Arthur Cordell wrote: > I don't find the US action all that strange. In fact it seems quite > logical. Why should those countries share in the contracts when they > weren't willing to go along in the first place.
What would the WTO say about this? I thought contracts have to be submitted to all bidders? At any rate, the contracts are the result of an illegal act under international law (war of attrition against a sovereign country, plus war crimes), so should be void anyway. > There was an interview with Laura Bush (Larry King) and she in passing felt > it a pity that the French were so intransigent. That a more united front > might have forced Saddam's hand and lessened the need for armed > intervention. So that is the view in the US and is worth considering. Who had installed and armed (incl. with WMD) Saddam in the first place, who had lured him into the Kuwait trap, and who had been bombing Iraq for a decade without removing Saddam ? Not France, anyway. It's the same hypocrisy as with "who saved the world from Hitler"... The world would be much better off if the US didn't create problems to play the great problem-solver afterwards. Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
