9/11 ATTACKS - Avoiding the hard questions

Discussion in 'Globalization' started by Solve et Coagula, Feb 25, 2006.

Page 4 of 4
  1. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dude, get your story straight. If you're anti globalist you're supposed to be against international law. They go together.
     
    Pointbreak, Mar 17, 2006
    #61
  3. ChanginTimes

    ChanginTimes Member

    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    0
    sorry buddy but it isn't as black and white as your simple mind would like it to be. I'd rather have "international law" than "one-world tyranny". Of course ideally I'd prefer "one world universal brotherhood" free of the NEED for international law. A world of peace and real security. But that wouldn't be exciting enough for you, would it?
     
    ChanginTimes, Mar 18, 2006
    #62
  5. Pointbreak

    Pointbreak Banned

    Messages:
    1,870
    Likes Received:
    1
    yeah nice try but your anti-globalisation loonies are fanatically opposed to international law applying to the US. If there is international law then there is a law above the US supreme court which means there is an international entity with power over the US. and you think the anti-globalists are OK with that?
     
    Pointbreak, Mar 20, 2006
    #63
Page 4 of 4
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...
    Dismiss Notice