Iraq

[jbor]

on 8/2/03 8:06 AM, The Great Quail at quail at libyrinth.com wrote:

> Er...maybe you get the picture! I agree that Iraq has the potential to pose
> a threat; I protest against the rank cynicism practiced by Bush and cronies
> in meeting that threat.

I understand your points and recognise that you did distance yourself from
the "why single out Saddam?" defence line, but in the analogy I'm operating
with the "court" is the UN, and the pertinent "law" is SC Resolution 1441.

As a one-time Hill Street Blues fan (of the theme music, particularly), I
realise that the D.A. and the police chief are often in bed together, and
that it's important and usual practice for the defence attorney to go
through the same sort of motions with his or her client (usually butt in the
air and hand out). That said, there's always a judge (and jury), the
imperative of conclusive evidence, precedent, and the law itself, to render
some semblance of "justice" to the morass.

As far as Bush and the US go, I heard on the radio yesterday or the day
before that 51% of Americans don't support war without UN backing. While I
accept that polls and statistics and suchlike are total or partial baloney
much of the time, and "public opinion" will change on a penny and a whim
from day to day and moment to moment, I think politicians do take note of
them. Whether Bush will risk his luck and his hand on 49% (or thereabouts)
for a second time is the ticklish question - so far he hasn't.

No-one I know wants a war. But ....

best