 |
 |
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 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%