The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] The Sweeney.

Dear Felicity & List,

The 'scholarly bit' was in your message. As for my own wording, 'biased'?
Quite possible. 'One-sided? Likewise. The 'rant',
for which I make no apologies, was, at least, my own. - What worries me
about your List writings, Felicity, is that it looks like, in your books,
official Iraq is incapable of ever doing anything wrong. Speaking
personally, if I am questioning  or critical about the UK/US governments,
why should I not be allowed to use similar criteria for Iraq? So much for
'one-sided rant'!
Greetings,  Bert.

>From: "farbuthnot" <>
>To: Bert Gedin <>,,
>Subject: Re: [casi] The Sweeney.
>Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:06:42 +0100
>But where was the 'scholarly bit' this was a biased, by definition, one
>sided,  rant - best, f.
> >
> > Hi - It hasn't been my intention to make out that Sweeney had all the
> > answers, and provided them. First-hand knowledge IS very important. It
> > also possible, I believe, to make up for lack of personal first-hand
> > know-how, yet to become quite 'expert' at something (certainly not me!).
> > can write a scholarly book, e.g. on the Roman Empire, or on the Spanish
> >

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]