Erik Reuter wrote:

> It seems fairly calm to me. I'd like to see a little more charisma and
> charm from Bush in working with other nations, but I have to say that
> the response from other nations is quite disappointing.

Fairly calm?
Then we might as well agree to disagree on this point. :)
I consider neither the Afghanistan chapter of the TWAT nor this new Iraq
campaign to be a 'calm' reaction. For that is all it is, y'know, an
emotional reaction to 9/11.

As for the response from other nations, well, they all have their own
valid, legitimate reasons, y'know. They still tend to worry about
concepts like 'national sovereigniy', 'dangerous precedent in
International Relations' 'giving further support to the
unstated-but-clearly-evident American claim of a Manifest Destiny to
rule the world'.... silly stuff like that. 
Another factor in this regard could be best summed up by the phrase 'As
you sow, so shall ye reap.' 
<g>
If other countries had found the American response less 'disappointing'
in recent past, they would take America's idealistic-sounding claims
more seriously.

> > Accepts the Oct. 1 offer of Iraq.
> 
> Iraq has no grounds and no credibility to make any offer. Iraq was
> supposed to disclose all their WoMD, and they did not. When evidence
> was found to the contrary, they put barriers in the way of the
> inspectors. They did this repeatedly. Now you think they should be
> trusted? Wow, would you like to buy a bridge?

<chuckle>
What has Iraq's credibility got to do with anything?
You think that Pakistan has any credibility? I suggest you take a look
at some of the reports tabled by American information agencies in the
American Congress. And then examine the nature and extent of American
help to Pakistan, especially in view of the events of the last year. The
statements made by American govt. officials and policy makers as opposed
to the real practice of this 'war against terror, everywhere on the face
of the planet'. 

No, this has nothing to do with the credibility of Iraq. All this has to
do with is the US threat perceptions and the US might to act on the
same.

> And how is it that you know what the Iraqis want? I don't 
> know, but I'd
> bet that being ruled by Saddam really sucks. Do you have 
> evidence to the
> contrary?

No. I have never talked to an Iraqi, ever. So I have no evidence to the
contrary. I even agree with you that being ruled by Saddam *must* suck.
However, I question your assumption that they'd be glad of any American
action to 'topple the regime'. 

See, as an Indian, I do not relish living under the BJP government.
However, any attempt by any other country to bring about a change in
*my* country's regime [unless they have been specifically invited to do
so] would evoke only one reaction, 

"Back off! It's none of your business."

I reckon I am not the only person on the planet to feel this way. :)

Ritu

_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to