That was my point.
>This is not the same as
>"opposing the ICC". In other words this is squirming on your part. You
>attribued a particular postion - opposing the ICC to Chomsky and others.
>Your evidence was lack of articles on the subject. When pointed out that
>that it was supported in a variety of articles, you call it "having your
>cake and eating it too".
But none have been supplied so I have not been corrected. In fact, my argument has been bolstered.
>In other words you are demanding that Zmag not
>only support the ICC but give the same priority to it, and the
>"backdown" that you do. This is why I was a bit patronizing. As
>lbo-talks official "typo boy" I was not patronizing your grammar, but
>your logic - which is normally better.
It's not the logic that's in dispute, it's the evidence or facts. Chomskyans argue that the US can do whatever it wants and does so, but hold on ... here's an instance where the unilateralists had to back down. Maybe things are changing in the post-cold war world.... If so you won't read about it in Z until it's a little more obvious.
Peter