Why is it that people miss that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was made with a country that no longer exists? Any treaties that are made with any country that ceases to exist are null and void automatically.
JKJ On Thursday 09 January 2003 10:53 pm, bones wrote: > Hell, everybody has strong feelings about this subject. I have resisted > long but this post is really way beyond. > > Imagine: > > There are two countries, X and Y. > > - X has made war to two other countries (to one of them with strong support > by Y) and shot rockets against a third, it is _suspected_ to have weapons > of mass destruction. > > (Todays news tell me though that it is _not_ likely they do, or even did - > is the news in america different?) > > - Y is proven to _have_ weapons of mass destruction, is the only country > that has actually used it and is willing to do so again. (see below: [1]). > Has recently one-sidedly _broken_ the ABM treaty with russia to reduce > nuclear weapons on both sides (Y is now stronger so the treaty is > obsolete). [2] Y possess biological/chemical weapons and has recently > ignored another international treaty they signed in 1972 that bans b+c > weapons [4] . They have repeatedly attacked and invaded other > (democratically elected) countries. [3] > > --- Which one is more dangerous? --- > > > Do you sometimes question yourself and your position? How comes your are so > self-righteous? > > "You are with us or against us" what a shit! I am against Bush _and_ > Fundamentalists, because they are basically the same to me. > > Some people may have hurt your feelings - well that's sad. But your country > is going to _kill_ people - not just hurt their feelings. > > Is it better to kill than to cope with opposing views and maybe discover > that you are wrong? > > > p. > > But well it _is_ true that this is the place to discuss opposing views > about KDE and Gnome.... I just couldn't let it stand like this. > -------------- > [1] > "The Pentagon's newly revised, secret-but-leaked "nuclear posture review" > lists not just one or two, but at least seven nations that may conceivably > qualify as targets for nuclear attack by the United States. The potential > bull's-eyes include not only the usual "axis of evil"-also known as Iran, > Iraq and North Korea-but Libya and Syria, as well as our "friends" in China > and Russia." > government site: > http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/arms/stories/01121302.htm (and) > bbc :http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1707812.stm > > [2] > "The United States has given Russia formal notice that it will withdraw > from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in six months, President Bush > said December 13." > links: same as above > > [3] > "IRAN 1953 > CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah. > > INDONESIA 1965 > Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected > government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost. > > CHILE 1973 > CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator > installed. > > Turkey > By means of repetitive coups the US-backed army has ousted the > democratically elected parties for several times." > > http://www.countries.com/messageboard/messages/688.html > (or) > http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm > > [4] > "The Bush administration has found another international agreement to > spurn. This time it's a draft agreement to enforce a 1972 treaty banning > biological weapons, an agreement backed by Britain and other European > countries." > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,494257,00.html -- J. Kelley Jernigan
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
