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]
"... If the United Nations really wants to do something for the world it should leave George Bush to clear up the mess he created in Iraq and let him suffer the electoral consequences at the polls next year. This is a win-win situation; don't deploy any troops and help bring about regime change in the rogue state of America. "Oh they won't get rid of me that easily ..." says Dubya. "I'm too clever for that. I'm George W Bush. The W stands for 'smart'. " http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1036053,00.html Hey, let's call in the UN The Hutton inquiry is a complete sideshow to the real issue: did America and Britain have a legal right to go to war without the backing of the UN? John O'Farrell Friday September 5, 2003 The Guardian Lord Hutton was at a dinner party the other evening and somebody asked: "So have you been following all this Hutton inquiry stuff?" And Hutton replied: "Well, I started to read it when it began, but I can't be bothered with it all anymore." "I know what you mean, there's just so much of it isn't there? Pages and pages in the bloody newspaper - we're bored to tears with it all." "Somebody mentioned it at work the other day but everyone was so uninterested that we ended up chatting about the cricket instead." "What work was that?" "Oh, you know, the Hutton inquiry." The reason that the deliberations at courtroom 73 are even less thrilling than ITV's Rosemary and Thyme, The Gardener Detectives, is because it's all a complete sideshow. The real issue is: did America and Britain have a legal right to go to war without the backing of the United Nations? An inquiry into that would be a short one: it doesn't take long to say "nope". Yet strangely this week has seen a u-turn in George Bush's attitude to the United Nations. At last he has seen the error of his ways and is now keen to see UN troops deployed in Iraq as soon as possible. How wonderful it is to have an American president committed to international law and global democracy. French fries are back on the menu! Thank God, says Mrs Bush, no more Californian champagne! Of course, some sceptics out there will probably say that Bush only wants an international force involved now because he's realised that lots of American soldiers are still being killed and this is damaging his popularity rating in the run-up to next year's presidential election. Honestly, the cynicism of some people never ceases to amaze me! As it happens, he was prepared to put American soldiers in the most dangerous parts of Iraq, but this plan was abandoned when he was told that there was no way of ensuring that these troops would be Democrat voters from Florida. George Bush is being very magninimous by bringing in the UN at this most dangerous time. Indeed, his concern for international cooperation is such that he is prepared to hand over all sorts of other jobs of great importance to non-Americans. "Say, guys, Nasa is a bit worried that the Challenger might blow up again, so we think it would be wonderful gesture to have some United Nations astronauts on board for the test run. Oh, and we need someone to go into the gangland of downtown Los Angeles and take all the guns and flick-knives off the Crips and the Bloods - as a gesture of goodwill we would like to hand this job over to the United Nations as well. Oh, and the jury in that big mafia trial have all had death threats - I think what the global community needs now is UN jurors." Having not been involved in the decision that created the lethal chaos in Iraq, it's hardly surprising that the UN is unenthusiastic about being brought in to clear up the mess. It's the same argument as before, with the positions completely reversed. George Bush is saying: "We cannot simply bypass the United Nations on Iraq," and Kofi Annan is insisting: "No, please, the UN has failed to fulfill its historic purpose, so I really feel this job must fall to America." In fact, many other countries have already been persuaded to deploy troops, including Lithuania, Honduras and Mongolia. Even the Albanian army is now in Iraq. Ha! What chance does the enemy stand now? The Albanians have promised to bring in their army's mobile unit as soon as they get her back from the donkey sanctuary. Oh, and the Lithuanian army has promised to bring his friend. But the response has been less positive from more developed countries, where the national leaders have answerphones. In a few months' time they'll bump into Bush and say: "Oh George, hi, apparently you left some sort of message about us sending troops to Iraq or something? You know what, I think the message must have been wiped off, because we would have been there like a shot if we'd known. Such a shame, remind me to switch to voicemail ..." If the United Nations really wants to do something for the world it should leave George Bush to clear up the mess he created in Iraq and let him suffer the electoral consequences at the polls next year. This is a win-win situation; don't deploy any troops and help bring about regime change in the rogue state of America. "Oh they won't get rid of me that easily ..." says Dubya. "I'm too clever for that. I'm George W Bush. The W stands for 'smart'. " comment@guardian.co.uk _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk