from it in order to show where further action by MEMBER STATES was reserved. READ THE RESOLUTION.<BR/><BR/>[willbderd] “The US is not in violation of UN resolutions and won't be”<BR/><BR/>No, it most certainly is in violation of international law. If I murder somebody, is that act legal until I’m formally convicted? Of course not. The act is de facto illegal because I’m breaking EXISTING laws. Your position is equivalent to saying that breaking existing laws is legal, and that each and every illegal act must be formally ruled as being such before being against the law.<BR/><BR/><BR/>[madtom] “I can in my minds eye replace a vision of you for the picture of Chamberlain walking down from the plane waving a copy of Res 687 in your hand and proclaiming "peace in our time, peace in our time"<BR/>At the same time ignoring 10 years of facts and troop movements on the ground, or the aggressive stance of a tyrannical regime.”<BR/><BR/>That’s crap, Madtom. Res 687 set the basis for the disarming of Iraq which was accomplished through the imports control regimen and the inspections teams. There’s no “appeasement” or any other such twaddle in 687. <BR/><BR/>[madtom] “Peace in our time, for Bruno is the destruction of the US and it's position as te worlds only superpower”<BR/><BR/>Peace is the US realising that it does not need a global empire to prosper, and that in fact its enormous military expenditure would be best used to serve its own people rather than used on subduing other nations. My God, I’m sounding like a conservative, right?Brunohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11455545060335228501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9923676.post-62530453656515324302007-07-06T07:27:00.000+04:002007-07-06T07:27:00.000+04:00"Frankly I’m wasting my time with you."Believe me ...<I>"Frankly I’m wasting my time with you."</I><BR/><BR/>Believe me the feeling is mutual, yet I do see some benefit in our exchange. For the most part the story of Neville Chamberlain is just a historical curiosity to me, and I have on many occasions wondered just how anyone could have fallen for such nonsense. <BR/><BR/>But here we have you, Bruno, and I can in my minds eye replace a vision of you for the picture of Chamberlain walking down from the plane waving a copy of Res 687 in your hand and proclaiming "peace in our time, peace in our time"<BR/>At the same time ignoring 10 years of facts and troop movements on the ground, or the aggressive stance of a tyrannical regime. <BR/><BR/>So at least for me there is a leaning curve to our exchange, one which I value..<BR/><BR/>Peace in our time, for Bruno is the destruction of the US and it's position as te worlds only superpower, sort of like equality in the communist system is achieved by making everyone poor.<BR/><BR/>For the rest of us Peace will only come by raising the rest of the world up to our level, and by default sharing power with equals. The major difference being we believe there are equals to us out there, and you just don't.madtomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17609777902535328244noreply@blogger.com