>You're not buying my vote for the Jordanian monarchy, are you Scott?
i might actually Oliver! TBH i'm just a little dumb and really don't know enough to comment without feeling guilty (note it doesn't stop me elsewhere...)
whatt am i saying haha?!
no i do actually, in seriousness.
yes i do.
but what of the successor?
hmm.
>What were the arguments about sanctions (Cohen AND Hain) our of interest?
well i can only definitively find one Cohen reference which is below
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,919970,00.html
the thing that caught an eye is "The liberated zone of Kurdish northern Iraq has to cope with the same economic sanctions as the rest of the country, but it doesn't have Saddam. The mortality rate for under-fives in the North is 72 per 1000, as against 135 in the Centre and South."
i thought i'd read other things in the past but i've had a half-hearted googling for a few minutes and can't really find anything substantial (it's mostly name-calling) so mayhaps i made it up. at any rate that will do (i think i've read more of the same but my internet research of course leaves something to be desired).
basically - and i realise i sound like the most simplistic New Internationalist puff-piece here (here i go apologising for contrary views) - but it should be obvious and Cohen's big boo-boo is to flag up those rates.
one reason why under the sanctions regime those mortality figures were so different region on region was because in the liberated zone oop north there were a shed-load of different NGO's and agencies working, helping, providing aid and comfort.
so that was a significant helpful factor as to why you get that discrepancy in numbers.
i'm not apologising for the old regime in Iraq or anything, just noting a fact that is kinda so basic Cohen really should have picked up on it - perhaps i've overlooked something here and will be left with egg on my face when someone steps in to point out something blatant i've missed, but as far as i can tell, Cohen is being pretty much disingenuous (even if he doesn't know it!).
i do admire Clwyd myself for all the obvious human-rights envoy reasons although it must be noted you can find in places like medialens some compelling criticism of her from principled anti-war perspectives.
but what do i know.
i like rewch's point on syntax, he's like a less readable Rummy is Wolfie i guess.
as Oliver has said Wolfowitz at least has consistency (opposing regimes in the 1980's that the American govt was giving succour to etc) and i would be very interested to know his views on whether he thinks the EU should remove its embargoes against China.
because public opinion in some countries such as the UK and USA seems to be in favour of maintaining them, whereas political opinion in some EU states of course wants to remove them.
i realise improvements in Indonesia mean an analogy with Beijing is really quite a bloody big separation of degrees (does this make sense? i mean Jakarta is certainly less reprehensible than it used to be whereas Beijing seems about as reptilian as ever so my analogy is kinda out of proportion mebbe) but if he is for constructive engagement does this mean he would favour warmer ties between the EU and China?
of course he's not expected to have a position on it but if the answer were - for sake of argument - no he doesn't favour warmer ties because he thinks Beijing is still too far beyond the pale, then have we found a chink in his otherwise usually unimpeachable armour of 'consistency'.
sorry for the above it's all incoherent bollox i know but still.
P.S.
Oliver, as for Hain on sanctions i'll either try and find something and report back but if i can't get anything you'll just get one of my bigoted screeds from a fuzzy memory (that never was).
that do ya?
