Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 18:53:14 +0100
From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Rights




Hugh
Why - this is the sort of understanding and justification that Blair and 
Bush need to become popular, congratulations...

[why don't you critique your own historical inaccuracies... I simply 
cannot be bothered...]

steve

hbone wrote:

>Judy/All,
>
>Judy wrote:
>  
>
>>It's a troubling time--to witness the Labor leader, Blair, joining
>>forces with Bush to intensify the colonization process, and not to
>>know whether to hope he's defeated by the Conservatives, or to hope
>>Labor holds out.  The situation in the US is analogous, and
>>apparently intimately related, choosing between two versions of the
>>same agenda.
>>    
>>
>
>If one thinks the world is a better place without Osama in control of
>Afghanistan and without Saddam in Iraq, the question of whether or not our
>govts. deceived us (which they did) is less important than the question of
>the role US and Brits are to play in the future.  Blair's much-applauded
>speech was about the future.
>
>Should the U.S. maintain its hyperpower status or disarm and let Osama and
>Saddam or their associates, Saudis, Egyptians, as well as the North Koreans,
>continue to terrorize and de-stabilize the
>world.
>
>Although I believe in disarmanent as a long term goal for all countries, at
>present we need to unite the United Nations, financially strengthen and
>improve UN cooperation and administration, and get other countries to
>participate (via the UN)  more in Afghanistan and Iraq, so U.S. troops can
>be replaced avoiding the stigma of occupation.   US corporate operations in
>Iraq will continue with or without U.S. troops. A few might remain as part
>of the UN force
>
>The U.S. could then concentrate on the Israeli-Palestine roadmap, using
>military intervention if necessary.  After all, we did Germany, Japan, South
>Korea and  Bosnia, in the 20th century, and Afghanistan and Iraq more
>recently, and are said to presently have  troops in 120 countries.
>
>We must deal with North Korea by force or diplomacy, or both, and someday
>may even get around to taking care of 9 million unemployed soon-to-retire
>baby boomers, whose  Social Security is being used to finance the wars and
>the tax refunds for the top 1 percent who own 40 percent of the wealth.
>
>regards,
>Hugh
>
>
>  
>

HTML VERSION:

Judy/All,

Judy wrote:
  

It's a troubling time--to witness the Labor leader, Blair, joining
forces with Bush to intensify the colonization process, and not to
know whether to hope he's defeated by the Conservatives, or to hope
Labor holds out.  The situation in the US is analogous, and
apparently intimately related, choosing between two versions of the
same agenda.
    

If one thinks the world is a better place without Osama in control of
Afghanistan and without Saddam in Iraq, the question of whether or not our
govts. deceived us (which they did) is less important than the question of
the role US and Brits are to play in the future.  Blair's much-applauded
speech was about the future.

Should the U.S. maintain its hyperpower status or disarm and let Osama and
Saddam or their associates, Saudis, Egyptians, as well as the North Koreans,
continue to terrorize and de-stabilize the
world.

Although I believe in disarmanent as a long term goal for all countries, at
present we need to unite the United Nations, financially strengthen and
improve UN cooperation and administration, and get other countries to
participate (via the UN)  more in Afghanistan and Iraq, so U.S. troops can
be replaced avoiding the stigma of occupation.   US corporate operations in
Iraq will continue with or without U.S. troops. A few might remain as part
of the UN force

The U.S. could then concentrate on the Israeli-Palestine roadmap, using
military intervention if necessary.  After all, we did Germany, Japan, South
Korea and  Bosnia, in the 20th century, and Afghanistan and Iraq more
recently, and are said to presently have  troops in 120 countries.

We must deal with North Korea by force or diplomacy, or both, and someday
may even get around to taking care of 9 million unemployed soon-to-retire
baby boomers, whose  Social Security is being used to finance the wars and
the tax refunds for the top 1 percent who own 40 percent of the wealth.

regards,
Hugh