Iraq

[jbor]

on 8/2/03 2:43 AM, The Great Quail at quail at libyrinth.com wrote:

> First, there are numerous other unjust and murderous regimes out there; so
> why select Iraq? 

This is such a dud argument. There is not one system of jurisprudence, not
one defence attorney, who would even think to countenance a case on this
basis: "Your Honour, whether or not my client is guilty is irrelevant. There
are many other criminals who are just as guilty who are not being tried in
this court, ipso facto it's erroneous and unjust to try my client at this
time. I demand that we arraign the prosecutor instead." It's a load of
bollocks.


on 8/2/03 4:40 AM, prozak at anus.com at prozak at anus.com wrote:

>>> My favorite tactic on this one is stripping away the politics and
>>> asking, "What do we hope to accomplish here?"
>> 
>> http://serendipity.magnet.ch/more/sc_res_1441.htm
>> 
>> As I've stated already a couple of times, I'm hopeful that the UN directives
>> can be satisfied without the need for military intervention.
> 
> This doesn't directly address my question. There's still no firm
> statement of policy in the White House explaining why some nations
> can have nukes and others can't.

I thought you were addressing me. By "we" I was referring to the
international community. The UN's aims vis à vis Iraq are quite clearly
stated. The US (not "we" from my perspective, or from the perspective of
anything I've written on this subject) might have additional or different
motivations.

best