Jenny wrote: > I'm not sure how that has been determined. Direct immediate danger? I don't think so.
I base my statements in what I've read and observed for a number of years now. There is evidence and connect the dots evidence out there. It is not illusory to me. > More like potentional future danger to those we've considered our allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia) - not necessarily >more people in danger, but more people who are important to us. Them, too. > Yes, I agree. My point is our humanitarian concerns shift according to what is perceived as in our best interest at >the time. I look at it that we simply do not have enough resources to save each part of the world 24/7. We do, however, try to help regions through diplomatic avenues and of course, by sending billions in aid around the world. The way I see it, it that it is in our best interest at this particular point secure our safety. > I think the Bush administration has succeded in blurring the distinction between Al Qaeda and Saddam. I *wish* >they focused as much attention on how they are planning to dismantle Al Qaeda in this country and in others as they >do on taking out Saddam. I think they are. > Whether Bush is blamed either way doesn't concern me. Alternatives - I haven't seen any offered except for >beginning inspections again. Some people believe these are foolish, others believe they are quite effective. I can't say how effective they have been because there have been so many conflicting reports. There is a case made that he has been able to greatly escalate his stockpiles and capabilities since the inspectors were thrown out in the 90s. There are others who say that the country is so large and that he is so crafty, that even with inspectors there, they can't ever find all the weapons. But at this point, the return to inspections is being given as the only alternative to invading the coutnry. > Because someone is against unilateral action - an unprecedented first-strike attack -based on evidence that is either >weak, or they are not able to share or confirm - it does not mean he/she wants nothing at all to be done. I have a definite problem with unilateral action, too. If a strong case were made to you with specific evidence, would that change the way you consider it? > Well, I can't comment on what I know nothing about, but these attacks that we've stopped - would they have even >existed were it not for our involvement and presence in the Middle East? Who knows? That's almost like saying if we never existed on this earth, would they then not think to attack us. There's a big blur between what actions the U.S. directly took that made people want to attack us and how much is because we haven't done anything to warrrant attack - they've just been indoctrinated to hate and attack us. The situations I know about happened 20 years ago and were connected to the terrorists blowing us up and taking hostages in Lebanon. I can't recall the specific group name but the focus back then for concern was Iran and Syria. The U.S. supported the Shah of Iran and then let him fall because we thought that is what the people wanted essentially. We all know where that led - worse repression and misery than before, with a huge migration of the people who could get out coming to the U.S. And the ones who took over did nothing but promote "death to America." At any rate, I'll say that there were almost daily threats of attacks right here in the U.S. To my knowledge the general public in the U.S. were never made aware of what was going on behind the scenes. > If we topple Saddam's regime and install an American administration of Iraq for a year (or more?) as has been >most recently offered as a post-war plan by the adminstration, I can only see the number of terrorist attacks here >and abroad go up. That is a possibility. Bottom line is that I wish we were not at all involved in the ME and never were, but that is not reality. We are already in too deep and have been for 60 years. How do you undo that overnight? > I think they noticed it - it's that it didn't go any further than this. They seem to abandon that line of persuasion. I don't think they abandoned it as a line of persuasion. I've read and seen enough independently to believe them more than discount them so I tend to think maybe there are strategic considerations involved. > Amen to that - and thank goodness for Colin Powell who got us to this point. But we are preparing for war - and I >fear it is has already been decided. We have to wait and see it play out. I have no clue as to what is going to happen next. > Kakki, thanks very much for your knowledgeable and thoughful views on the matter. Thanks to you, too, Jenny. This all causes me to think things out and I like that. Kakki
