Sorry but you are wrong. Why is it you see NO difference in publicly espousing to the world the moral right of your cause and presenting your nation as the shining example of all that is right and good in the world and China who has never claimed to do anything but protect and expand its sphere of influence ???
Why is it you have a population screaming for more Nuclear power plants for production of electricity when that same population wants to deny that same right to other equally Sovereign states ?? Is fear they may do that which you already have ?? Why is it the US can try to invoke the Monroe Doctrine (they are the only signators to this self protecting ideal) yet when nations with EQUAL rights to do so elsewhere do just that the US cries most foul ?? Just what is it that gives you (US) the "right" to intervene and negates that "right" for others on issues they find most offensive ?? So, in the end you did indeed twist the words to suit your own ends and continue to do so. Why ?? On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:17 AM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > The second point here is Mark I did NOT twist your words... I claimed > your facts were wrong... You claim that I twisted your words when you > facts were clearly wrong is in fact twisting MY words... > > Mark ask "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who twists the words" > > Subservient mirror "Not you" who was thinking "of course it's you > bub"... > > On Apr 8, 5:12 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > If you want to quote me do so correctly. It is NOT difficult... unlees > your > > point needs to twist the words in order to be made. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 2:21 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The first to ignore the UN??? Many did so pre 1980... Shall we list > > > them, even European nations??? > > > > > On Apr 8, 2:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If I'm not mistaken the US does not consider six men (Che had > resigned > > > from > > > > ALL Cuban service) talking politics and basicallly starving in the > > > outback > > > > to be a reasonable threat... in this case there is no point to be > made by > > > > you. As far as some of the other excursions made by Cuba during their > > > > "foreign travels", those soldiers were on loan to the Soviet bloc.... > Is > > > the > > > > US responsible for UN actions ?? > > > > > > And as far as deserving to be convicted... what difference does it > > > make... > > > > the first to openly ignore the UN was indeed, you guessed it, the US > > > under > > > > Raygun Ronnie, when he unilaterally pulled the US from the ICJ > > > jurisdiction > > > > AFTER being convicted and an 18 billion dollar (still unpaid) verdict > > > > was rendered for war crimes............ > > > > > > How soon the right points fingers forgetting they paved the way. > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 11:36 AM, dick thompson < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > What a contortionist you libs are. You think Castro was invited > into > > > > > Bolivia when he sent Che there? You think he was invited when he > sent > > > his > > > > > people to the other countries? > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > Should they ??? No. He has not made a single overt or covert move > > > > > outside his borders that did not include an invitation of another > (the > > > > > affected) sitting sovereign government. That would be the US method > > > > > and why the Spanish feel they have a right to act. > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 10:42 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You didn't answer my question. Should the US courts indict Castro? > If > > > > > he then showed up in NYC to speak at the UN he could then be > arrested. > > > > > Do you support that? > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > They have the right to reach internationally on affairs they think > > > > > affect or affected their interests in any way. > > > > > > > Gee, the US does just that as well. > > > > > > > On Apr 8, 8:33 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > So then you would be with the program if the US courts put out an > > > > > indictment against Castro or Mugabe or Putin? That would be just > > > > > hunky-dory with you? > > > > > > > There was a reason that Saddam was tried in the Iraqi courts, not > the > > > US > > > > > courts and that reason was the legal one that the Iraqis were > setting > > > up > > > > > a Republic and had jurisdiction. > > > > > > > How on earth does Spain have any jurisdiction over the US > officials in > > > > > any way, shape or form. In fact how did they have any jurisdiction > > > over > > > > > Pinochet for that matter. This is little men playing games and > trying > > > > > to act as if they were big men - just like this rookie president we > are > > > > > stuck with now. > > > > > > > THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote: > > > > > > > Someone has to. > > > > > > > On Apr 7, 8:31 am, dick thompson <[email protected]> < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > http://online.wsj.com/video/spanish-court-weighs-charges-against-form...- > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
