Glad to see the Iraq issue raised by Ian Maxey and others. The whole
situation is clearly riddled with inconsistencies. Why enforce UN
Resolutions on Iraq, not on Israel for example? Why are the USA so
concerned with the nature of the Iraqi regime and not that in
Indonesia for example? The answers of course lie in the
politic-economic-strategic considerations of the USA and what is
happening has little to do with the UN which, as in the previous Gulf
War, is being used by the US as a convenient cloak for its own
aggressive actions. There is no denying the unsavoury nature of the
Iraqi regime but reports seem to suggest that it has/is prepared to
make certain concessions. Ominously however, in an echo of the
previous crisis, the USA is demanding an 'all or nothing' compliance.
Would Britain or the US tolerate the humiliation of having inspection
teams from other countries checking out their weapons sites.
Incidentally why is it all right for the US to possess the capacity
to destroy the world but not all right for Iraq to possess similar
capability?
I think it is particularly depressing to see the British
government, supposedly committed to an 'ethical' foreign policy, (Ha,
ha) behaving as Clinton's lap-dog. The New World Order of Bush's
Republicans is clearly safe in Democrat hands.
One final thought: are we about to see many Iraqi people die in
order to detract attention from the accusations surrounding Bill
Clinton's sex life?
Dr. David Storey
Geography Department &
Centre for Rural Research
Worcester College of Higher Education
Henwick Grove
Worcester WR2 6AJ
England
Tel: 01905 855189
Fax: 01905 855132
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|