Iraq

[prozak at anus.com]

> > 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.

this depends. if four men are arrested on a street for shooting guns, 
and all four were separate incidents, there will be comparisons among 
the prosecution (especially if race and class differences exist).

> >> 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.

isn't the UN sort of a lap dog for the USA, just like it was in the 
viet nam years?

cheers

SRP
-- 
Backup Rider of the Apocalypse
www.anus.com/metal/
DEATH AND BLACK METAL