On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 13:31:06 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:36:59 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim Ward wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...

How can I get through to you that whatever reasons he had for
invading
Iraq (and most of us have a shrewd idea what they were), the reason
he
gave was the 45 minute one.

I don't recall that being mentioned at all until the media started
hyping it
up after the war.

I do. And I have gven reasons why it was used. Only a real and
immediate
threat to national securiry is a legally valid excuse for a war.

Korea? Sierra Leone, Bosnia? etc, etc.

Miltary actions sanctioned the UN or NATO, in which UK forces
participated in accordance w/ treaty obligations and agreement w/
treaty partners. *Very* different from Iraq where - no matter that
the outcome is a Good Thing - the US and the UK invaded a sovereign
country under two pretexts:

They conformed to a UN resolution.

- that Iraq had contravened UN sanctions (which it had; however, the
overwhelming majority of the members of the UN did not support
military action on the timescale dictated by the coalition leaders)

Still conformed to a UN resolution.

You know very well that there was not UN support for the action taken.






I saw parliament on TV just now. Dennis Skinner was v good.

I can think of a number of adjectives in connection with Dennis
Skinner, but I wouldn't include "good" among them.

Points that
came up. No us having committee after committee looking into matters going
over the same thing. Skinner said the lot opposite won't be satisfied until
the government is out

That is stating the obvious. It is the job of the opposition to
present an opposing view to that of the government of the day.


(that is their aim, as Iraq is not really a big issue
with them).

Of course it's a big issue. The government misled the House and the
people.

The idiots and their right wing press hailed Hutton just before
the results came out. When the results did not suit them they called him a
liar, biased, and other assorted insults. What a bunch of saddos.

I suspect that you would have said the same thing regarding Hutton had
he flipped the coin the other way and believed the position of the
others involved and not that of the government.

This is the same whitewash and phony logic that starts with the
conclusion desired and selects the events to lead to it.

The Queen of Hearts did this in Alice in Wonderland -

"Sentence first, trial afterwards".

Except that here, the situation is rather more serious.







..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl