On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 21:26:25 GMT, I read these words from
russj41@concentric.net (MacHamish) :


It'd one thing not resisting the temptation to respond
but what I was referring to in the other thread was
language which wouldn't have been out of place in alt.flame
or s.c.s. of a previous era !

I will not mention the International Criminal Court in the Hague !
I shan't, I shan't, I shan't !

AFAIU. There are certain cryptic phrases used by the politicos
in such matters, "serious consequences" being only one.
Again AFAIU that is not the phrase normally used when war
is a consideration / possible outcome.


Errrrr, so did the UK at one point. When it became obvious that it
wasn't going to happen, our lot changed tack.
Blair stated in the House of Commons (transmitted on live TV)
that we would not go to war without that second Resolution !
(It must be recorded in Hansard)

And the US / UK ones were (altruistic) ?
Pull the other one, it plays "Jingle Bells" !

There was a list published way back at the end of last year.
It had both US and UK companies on it.
Sorry, I no longer have the source but as I recollect it was discussed here at the time.


It's as valid as what's been coming out of Washington and London !

I don't believe so but you know what happens on Usenet.
Criticising the actions of the Israeli government labels you as such.

I don't dispute that the world would be a better place without him
(and others of his type) BUT why the enormous smoke and mirrors
job trying to justify the action ? Why all the lies ?

Admittedly much less so in the US than here. Bush stated his intention
quite clearly. Blair had to "invent" reasons for his actions.

Did you read the article at : http://www.sundayherald.com/36794 ?


Red herring, old buddy.
I was referring to the lack of consistency on the part of the UK / US
/ UN in taking action against "transgressors" of UN Resolutions.


I totally agree as I stated above..


France, Germany and all the others *should* have been "on-side" before
any move was made. The arguments put forward failed to convince many
people, not just Chirac and Schroeder.
We have yet to see any logical reason (except the weather window) as
to why there was such undue haste to pull out Blix and his team and launch the attack.


A "pie in the sky" scenario fostered by the hawks.
Our glorious entry into Baghdad will be a re-run of Paris in 1945 !

There was always the possibility that it would be more like Saignon
thirty years later. But that alternative didn't suit the argument, so
it was brushed under the carpet.


Much better ? As in,
Only two of our guys killed today ?
Electricity was on for three consecutive hours ?
There was a tanker of fuel delivered ?


I don't dispute that possibility. It's the short to medium term
that's the problem.

-- The Despicable Stewart
-- Perfidious Alban
-- http://www.ian-stewart.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/informer.htm

russj41

Perhaps I misread it. I took it that you were calling for a cessation of
the arguments, as you have done in the past. I'm not convinced you weren't.

No, no, no. Please do mention the ICC. It gives me an opportunity to point
out again the selective political nature of the court, which is the very
reason the US declined to sign on.
<snip 1441>


At least the US/UK had some cover, i.e., Saddam's violations of previous UN
resolutions, his vile mistreatment of his own people, and the possibility
of his WMD's getting into the hands of terror groups. France was holding $7
billion in IOU's and a contract to develop oil fields for Saddam. Russia
stood to lose its best customer for proscribed weapons. Same with Germany.
<snip>

Not by me. That's why I asked.


How can you be so sure they were *all* lies?

Not until now. What's the point? Nothing new is revealed here. It's just
another anti-Blair/Bush op-ed piece. The UK media is replete with them these days.

At least you included the UN in your listing. Tell me what the UN has done
to stop the murderous transgressions of Arafat and his terrorist gangs. How
many UN resolutions are that calling for the end of suicide bombings and the
indiscriminate killing of civilians? How many peace initiatives has Arafat
scuppered?

See what I mean about the selective, political nature that has come to be
the nature of the UN? No wonder the US rejected the ICC.

And I stand by what I stated above. So, what next?


The US and UK believed they were "on-side". After all, 1441 passed
unanimously. AIRI, there was behind the scenes diplomacy to get them
on-side. However, Chirac blindsided the US/UK side by leading it to believe
he would support the addional resolution and then condemning it when it was
tabled. Putin did much the same thing. As for Schroeder, well, he doesn't
count for much except as an annoying little gnat.


That's just disingenuous of you, Ian. I've never seen or heard anyone on
the US/UK side say anything remotely like that.


You could have preceded that with "IMO".


The infrastructure for power and water wasn't all that good before the war,
either. It's not that easy to repair facilities and equipment that were
neglected for years by an incompetent and oppressive regime that favored one
minority element of the population at the expense of the other elements.
But I'll grant you that more oil was getting delivered on the black market
in order to line the pockets of the Baathists and allow Saddam to build ever more opulent palaces.


Nobody said it was going to be easy.

I see the UN compound was blown up again today for the second time. The
thugs will stoop to anything. Maybe this will get the UN "on-side".

MacHamish Mór