Comments on: The dog ate my conspiracy

By: ed

ed — Wed, 09 Jun 2004 04:28:00 +0000

I did in fact mean US 'muscle'- because every indication is that the decision-makers do not want to humiliate the UN or antagonise Russia or France, for reasons of pragmatism. I suppose they have to win a war, and ten billion was only significant in the particular context of Saddam and the UN- it's peanuts by comparison with the US economy, though the trade was useful at the time for French and Russian interests. Besides, there were US and British interests too- just not as many or on the same scale.

I think that the moral outrage brigade is very small by comparison with the political interests at stake.

Hope that's clear.

By: john b

john b — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:48:00 +0000

Surely the Yanks have the muscle in Iraq, not the UN? Unless that’s the point, in which case I’m mighty confused. Maybe I should do a Masters in Kremlinology…

By: ed

ed — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:32:00 +0000

Darnit, forgot the link:

http://acepilots.com/unscam/archives/000924.html

By: ed

ed — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:31:00 +0000

Maybe you should check out this article from May 27th, John. The D.T. -my DNOC when I choose- has been going downhill faster than a late entrant into a village cheese-rolling competition. I agree with Josh it's incredibly disjointed journalism.

So much for news emerging 'last night'.

As for what it all means- dirty trick or convenient excuse-I think that we're meant to be kept guessing about that by whoever is dictating the game.

I know who has the muscle on their side.