« STOP ME IF YOU THINK YOU'VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE |
| Giving Skanks »
Posted by me on June 8, 2004 06:21 PM | Permalink
Is the word "sovereignty"? I'm getting less and less sure of its meaning in reference to the Iraqi government. I thought sovereignty was a yes or no answer kind of state of being, but I can see I was wrong. I'm probably misunderestimating someone again.
June 8, 2004 06:42 PM
It means 'without the support of france and germany'
June 8, 2004 06:58 PM
Everyone knows that "unilateral" means "doing the right thing at the wrong time".
June 8, 2004 07:07 PM
Algeria went along with it.
There must be something wrong with the resolution.
Laurence Simon |
June 8, 2004 07:17 PM
Maybe the new word should be "unanimalateralism."
Some canards just won't die.
June 8, 2004 08:11 PM
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious. I keep using it and I still don't know what it means.
June 8, 2004 08:16 PM
One is reminded of the occupations of Japan and Germany in which they enjoyed limited sovereignty. And, even after the received full sovereignty they executed "Status Of Forces Agreements" which detailed the status of the former occupying powers. In the final analysis, both countries received the protection of the United States military umbrellas.
It's what happens when you lose a war. You don't get all your toys back until you can prove that you're a grown up. It is obviously a concept that is hard for some here to grasp since they have never grown up and prefer word games and tantrums to adult behavior.
June 8, 2004 10:12 PM
Let's see what I've learned about Iraq from watching most news sources:
This is all so obvious now.
June 8, 2004 10:30 PM