From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com> Subject: Re: FYI: Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:27:50 -0800 Henry > >Ha ha ha!!! I just knew you would blame it on the French. > > Did you watch any of the news interviews with French representatives before > the war? I watched at at least 5 or 6 in which the French official was asked > repeatedly whether resolution 1441 had been breached (paragraphs 3 and 4). > Every time, they would not answer yes or no. All they had to do was say that > it had been breached, but that the inspectors were on top of the situation, > so American unilateral action was not necessary. But they wouldn't even > acknowledge the obvious - that paragraphs 3 and 4 had been breached, and > kept trying to skirt the question. That is a dead giveaway that what they > were worried about wasn't the war, but something else... It was impossible for Iraq not to breach this resolution, and still we find the same. So what... there were no WMD. I can see this used as an excuse for many other invasions. Well let us just invent reality, and find some pretext for invasion. After all Perle. has admitted the US was acting illegally in invading, and declares it self having the soveign authority to engage in illegal acts. The problem is that now the US is acting as though it were God...and opposites strike (Sankara). We'll see if there is any improvement. The one thing that the US is pining on (Bush Admin.) is lower costs to consumers of oil and gas; however the cumulative cost of the war so far is over $2000 USD per capita, not exactly is that cost going to be recovered easily at the pump; meanwhile the rest of the non-aggressive nations will also benefit with lower costs at the pump. Any wonder why the Bush Administration has sacked so many laws and regulations for fuel efficiency, clean air, et cetera? The business plan was not prepared using consultants who were 'unbiased' as to the outcome since Haliburon, Chevron Taxico (or Toxico) would not have it otherwise, now would they. I don't think the Bush Administration has a plan beyond the next electral term anyway so why would it be washing it's hands now of Iraqi blood? Admitting that an illegal act was performed is not the same as admitting wrong doing, which the Bush Administration has not done yet. It may in part end up doing that. chao john > > Now, what would you do if the police selectively enforced their laws, and > you found yourself one night the victim of someone for whom the laws were > not enforced? Would you take matters into your own hands due to the > intransigence of some police, even if it meant breaking the law in some > situations? Or not? > > Anthony Crifasi > > _________________________________________________________________ > From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, you'll find a > range of helpful holiday info here. > http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx > > > > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005