Iraq's threat to peace and security

[barbara100 at jps.net]

Even George Bush is against unilateral action?  Let's hope.
Or are you tripped up by the words too? By "unilateral" I think we should
mean "without the vote of the UN." It would never be truly unilateral
because we'd always have Great Britain and a few other sycophants on our
side.  Is George Bush opposed to attacking Iraq without the backing of the
UN Security Council?  I'm sure he'd prefer it, but didn't he threaten a few
weeks ago to attack Iraq with or without it?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <barbara100 at jps.net>
Cc: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Iraq's threat to peace and security


>
>
> barbara100 at jps.net wrote:
> >
> > Here's an interesting fact: Iran and Kuwait, Iraq's two worst enemies,
are
> > against a unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States.
>
> You got tripped up by the word play again.
> What's a Unilateral attack? That's the US going it alone, right?
> Hell, George HW Bush is against that. How could any enemy of Iraq be for
> it?