first you attack the author, a recognized and bonafide expert in international law, simply because he has a different p.o.v. from yours. then you attack me for posting his expert analysis. but neither of these are the point. the point is that you, who in a previous post implied you are the board expert in international law did not refute a single point in the article. this is beyond weak.
warm regards,
gramps
This message has been edited 1 time(s).