########################################################################## # 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 # ##########################################################################
Gabe and Tim, I think both of you need to catch up on the history of WW-II and see what it takes to liberate entire regions, and how many major losses were suffered by the Allies in the early YEARS (not just a few months) of that war. Read about how many YEARS it took to pacify and democratize and rebuild Germany and Japan. Read about which country's taxpayers and armed forces have provided these countries with national security to this day. I hope you both don't think that Iraq would have been better off under Saddam's brutal heel. If you do, I know some Iraqi Shia and Kurds, who escaped his brutality but lost family members, who would like to talk to you face-to-face. Gabe, Since you live in a country where much of the population opposed the liberation of Iraq (I'm not sure why) but the government decided to join the coalition anyway, I understand that you must get some perverse satisfaction when things seem to be not going well for the liberating forces. You then send us articles from the most virulent left-wing and anti-American publication in the UK as if this lends some credibility to whatever point you are trying to make. It does not. All it does is give us another example of the Guardian's biased position. If the Guardian's opinion had prevailed, Saddam Hussein would still be brutalizing his people, filling his mass graves, planning to re-constitute his dormant WMD programs which could have ended up in the dangerous hands of Al Qaeda with disastrous results for whomever they decided to use these against, and he with France, Russia and China, would still be looting the oil-for-food program, building palaces and protectibg Saddam with their vetoes in the UNSC. Unlike conventional warfare of a previous age, where the first attack was usually against a military target, attacks with WMDs would wipe out large sections of the civilian population. At Halabja, Saddam's forces wiped out some 5,000 innocent Kurds in a single day. With the suicide mentality we saw on 9/11, no national leader can risk even the possibility of such a first attack, as long as Al Qaeda is a viable threat. This is what drives much of geopolitics today. And while Iraq was not involved in 9/11, the subsequent investigation showed regular and close links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Critics claim otherwise without explaining how Al Qaeda cells can be active around the world, but only not in Iraq, a country that harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, Ansar al Islam, etc. and compensated the families of suicide bombers in Israel. Tim The Globe and Mail has probably failed to inform you that Sen. Biden is an opponent of the Bush administration, is very bitter that his friend, John Kerry, was soundly defeated last month, and vacillates between opposing the war to demanding more resources for the troops. Unfortunately for him, since tha Vietnam debacle the US does not allow politicians to conduct wartime operations. The comments of Sec. Rumsfeld were an honest assessment, which has been pounced upon by only those who opposed the war in the first place. The others are too busy assisting in correcting whatever problems exist. The soldier's complaint was a valid one, and production of armored Humvees has gone from 15 a month to 500, so he will soon get what he needs. With perfect 20/20 hindsight one can always claim that things should have been done differently. That's the advantage of being an armchair critic. Many of these problems have been caused by the unexpected ferocity of the Sunni Baathist's resistance to their impending loss of power to the Shia and the Kurds, over whom they enjoyed decades of brutal domination from a minority position. More was also expected from the Shia and Kurds in terms of assisting the coalition. They have so far left much of the heavy lifting to the coalition, but are slowly but surely getting trained to defend themselves and beginning to see that they need to be more aggressive if they want their budding democracy to succeed. The Globe and Mail has also probably NOT told you that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces have little or no conflict and major reconstruction projects in roads, schools, electric grids, water treatment plants, hospitals, etc. is going on at a fast pace. Think about it. Regardless of all the details that we can argue about till the cows come home, regardless of whether you like President Bush or not, regardless of what you think happened to the WMDs that have never been accounted for, this war is about bringing freedom and democracy to a Muslim nation of 25 million people that was brutalized by a Muslim tyrant from a minority community. This situation by itself should outrage people like us who enjoy freedom and democracy for ourselves. Ask yourselves why anyone would have a problem with giving the Iraqis the same opportunities that we enjoy? --- Tim de Mello <[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 # > ########################################################################## > > >From: "Gabe Menezes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >The following is for the benefit of our USA > Republican friends; Goans > >working in Iraq beware you have been warned!! > > > > > >http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1368899,00.html > > > > > > > >Iraq faces descent into chaos, says CIA chief > > > ================ > > Add to this Sen. J. Biden's assessment after his > return from Iraq a few days > back - - - - that contrary to what the govt. keeps > saying, the US is LOSING > the war in Iraq. > > Also the troops in Kuwait awaiting to be sent to the > front lines in Iraq > gave Sec. Rumsfeld a grilling today. Asked about the > poorly armoured > Humvees, his response was: > > "As you know, you have to go to war with the Army > you have, not the Army you > want," Rumsfeld said. > > He added, "You can have all the armor in the world > on a tank, and it can > [still] be blown up." > > Encouraging words? I think not! > > > Tim de Mello > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > CANADA > > > >
