1.) I agree that many countries had a vested interest in the status
quo, but that doesn't mean you couldn't get full support. For
example, were the US to say privately "We have to level Iraq within
the next year or two. What do we need to do to get full support?"
Then they would've participated as something is always better than
nothing (-30% is better than -100%)
I work with europeans everyday and there's popular support to get rid
of Mr. Hussein, just not the way we did it. It's no different than if
your neighbor wants to store some gravel on your lawn. If he asks
you'll probably say no problem - If he just dumps it there, you'll
have a problem.
2.) I think you're right on with the Muslim version of Thomas Aquinas
happening today. I don't agree that invading and occupying Iraq will
help with that. It may, it may not, or it may hurt - we don't know.
We don't even know if representative democracy is compatible with that
region of the world. Ataturk seems to have pulled it off but he's
dead and Turkey had been sliding backwards lately.
3.) We know is that 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and
that Iran passed at least 2 of the hijackers through their country
without passport control. For Iran this implies some state knowledge.
Iraq, however, has never been proven to have any connection to 9/11
and there was no proof that they had WMD. In fact 4 months before Mr.
Bush claimed they did, Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell were on TV saying Mr.
Hussein was no threat and had no WMD (see Moore's movie which has the
clips).
I still have no idea why we invaded Iraq or why we had to do it then
rather than waiting for the weapons inspectors to finish and at least
humor our allies. One can make all sorts of retroactive arguments,
but it sure seems cloudy to me.
First it was the WMD, but subsequently released intelligence along
with the above statements by administration officials show this wasn't
it - or if it was it wasn't based on the intelligence but rather the
CIA's dishonest word that it was a "slam dunk" case.
Then it was that Iraq was "the central front on terror", but that's
never been true based on 9/11 intelligence and the lack of anything
tying anyone in Iraq to 9/11. During this period we also heard "fight
them on the streets of Iraq or fight them on the streets of America".
That is, of course, ridiculous as that would assume the terrorists had
agreed to this pact. Further, if that were true, why have the Dept of
Homeland Security or terrorism alerts? Since we're in Iraq fighting
them there, and therefore not here, why do we need to worry about
security "on the streets of America"? Isn't that why we're fighting
them there?
Then it was how horrible the Iraqi people had it, but that's nation
building which Mr. Bush said he opposed during the election. If that
were the reason it would mean he flip-flopped, and we all know he
doesn't do that!
Iraq was either a very misguided judgement call based on assumptions
and conjecture rather than hard facts, or there's something we don't
know. Everything I've seen seems to point to the former.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Munn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 17:44:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Define Terrorism (was Re: Poll - Did you believe ...)
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
France, Russia, and Germany were never going to support sending their
troops to Iraq. The oil and contracts were a huge incentive for their
governments to maintain the status quo. In fact, prior to 9/11, these
countries were actively pushing to end the sanctions regime against
Saddam. Chirac and Saddam were school chums, in case you missed that,
so he wasn't about to interfere. 1441 was a concession to the U.S
after 9/11.
And guess what? These guys will not pony up troops to go to Iraq in
the future, either. Public opinion in those countries is totally
against any kind of troops committment. And forget about Bush's poll
numbers, Chirac in France and Schroeder in Germany are hugely
unpopular at home. Even if they wanted to help they couldn't risk
being pummelled in elections like the Partido Popular was in Spain.
"Solving" the terrorist problem in the Muslim world is really not for
us to do. We can fight terrorists, but fighting terorism is a war for
hearts and minds. It is the job of Muslim societies to offer their
young people a different vision than the terrorists. The Mulsim world
is in the middle of a Reformation, an internal battle over ideology
that the rest of the world can only watch from the outside. We can
play an important role by helping Iraqis build a stable and free
country as a model for the Arab world and a counterbalance to the
influence of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
> > > France, Germany and Russia all had a vested interest in keeping Saddam
> >
> > This is speculation and not very keen - keep in mind 1441 was agreed
> > to by all.
>
> After Powell gave them no other option than to do so.
>
> As for the "speculation" that the tie on the Oil-for-Food Farce, even
> the Washington Post documnted the following:
> "The Times of London calculated that French and Russian companies
> received $11 billion worth of business from Oil for Food between 1996
> and 2003."
>
> The article from the Post can be found at:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm
>________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
