Ed.
Don't be sorry. Our differences of opinion keeps the blood flowing.
As I laid out, Iraq was a mess. The wars and sanctions had destroyed the economy. Saddam appeared to have become senile - or perhaps he no longer cared. Certainly, this is born out by their reaction to the invasion - and what we have found since the war ended. (I detailed some of these off the top of my head. Yet, apologies are made for Saddam and the Americans and British are denigrated.
Thus, I pointed to the unused caches of arms. and the answer I got (excusing Saddam) was that a country under attack can be expected to cache weapons everywhere. Yet, that wasn't the point which was that the caches weren't used. There seemed to be no organization at all. Filling the plain with water would have slowed down or stopped the American tanks. It wasn't done. The charges at the oil wells were set, but not fired.
There was no Stalingrad tactic used anywhere. I've mentioned that after whittling down the opposition while being careful not to harm civilians, the final assault on the city of more than a million was accomplished with 900 British Commandos. Think about it.
Almost a decade after the Gulf war, I reported leaks still in the pipelines, pumping stations that didn't work, the Saudi cut-off. Little was apparently done during the 10 years to ensure Iraq'a lifelines.
All these things indicate to me an economy in a state of disrepair - a mess.
I've noticed that when the UN does something good, it gets credit. When it does something bad, it's the fault of the US. So, the UN sanctions are somehow the fault of the US. But, what happened to those other votes - and for that matter - where were the vetoes?
The sanctions have without doubt crippled Iraq. Sanctions are usually instituted as a better choice than war. Given the poor state of the pipelines, the Saudi cut-off of the Red Sea pipeline, the enforced compensation to Kuwait and the 28% that goes to the UN, it doesn't seem that Iraq got much from it's only worthwhile export.
(That's without considering the skimming by the Saddamites.)
The war, in spite of the inevitable casualties (and the temporary loss of television viewing in Baghdad) could be the best thing that has happened to the Iraqi. It may not be, but there is a very good chance, I think, for an escape from the political and economic stagnation that is the Middle-East.
It's always easier to do nothing than to do something. If one does nothing, no mistakes will be made. It's the road to smugness.
On the other hand, actually doing something affords the immediate prospect of disaster.
One notes the UN in the Congo, hiding in their compound, apparently afraid to come out, and the butt of jeering armed thugs who cruise past in trucks.
How many dead so far - two million? Only 800,000 in Rwanda, but refugee camps were set up across the border - which camps rapidly became staging areas for the thugs to go back across the border.
No applause for the UN.
You say, Ed, there are worse people around the world. Perhaps we have to make a start somewhere. I think your statement leads to doing nothing anywhere.
As said Palmerston (and practically everyone else) 'Nations don't have friends and enemies. They have interests.'
Our 'friendship' with Saddam was really our antipathy to Iran, which country made a fool of Carter and the US (actually we made ourselves foolish).
However, none of this can properly be discussed, for always the real argument is anti-Bush - even to hoping the whole Middle-East will burst into flames, because that will hurt Bush.
Each time a projected catastrophe doesn't materialize, another pops up to take its place. I think that the proper attitude might be to hope that Bush succeeds. That will be good for the Middle-East. (Karen seems to be adopting this view.)
As I said some three months ago, with the onset of the war I changed to considering what good things might come out of it.
I don't care about the WMD - back then I said I thought they were pretty dubious. The real issue is will Bush pull off even a somewhat emasculated reform of the Middle East? I hope he does.
But the anti-Bush sentiment seems set on hoping Bush will fail - even if the Middle East settles back into its present confrontational apathy.
Harry ---------------------------------------------------
Ed wrote:
I'm sorry, Harry, but I disagree. Increasingly, the US comes through as a rogue superpower and a bully, while Bush comest through as a lier. Before the US invasion, Iraqis had jobs, they had power and water, and their kids went to school. I'm not defending Saddam, but there are worse people running countries elsewhere in the world, and lets not forget that he was a friend of the US during the Iran war. The war against Iraq was based on the notion of "pre-emptive strike" because Saddam had WMDs and the US was therefore in jeopardy. That now appears to be an outright lie or, more charitably, the greatest failure of military intelligence in history.
--------------------------------------------------------
> Ed. > > We didn't destroy a country and impoverish a people. > > Iraq was already a basket case - as I've described. > > Sanctions finished off the job started by the Iran war. However, the UN was > supposed to be running them. They have two lots of reports that seem to > cover up more than they reveal. Actually one regular report says nothing - > except it lists the dates of the previous reports, which already had said > nothing. > > Extraordinary. > > As I said to Lawry, everything we found out about the country indicated its > sad state. > > Had we not entered stage right, the next acts would have taken a few years > in which the Saddam family further milked the people and drove Iraq still > further into the ground. > > I think that now we have showed resolve, some insolubilities may become > less so. As I said a while ago, once the invasion began I changed my focus > to thinking about what good can come out of the conflict. I fear that some > people are still more anti-Bush than pro Iraqi. > > If Bush were to be taken out of the action, I think something that shows > promise would go with him. I could very easily be wrong, but his opponents > are apparently never wrong. > > Harry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Ed wrote: > > >Harry, does it really make sense to destroy a country and impoverish its > >people? Bush lied, his people lied, and Blair lied. They and their > >military have turned Iraq into a basket case. Sanctions, following the Gulf > >War, also helped, perhaps enormously. Bad as he was, Saddam was a > >bit-player in the process. > > > >We have to get out stories straight, Harry, or we will forever be electing > >people whose real agendas are obscured by lies or myths, who use people as > >their tools, and who leave the world in worse shape than they found it. > > > >Ed Weick
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.486 / Virus Database: 284 - Release Date: 5/29/2003
