From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Dec 17 2004 - 15:43:29 GMT
Hi Sam,
Just received (0720 PST) your response to my attempt to refute the
now famous Norton 8-Prong. Before we get further into the
legalities, I think we can save a lot of time if I can get an answer
to the following:
Would you agree, given the clear history of US violations of
International Law whenever IL "got in the way" of US realpolitik,
that any US pose as defenders of IL is absurd?
If so, how can you believe your own claim that the US worked in good
faith within the framework of International Law at arriving at it's
"conclusion" that IL had failed?
My point is, the decision to invade Iraq had been made SIX MONTHS
before it occurred, as this much time was necessary to move resources
into position. My point is they had no attention of following IL,
regardless of how pristine the protocol. Do you REALLY believe they
would not have invaded if the SC had vetoed the US resolution? It
seems to me, If they were at all concerned with following IL, they
would have let the veto occur and then cite it as more evidence of
their position that IL had failed, and make such an argument WITHIN
the accepted framework.
More later,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 17 2004 - 18:07:38 GMT