Back in the 70's, Iran was the threat even though they made a mess of things - executing their army top brass and killing and jailing their pilots. (What a shower, the lot of them are.) They also took US hostages and we had a disaster trying to rescue them. It didn't go the way it goes in the movies. Maybe Bruce Willis should have been brought in to run it.
Iraq was considered a stable country separating the Islamic countries. My God! They extended from Pakistan across the world - poking into the USSR - all the way to the environs of Saudi Arabia. Except that Saddam would keep things steady.
This "giving the green light" bit that keeps coming up is nonsense. We didn't like Iran, but sending Saddam's Soviet tanks there wasn't part of any deal. We didn't "allow" Saddam to invade Iran and Kuwait. It was his idea all the way.
But the US is condemned for not interfering, just as she is now condemned for interfering.
It's a tough world we live in.
But, not at dinner-time, when we will fill up on corned beef and cabbage. All I'm allowed to do is peel the potatoes (which is why our meals are so good). Perhaps it will be our last peace-time meal for a while.
Harry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray wrote:
Harry,
Journalist Robert Parry was vindicated by Oklahoma Republican Judge Walsh in the Iran/Contra Affair while he was lacerated by the major media which boycotted him. I have found him to be correct on almost every point from the CIA and Ollie North connection to the murder of hundreds of thousands of Mayan Indian People in Central America to putting drugs on the street in the Black Ghetto of LA. How's that for your own government using chemical warfare against a segment of the population?
When you look at only one side of a double deal, it always looks OK but the US was dealing from a revolving position of Democrats and Republicans supporting their own favorites. I don't know why the US government thinks that a good guy/bad guy routine is OK to play with other governments that don't change leaders as often and often get more professionalism from their Civil Service than we do with our mandated change. It puts our Baby President into such a double bind around competence that even a despot like Sadaam can make a fool out of them in the world courts. It does not help that Bush has shown that he is constitutionally incapable of building on anything the Clinton Administration, that defeated his Daddy, did whether in domestic or foreign policy. He came in with a loud mouth shooting down 8 years of careful work before he even examined it.
Bush has systematically threatened the environment, the poor, the elderly and the middle class and has publicly called into question US compliance with many International treaties (why should I as an Indian be surprised at that? because it used to be the Democrats who did such things but the racist militant Dixiecrats are now Republicans.).
Anyway, I think you are naive about the Iraq connection. I believe you are manifesting a typical attitude that causes the militant side of all governments to believe that it is OK for them to lie with impunity because everyone else is potentially a criminal. (Realpolitik) So pre-emption becomes OK whether in Watts, Bedford Styvesant, Wounded Knee, the New Jersey Turnpike or the Middle East. It is interesting that the conservative pundit William O'Riley had supported racial profiling until his Irish Catholic Tuchas was stopped by the Homeland Security. Reality is tough even for pundits.
Here is the Carter segment of Parry's article on consortiumnews.com. Just to show you that I can give equal disdain, I believe that Carter should have confessed this to the Nobel Committee and that would have given much more credence to his concern for world peace. As it is, it wasn't his finest hour.
At this point I would like to make one thing perfectly clear to the list. My position on this war is that the Bush administration will win it with no trouble whatsoever. Frankly, standing on the other side of an artillery barrage from 20 miles away coordinated by computer to begin simultaneously and continue on a rhythmic basis over a period of time is so unbelievably horrible that I can't imagine any but the fool not giving up. There is no luck in such a situation. I have no doubt that many of the ancient archeological treasures of the world will no longer exist and human history will have succumbed to the same mentality that destroyed the Buddist Statues in Afganistan. This is not a war. There is no escape from such a situation other than immediately giving up.
Guerilla Warfare is another matter completely. Unless you are willing to do what America did with my people, they cannot win a guerilla war. It is too random. Israel's only out in their guerilla war is to make peace and even then it is an iffy situation. The European Americans spoke about how they would end their war with my people:
The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they should die than live the miserable wretches that they are. History would forget these latter despicable beings, and speak, in latter ages of the glory of these grand Kings of the forest and plain that cooper loved to heroism.
We cannot honestly regret their extermination, but we can at least do justice to the manly characteristics possessed, according to their lights and education, by the early Redskins of America.
L. Frank Baum
I believe that, unless America is willing to exercise the annihilation doctrine they will ultimately lose in the Middle East simply because the Middle East is not Western in thought, tradition, language, culture or religion. We should not forget that what stopped the Americans at the border of Mexico was that they could not imagine annihilation of ten million Indians in the largest American Indian country in the world. We had the good sense to realize this in Vietnam and leave and today Vietnam still exists as a culture as reviewed in today's NYTimes Art section. Can you imagine what would have been the world opinion and historical result had we simply wiped them away in this era of information? The military can keep the press out for a time but eventually the archeologists will enter Iraq again and then we will be compared to the Turks who blew up the Parthenon or the Taliban and that comparison will be accurate. If we try to escape this without the annihilation doctrine and destruction of the countryside then we will lose like the large fish devoured by the school of smaller fishes.
As such I see no basis for warfare with Iraq, that has the ultimate possibility of any kind of success, that doesn't make monsters of us all.
REH
Carter's 'Green Light'?
This intersection of Saddam's wars and U.S. foreign policy dates back at least to 1980 when Iran's radical Islamic government held 52 Americans hostage in Tehran and the sheiks of the oil-rich Persian Gulf feared that Ruhollah Khomeini's radical breed of Islam might sweep them from power just as it had the Shah of Iran a year earlier.
The Iranian government began its expansionist drive by putting pressure on the secular government of Iraq, instigating border clashes and encouraging Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish populations to rise up. Iranian operatives sought to destabilize Saddam's government by assassinating Iraqi leaders. [For details, see "An Unnecessary War," Foreign Policy, January/February 2003.]
On Aug. 5, 1980, as tensions mounted on the Iran-Iraq border, Saudi rulers welcomed Saddam to Riyadh for the first state visit ever by an Iraqi president to Saudi Arabia. During meetings at the kingdom's ornate palaces, the Saudis feted Saddam whose formidable Soviet-supplied army was viewed as a bulwark against Iran.
Saudi leaders also say they urged Saddam to take the fight to Iran's fundamentalist regime, advice that they say included a "green light" for the invasion from President Carter.
Less than two months after Saddam's trip, with Carter still frustrated by his inability to win release of the 52 Americans imprisoned in Iran, Saddam invaded Iran on Sept. 22, 1980. The war would rage for eight years and kill an estimated one million people.
The claim of Carter's "green light" for the invasion was made by senior Arab leaders, including King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, to President Reagan's first secretary of state, Alexander Haig, when Haig traveled to the Middle East in April 1981, according to "top secret" talking points that Haig prepared for a post-trip briefing of Reagan.
Haig wrote that he was impressed with "bits of useful intelligence" that he had learned. "Both [Egypt's Anwar] Sadat and [Saudi then-Prince] Fahd [explained that] Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel," Haig noted. "It was also interesting to confirm that President Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd."
Haig's "talking points" were first disclosed at Consortiumnews.com in 1995 after I discovered the document amid records from a congressional investigation into the early history of the Reagan administration's contacts with Iran. At that time, Haig refused to answer questions about the "talking points" because they were still classified. Though not responding to direct questions about the "talking points," Carter has pooh-poohed other claims that he gave Saddam encouragement for the invasion.
But before the U.S. heads to war in 2003, both Carter and Haig might be asked to explain what they know about any direct or indirect contacts that would explain the Saudi statements about the alleged "green light." Saudi Arabia's longtime ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar also might be asked to give a complete account of what the Saudi government knows and what its leaders told Saddam in 1980.
Robert Parry Consortiumnews.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Pollard" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Keith Hudson" <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 01, 1999 4:13 AM
Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
> Ray,
>
> You said:
>
> "Good questions Harry but your knowledge of one element throws doubt on
> your whole argument. It is a well documented fact and I have posted to
> the list documentation from several news sources that Sadaam invaded Kuwait
> BECAUSE he had been driven bankrupt by the war with Iran where he served as
> a surrogate for the US."
>
> As I wrote to Keith a day or so ago: "Another point, not often mentioned,
> is the economic condition of Iraq after the war with Iran. It was a basket
> case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait had no other purpose than to fill
> Saddam's piggy-bank."
>
> You say a "surrogate for the US". Yet, Saddam's modern weapons were
> supplied by the Soviets in quantities. That is tanks, planes, and
> helicopter gun-ships. The French sold him 30 Mirage fighters armed
> with Exocets (those highly effective missiles used by Argentina against
> the Royal Navy. That was for the "Tanker War" that sent many ships to the
> bottom.
>
> Iraq used MiG-21s and MiG -23s, T-55 tanks and T-62 tanks, BM-21 Stalin
> Organ rocket launchers, and Mi-24 helicopter gunships.
>
> Did you say our "surrogate"? You've been reading too much propaganda.
>
> Actually, Iran used F-4 Phantoms, F5s, and a few F-14s to do a lot of
> damage inside Iraq.
>
> The US gave Iran a shipload or two of arms - I suspect mostly spare parts
> for their American weapons - but the Iraqis used modern Soviet arms. Oh,
> yes, Ollie brokered a deal via the Israelis to supply them with out-of-date
> Tow Missiles - but that's another story.
>
> Iraq used chemicals some 40 times against Iran (Iran claims). UN experts
> checked, found Iraq guilty and the UN, in 1986, told him to stop it. He did
> stop it until 1988 when he used chemicals against the Kurds, those in Iraq
> on the border with Iran.
>
> Those two guys who wrote the article diminished his culpability (and the
> number of casualties in the war).
>
> I prefer the conclusion of Dr. Phebe Marr , who stated that "the war was
> more immediately the result of poor political judgement and miscalculation
> on the part of Saddam Hussein," and "the decision to invade, taken at a
> moment of Iranian weakness, was Saddam's." (Look her up on Google if you
> wonder who she is.)
>
> Saddam had agents in Khuzestan inciting riots and suchlike. They expected
> the 5 million or so Arabs to rise against Teheran. Instead, the joined with
> the Iranian troops to fight the Iraqis. The Iraqis expected to take
> Khuzestan, a large province - which doesn't much confirm the Terrible
> Twosome's assertion that Saddam just wanted to take a small part of Iran -
> to perhaps make a statement.
>
> He smashed weak Iranian opposition and plunged ahead. The Iranians freed
> the jailed pilots and called upon the poor to help the army fight the
> invading Iraqis. Thus began the horror of "human wave" attacks by poorly
> armed people "from 9 to 50".
>
> (Some carried shrouds with them for their almost certain death.)
>
> But, they stopped the Iraqis - over-running their encampments - and drove
> them back to the border, where the stalemated slaughter continued over the
> 8 years of war.
>
> When Saddam makes a mistake, he makes a real big one.
>
> Harry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ray wrote:
>
> >Good questions Harry but your knowledge of one element throws doubt on
> >your whole argument. It is a well documented fact and I have posted to
> >the list documentation from several news sources that Sadaam invaded
> >Kuwait BECAUSE he had been driven bankrupt by the war with Iran where he
> >served as a surrogate for the US. Also he asked the US Ambassador to
> >explore the US policy with regard to invading Kuwait BEFORE he did
> >it. The Ambassador said that America would have no problem with it.
> >
> > Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither mindlessly
> > aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence supports
> > the opposite conclusion.
> >
> >Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with
> >Iraq's continued vulnerability. Iraq's economy, badly damaged by its war
> >with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause
> >of Iraq's difficulties was Kuwait's refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion
> >and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam
> >believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped
> >protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make
> >matters worse, Kuwait was overproducing the quotas set by the Organization
> >of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and
> >reduced Iraqi oil profits. Saddam tried using diplomacy to solve the
> >problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer
> >Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis "suspected that some concessions might be
> >necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum."
> >Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending
> >his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it
> >would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S.
> >Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "[W]e have no opinion on the
> >Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S.
> >State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special
> >defense or security commitments to Kuwait." The United States may not have
> >intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.
> >
> >Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious
> >violation of international law, and the United States was justified in
> >opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddam's
> >decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not
> >fail in this case; it was never tried.
> >The answer is no. Once again, a careful look shows Saddam was neither
> >mindlessly aggressive nor particularly reckless. If anything, the evidence
> >supports the opposite conclusion.
> >
> >Saddam's decision to invade Kuwait was primarily an attempt to deal with
> >Iraq's continued vulnerability. Iraq's economy, badly damaged by its war
> >with Iran, continued to decline after that war ended. An important cause
> >of Iraq's difficulties was Kuwait's refusal both to loan Iraq $10 billion
> >and to write off debts Iraq had incurred during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam
> >believed Iraq was entitled to additional aid because the country helped
> >protect Kuwait and other Gulf states from Iranian expansionism. To make
> >matters worse, Kuwait was overproducing the quotas set by the Organization
> >of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which drove down world oil prices and
> >reduced Iraqi oil profits. Saddam tried using diplomacy to solve the
> >problem, but Kuwait hardly budged. As Karsh and fellow Hussein biographer
> >Inari Rautsi note, the Kuwaitis "suspected that some concessions might be
> >necessary, but were determined to reduce them to the barest minimum."
> >Saddam reportedly decided on war sometime in July 1990, but before sending
> >his army into Kuwait, he approached the United States to find out how it
> >would react. In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S.
> >Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "[W]e have no opinion on the
> >Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." The U.S.
> >State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had "no special
> >defense or security commitments to Kuwait." The United States may not have
> >intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did.
> >
> >Saddam invaded Kuwait in early August 1990. This act was an obvious
> >violation of international law, and the United States was justified in
> >opposing the invasion and organizing a coalition against it. But Saddam's
> >decision to invade was hardly irrational or reckless. Deterrence did not
> >fail in this case; it was never tried.
> ><<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/>http://ww w.foreignpolicy.com/>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
> >
> >
> >An Unnecessary War
> >
> >By <<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html#bio>John>http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html#bio>John J.
> >Mearsheimer and
> ><<http://www.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html#bio>Stephen>http://w ww.foreignpolicy.com/wwwboard/walts.html#bio>Stephen M. Walt
> >
> >Jan/Feb 2003 Foreign Policy Magazine
> >
> >
> >
> >So Harry, I think you can never truly know an enemy until you understand
> >the rational and the best that he has done. Thus far this has been
> >embarrassingly amateur hack work. Its obvious that this administration
> >has little culture and a very poor knowledge of rational
> >history. Bookworms trapped in the library of their own inadequacies.
> >
> >Perhaps you could enlighten me about the enemy. I've listed the
> >questions before.
> >
> >What kind of society does he have compared to other despots?
> >What kind of Moslem is he?
> >Is his brutality common in his culture?
> >(Can we be sure that the deferential man that we had as a President and
> >CIA Director is not as brutal?)
> >
> >
> >The reason for being concerned is the ability to know the future of work
> >in Iraq. Sadaam replaced someone we didn't like only to become someone
> >we didn't like as well. The problem of culture is that America is
> >English and so is America's Democracy with a taste of Iroquois. Iraq is
> >not English and one would think that a people who had been in that area on
> >many different occasions would have a sense of how much of a possibility
> >for success GWB's pipe dream about Democracy in Iraq has. Or is English
> >culture just incapable of seeing other cultures as grown-ups and viable
> >alternatives to their native systems? We should remember that the only
> >Democracy and a socialist one at that, in the area is Israel. A
> >country filled with a common people that have been forced to learn the
> >ways of the entire world over a 2,000 year period. In spite of such
> >wisdom they still seem to be making a mess of it and resorting to the most
> >vulgar form of force betraying their own myths and morality and are in
> >danger of losing that which kept them alive as a people for two thousand
> >years.
> >
> >Remember America is a nation filled with a constant flood of escapees from
> >other systems. But its heart is stubbornly English. Might that
> >stubbornness become a liability in dealing with the real
> >world? Especially if we do not have a genius or scholar for a President
> >dealing with these sleazy world professionals at Realpolitik?
> >
> >What do you think Harry?
> >
> >REH
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Harry Pollard"
> ><<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailt o:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Keith Hudson" <<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Cc: <<<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 5:34 PM
> >Subject: Re: It's the testosterone (was Re: [Futurework] Powerful stuff!
> >
> > > Keith,
> > >
> > > One of the best programs on American television is "This Week" on ABC in
> > > the Sunday morning television ghetto - when no-one is watching.
> > However, it
> > > is good enough to have achieved a sizable audience over several decades.
> > > This morning we heard about 20 minutes of Colin Powell answering some
> > > provocative questions.
> > >
> > > The round table contains several people of different political believes
> > who
> > > argue persuasively but without acrimony. George Will is the conservative
> > > and he made, I think, a good point.
> > >
> > > He said that compared with containment, war will reduce the loss of
> > life in
> > > Iraq. The deaths happening now in Iraq over the next 10 years will be
> > about
> > > 1 million - of whom 600,000 are likely to be children. Ending this
> > > situation even with casualties will in effect save the lives of those who
> > > are doomed to die if nothing violent happens.
> > >
> > > It is easily tossed around that US sanctions are responsible for hundreds
> > > of thousands of deaths, yet this seems to me to be propaganda rather than
> > > reality.
> > >
> > > First, sanctions are the historical alternative to force. Mostly they
> > don't
> > > seem to work - though they are supposed to have been successful with South
> > > Africa. They were not successful against Mussolini's quest for the Italian
> > > Imperium and supremacy in the Mediterranean.
> > >
> > > This, in spite of the ineffectual League of Nations' imposition of
> > > sanctions that didn't include oil.
> > >
> > > Musso later said that had oil been sanctioned, the invasion of what is now
> > > Ethiopia would have stopped. I have no idea why the League didn't sanction
> > > oil - perhaps because Italian families would be without heat in the winter
> > > - I don't know.
> > >
> > > The year after he had finished mustard gassing the Abyssinians, Musso
> > > announced the "Rome-Berlin Axis" - thereby coining a name that persisted.
> > >
> > > The US stayed out of this, stimulating condemnation that they had
> > destroyed
> > > the League. There are eerie parallels between then and now - but certainly
> > > with a different outcome.
> > >
> > > The US sanctions are said to be responsible for the deaths of many
> > > children. But these are UN sanctions. Iraq has been able to export oil for
> > > most of the period since the Gulf War. It is sending out now about three
> > > quarters of the oil of the pre-war period. That should be sufficient to
> > > feed any children who are hungry. Except that it is being used for
> > Saddam's
> > > purposes, which do not give high priority to feeding children.
> > >
> > > Constantly in the news is the issue to Iraqis of five months food
> > supply in
> > > expectation of the coming conflict. Where did it come from? How can people
> > > be starving if there is that much food available? Well, it's probably
> > > propaganda anyway.
> > >
> > > On a point I rarely have heard mentioned in these discussions. The UN
> > takes
> > > 28% of the oil revenue for its expenses. That's a large lump that could
> > > surely feed a lot of children.
> > >
> > > Another point, not often mentioned, is the economic condition of Iraq
> > after
> > > the war with Iran. It was a basket case. Perhaps the invasion of Kuwait
> > had
> > > no other purpose than to fill Saddam's piggy-bank.
> > >
> > > Now to make an awkward segue.
> > >
> > > Your other remark is of great interest to me. How responsible are the
> > women
> > > and children for the activities of their government? Was Dresden just
> > > another part of Germany and were the people of Dresden as much responsible
> > > for those 65 million deaths as their rulers.
> > >
> > > How much "liberated" French art arrived in Dresden? Nothing seems more
> > > unnecessary than to have destroyed Dresden. Yet, should the people and
> > > their city be allowed to have a "good war" - relatively unaffected by the
> > > horrors that were suffered by so many scores of millions?
> > >
> > > Whether they like it or not, women are special. On them depends survival.
> > > Men are expendable - but women and children are protected. Their special
> > > position is why they come into the discussion, even though men are most
> > > likely to be killed.
> > >
> > > So, are they equally responsible with the men for how their country
> > behaves?
> > >
> > > In a dictatorship, they don't have a lot of chance to protest. But, most
> > > don't anyway. One recalls at the German death camps when Americans gave
> > the
> > > local townspeople a tour, they protested they knew nothing of what was
> > > going on. It was a lie.
> > >
> > > Keep your eyes averted and your nose clean and cover your ears. Does that
> > > make them responsible for the unleashed horrors? While they were enjoying
> > > their sylvan surroundings down the road from the concentration camp, more
> > > Brits were being killed than Americans, from a country one fifth the size
> > > of the US - plus another 100,000 Commonwealth deaths. I recall the horror
> > > and dismay when almost a thousand Canadians were lost at Dieppe. Not a
> > good
> > > day.
> > >
> > > But, that wasn't the fault of the German women and children, was it? The
> > > Nazi philosophy prevented the use of women workers in their factories at
> > > first, but later they were forced to recruit them. As women turned out
> > > bombs, were they not resp0onsible for the casualties eventually caused by
> > > the explosives?
> > >
> > > British women had a choice - they could work in a factory, or on farms in
> > > the Land Army. They didn't live in a dictatorship. This was the result of
> > > democratic law. Surely, in a democracy, if you produce bombs or rations
> > for
> > > soldiers, you are responsible for killing people?
> > >
> > > Should you be ashamed because 40,000 soldiers that you are supporting will
> > > soon be killing people?
> > >
> > > Should Americans be shamed because they will soon be killing women and
> > > children?
> > >
> > > Both countries are supposed to be governed by their peoples. Are their
> > > people responsible?
> > >
> > > It seems to me that philosophical libertarians have a point. They won't
> > > vote, saying that if they do they would be supporting a system with which
> > > they disagree.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I am simply the messenger with these thoughts. Can we talk about
> > > where responsibility begins and ends?
> > >
> > > Harry
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Keith wrote:
> > >
> > > >Harry,
> > > >
> > > >It's the testosterone that's doing it! At this stage of the war, all
> > sorts
> > > >of otherwise reasonable male politicians (as well as the male editor and
> > > >mainly male staff of the Economist) are becoming turned on and turning
> > into
> > > >rabid supporters.
> > > >
> > > >To the male of the species, war is the ultimate football game. Even I --
> > > >who believes he detests this coming war -- will be watching TV with
> > > >fascination as events unfurl.
> > > >
> > > >Shame on them for forsaking their rationality. Shame on them for
> > > >"justifying" the deaths of women and children in their rationalisations.
> > > >Shame on me for not having been more active in opposing this war. I should
> > > >at least have written to my MP to have given him my support. But I didn't.
> > > >
> > > >This is as corrupt and artificially concocted a war as any could be
> > and I'm
> > > >deeply ashamed of perforce being a party to it.
> > > >
> > > >Keith Hudson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >At 11:15 14/03/03 -0800, you wrote:
> > > > >Keith,
> > > > >
> > > > >I had just sent off my post to you when I turned to the Economist and an
> > > > >editorial on Saddam and the UN.
> > > > >
> > > > >I thought it was a pretty reasoned editorial. Check it at:
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=1 632521
> > > > >
> > > > >The Economist is also for getting on with it.
> > > > >
> > > > >Harry
> > >
> > >
> > > ******************************
> > > Harry Pollard
> > > Henry George School of LA
> > > Box 655
> > > Tujunga CA 91042
> > > <<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Tel: (818) 352-4141
> > > Fax: (818) 353-2242
> > > *******************************
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >----------
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system
> > (<<http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
> > >
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
>
> ******************************
> Harry Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
> Tujunga CA 91042
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
> *******************************
>
>
----------
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<http://www.grisoft.com>http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
>
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.462 / Virus Database: 261 - Release Date: 3/13/2003
