Slash Boxes
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • So what law was selectively enforced?

    Yup, none.

    Not even a principle is being selectively enforced.
    • Unlike Iraq, Israel has shown not one shred of aggression with its weapons of mass destruction.
    • Unlike Iraq, Israel has not started/lost a war where it was forced to comply with disarmament as terms of the loss.
    • Unlike the UN inspectors, this guy was not a UN inspector, and committed treason according to all possible interpretations of the law. In any country, he would have been convicted of treason.
    • Sure sounds like a selective application of the Symington Accord, a.k.a. the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act of 1994 to me!

      The differentiating factors are the difference.
      Exactly! That's why the gubmint should stop calling these things "laws" and start calling them "demands we make of people we don't like this week".

      • by pudge (1) on 2002.11.19 5:42 (#14853) Homepage Journal
        Oh, I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a violation of any particular laws, only that there is not here a double standard. For it to be a double standard, we would have to apply the same standard differently to both. But we don't.

        The standards applied to Iraq, mentioned in the previous post, do not apply to Israel, and we don't apply the Symington Accord or Nuclear Nonproliferation Prevention Act (I thought they were different things?) to Iraq, that I've ever seen. Now, there is a double standard with Israel and other nations, such as North Korea and India, but not, from what I can tell, with Iraq. Iraq is a unique case because it lost a war, it has used its weapons both inside and outside of its nation, etc.