From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 19:42:13 MST
Lee Corbin writes:
> I need to read all the posts in a thread before replying,
> and wasting people's time.
>
Ah !
> John Clark wisely notes
>
> > "International Law" is a silly term anyway,....
..
>
> A student of history, I see.
>
> Ron adds
>
> > It is true that the League of Nations failed and now it appears
> > that the United Nations will fail also. For purpose of discussion
> > let me assume that the UN is dead and is just in the process of
> > final collapse
> > -- it is over but the shouting.
> (Lee)
> I wish to demur.
I wish to request that you use your considerable anaytical skills to
address these important issues of the day AND have some respect
for your fellow posters.
This for you should be very easy. Simply read and think before you
post. I know you can do both well but will you choose to? I get
worried when I see you opening up with a comment like you did
AND then then you start combining posts from John and Ron. This
sort of behavior unchecked will dumb down the content of the list.
Even bright people can say dumb things when they don't think.
I get worried that yet another worth while topic will be infected by
the "why I love being Lee Corbin" virus written and propagadated
by guess who?
Please Lee, if only you'd use your skills for good ;-) Threads in lists
are serial and you sometimes want to hog all the conversations at
once.
(You continue)
>I also thought that all the leftists were dead
> wrong when they gave for one reason not to invade Iraq: "It will
> mean the death of the U.N.".
Why?
>
> The U.N. will always be around. It will always be around just as
> it is now, and will always pass resolutions condemning someone or
> other.
Just as it is now, that seems very unlikely. Why do you say that?
> This is hardly a useless role. The weight of world opinion
> does matter.
>
> The U.N. will stay alive and in its essentially same position
> because and only because it will continue to be supported by
> Earth's major nations. India, Russia, the U.S., France, Germany,
> Japan, China, and the U.K. will continue to support it for the
> very same reasons that they always have. There is even a hope
> that its authority will grow.
Lee do you understand the current configuration of the Security
Council and its voting procedure?
>
> But it is a setback for the U.N. when it proved itself unable
> to back up its own resolutions.
It did not in fact so prove. On this you are dead wrong.
> And that's no one's fault but
> France, Russia, Germany, and China, the gang of four.
>
> Lee
I suspect the "Aitken Drum" persona has taken over again. Your
talking rot and I know you can do better. I look forward to
discussing this and other matters when you read some more or
slow down a bit and pick a piece you can actually chew over
in some depth.
Regards for you, (but not for the above post)
Brett Paatsch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 19:24:43 MST