########################################################################## # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others # ##########################################################################
Marlon has given us a pretty accurate description of the US support for Iraq against Iran, but he lost me at the end, when he says, "It is amazing how time changes alliances. Your phony friend of today becomes your phony enemy tomorrow, thanks to a phony war on terror." After all, many alliances have changed over time. Germany, Italy, Japan, the Warsaw Pact countries, all deadly enemies of the US at one time, now allies and friends. All countries should and do follow what they see as their own interests. Geopolitics is serious business. I think Marlon is also saying that the US "alliance" with Iraq, obviously an alliance of geopolitical convenience, changed because including Iraq in the war on terror was "phony", which seems to be the prevailing view of the countries and observers that did not support the regime change in Baghdad. Obviously the Bush administration, responsible for the security of American citizens, and it's coalition members, disagree with that assessment. In my opinion, the US relationship with Iraq really broke down for good when Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia in 1990, way before the war on terror, whether phony or not, and way before Osama Bin Laden declared war on America. Osama stated two reasons for his jihad against America. One was the presence of "infidel" troops in Saudi Arabia, which he felt violated its sanctity, and the other was America's support for Israel. The first complaint does not exist any more, and the second is a deal breaker as long as there is no negotiated 2 state solution in Palestine, which is why the war on terror will continue for the foreseeable future. President Clinton tried appeasement to deal with the Al Qaeda jihadis, and failed to mount any credible response to the series of attacks on US interests throughout the 90's, from WTC-I in NY, to Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Yemen and finally the sneak suicide attack of 9/11, from Osama's perspective an unexpected success, which changed everything. Reasonable people may disagree, but the Bush administration believes that 9/11 took place because the appeasement of the 90's only emboldened Al Qaeda leading Osama to conclude that America was a "weak horse" and Al Qaeda the "strong horse". The Bush administration concluded that Al Qaeda had to be confronted and defeated on their turf for Americans and their allies to be safe again, and that America cannot risk a first attack with WMDs, which can wreak far higher casualties than even 9/11, as the Kurds discovered at Halabja. Iraq, which was identified as a special threat along with Iran and N. Korea, was singled out after the Taliban were routed in Afghanistan because a) the expectation that a combination of Pakistan and Afghanistan, supported by US special forces, would have found Osama by now, and b) the legal case had been made against Iraq by virtue of UN resolution 1441 and its 16 preceding resolutions, which Iraq had not complied with. Others led by France, wanted yet another UN resolution where France threatened to veto any action to remove Saddam, "no matter what". It now seems that France, along with Russia and China, had a conflict of interest, as the ongoing investigations into the oil-for-food scandal indicate. Iran and N. Korea are still in serious negotiations with major countries and the UN involved, no ultimatum has been given, and so, action cannot be taken just yet. The nature of the Al Qaeda threat must be seen in the context of their infiltration into almost every major country in the world. We saw this in the actual attacks in Spain and the Netherlands, and indictments in Britain and elsewhere, as well as the cells found in the US itself. Is it credible then, that Al Qaeda could actively infiltrate all these countries and yet be inactive only in Iraq as some have argued, a country that openly provided sanctuary to Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Ansar al Islam, and paid $25K to the family of each suicide bomber in Israel? While we may have to agree to disagree on what all this means, and continue to argue about the wisdom or foolishness of the action against Iraq, the fact is that the Saddam regime is gone for good, and the few remaining Baathists cannot turn back the clock. VoicesofIraq.com shows us the reconstruction that is going on in most of Iraq, the part the media ignores. Everyone may not agree with the means, but the Afghanis and Iraqis now have a real opportunity to experience what most of us take for granted, freedom and democracy. And that is a good thing. Isn't it? --- Marlon Menezes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ########################################################################## > # If Goanet stops reaching you, contact > [EMAIL PROTECTED] # > # Want to check the archives? > http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # > # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to > reflect respect to others # > ########################################################################## > > I believe Helga is referring to the Iraq's Faw > offensive in 1988. For the last few years of the > Iraq-Iran war, Iraq pretty much lost all the Iranian > territory it captured in the early 80's. > For most people in the middle east and for the US, > the > prospect of an Iraqi defeat to the Iranian > "fundamentalists" was a very scary proposition. > > The US and the west in general conveniently ignored > the fact that it was Iraq that started the war. It > did > not matter, afterall, secular Iraq was fighting the > islamic fundamentalists in Iran. As a child growing > up > in Kuwait, we accepted that this was a "necessary" > war. Likewise, we (and the US) did not really care > that the Kurds were gassed in Halabja. Saddam was in > effect given carte blanche by the world and the US > to > "do what was necessary" to win the war. Likewise, > the > gas attacks on Iran's soldiers was considered > acceptable. The use of WMD and genocide was > apparently > acceptable so long as it was in the name of fighting > fundamentalism, but can be conveniently redefined as > such, some 20 years later. > > India which was heavily involved in setting up and > training Iraq's airforce, pulled out all its staff > from Iraq at the start of the war in 1979 in order > to > maintain its strict policy of neutrality. Several of > my classmate's friends whose families were posted or > due to be posted in Iraq by the Indian Air force had > their Iraq assignments cancelled. > > Conversely, there has been much speculation that the > US stepped in to provide Iraq intelligence > information > when things began to look bad for Iraq. In 1988, > when > it seemed that Iran was on the verge of capturing > Iraq's Faw peninsula and thus cutting of Iraq's > ocean > access, the Iraqies launched a sudden surprisingly > well planned counter offensive that routed the > Iranians and pushed them back deep into Iranian > territory. Iraq's victory was stunning. It is > believed > that US intelligence and satellite imagery helped > Iraq > win this crucial battle. > > Within months of this victory, Iran agreed to a > cease > fire. Until this defeat, Iran did not accept any > ceasefire and was aiming for absolute victory and > the > overthrow of Saddam. > > US aid for Iraq in the gulf war was also prevalent > in > other ways. Due to the bad shape of Iraq's ports, > much > of Iraq's oil was implcitly re-exported via Kuwait, > which in turn was secured by the US navy. The US > navy's role was to protect Kuwait's tankers from > Iran' > navy and sea bourne mines. > > It is amazing how time changes alliances. Your phony > friend of today become your phony enemy tomorrow, > thanks to a phony war on terror. > > Marlon > > > > > > >From: "Helga do Rosario Gomes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Fred, in 2005 I am going to call you Wiki ! > > >And another journalist friend (Stacey) told me > that > > they were mulling over > > >relocating the displaced Jews to Alaska? > > >Oddly, post 9/11 we used to read a lot of > articles > > on the role played by > > >the west in bring this 'evil man' Sadaam to power > > and once the NYT had a > > >small article about how the CIA had supplied > > satellite imagery to Sadaam > > >showing the movements of the Iranian troops as > they > > approached and probably > > >were poised to take over the small coast that > Iraq > > possesses. For Iraq, > > >losing that would have spelt doom or so the > article > > said. The images gave > > >him the exact location of the troops and then he > > gassed them and of course > > >they retreated. > >
