Russell Sherman wrote: > Pardon me, but does this stance read like "If you threaten us, we'll call > your bluff" to anyone else? > > >From: "J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Iraq Vows Not to Abide by Any New U.N. Vote > >Limiting Agreement to Existing Terms Suggests Baghdad > >By Rajiv Chandrasekaran > >Washington Post Foreign Service > >Sunday, September 22, 2002; Page A28 > > > > > >BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 21 -- Iraq said today that it > >would not abide by any new U.N. Security Council > >resolution that differed from the country's prior > >agreements with the world body. The announcement > >suggested that Baghdad would refuse to comply with > >weapons inspections if the council authorized the > >United States and other nations to use military force > >against Iraq.
> > <snipped rest of article> This whole terrorist/iraq deal is becoming more and more McCarthy (sp?) flavoured to me. A lot of posturing and big noble (ehum....) words. Form this side of the pond it looks like deflecting interest and deliberate spreading of feelings of unsafety. Added benifit seems to be that it becomes possible to generally limit personal freedom and halt the ongoing globalization. I mean there are already occuring infringements on personal freedom. Maybe not to all layers and ethnisticities of the population, but some are realy starting to feel the heat. And as for general justification of some of the totally arbitrary arrests of ethnic looking people there is a "better safe than sorry" attitude that prevails among the FBI, with bystanders nodding to the tune. Maybe not long now and anybody who's ever been "caught" talking to someone remotely suspected of being in contact with a moslim will be ostracised? Just my two Eurocents. Sonja _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
