POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

candle and friends,
run while you can

 

War is not inevitable

All an attack on Iraq will do is fan the flames of terrorism. It's time for the anti-war camp to act decisively

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday January 22, 2003
The Guardian

...
Of course a war against Iraq is not just a foolish diversion from fighting terror, it is a sure-fire way to fuel it. What more vigorous recruiting sergeants for anti-western militant Islamism could Bin Laden have hired than Bush, Blair and their 160,000 troops - westerners invading and occupying an Arab land?

Second, the anti-war camp is right to allege that at the heart of the current campaign is a severe double standard. Western inaction, even indulgence, of North Korea - where Washington was overcome with eagerness to talk and to avoid force - proves not the risk, but the value of having weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs. Pyongyang has them, so the US leaves it alone; Baghdad does not yet have them, so it's set to get invaded. In other words, if you really do pose a threat, you're safe. If you don't, you're in danger. What better advert for the Bomb could there be! The lesson a second Gulf war will teach the dictators of the world is: buy weapons of mass destruction now. As Kim Jong Il has proved, a nuke a day keeps the Yanks away.

The pro-war camp fares no better, arguing that it's not WMDs themselves that are the problem; it's the risk that these weapons could get into the hands of al-Qaida. This is how the war on Iraq and the war on terror get conflated, but it's bogus. If it were not, several states with closer ties to terror than Iraq would be in the cross-hairs. What about Saudi Arabia, the talent pool from which 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers were drawn? What about Syria, Iran or Libya with their long records of terrorist patronage? And if the threat is "loose nukes", why not equal pressure on Pakistan, which has lost at least a couple of nuclear scientists to the cause of jihadism?
...

full article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,879616,00.html

regards

wild

 

War is not inevitable, Saddam could vacate his position.

Since that is not likely, the USA will execute the job themselves if necessary.....with the help and assistance of our real allies of course.

 

Thinking About Iraq (I)
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


As the decision on Iraq approaches, I, like so many Americans, have had to ask myself: What do you really think? Today I explain why I think liberals under-appreciate the value of removing Saddam Hussein. And on Sunday I will explain why conservatives under-appreciate the risks of doing so — and how we should balance the two.

What liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. And simply because oil is also at stake in Iraq doesn't make it illegitimate either. Some things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits.

Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament — and that is legitimate — disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.

Why? Because what really threatens open, Western, liberal societies today is not Saddam and his weapons per se. He is a twisted dictator who is deterrable through conventional means. Because Saddam loves life more than he hates us. What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables — the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society.

So then the question is: What is the cement mixer that is churning out these undeterrables — these angry, humiliated and often unemployed Muslim youth? That cement mixer is a collection of faltering Arab states, which, as the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Report noted, have fallen so far behind the world their combined G.D.P. does not equal that of Spain. And the reason they have fallen behind can be traced to their lack of three things: freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.

If we don't help transform these Arab states — which are also experiencing population explosions — to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible media that won't blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables.

We have partners. Trust me, there is a part of every young Arab today that recoils at the idea of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, because of its colonial overtones. But there is a part of many young Arabs today that prays the U.S. will not only oust Saddam but all other Arab leaders as well.

It is not unreasonable to believe that if the U.S. removed Saddam and helped Iraqis build not an overnight democracy but a more accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a positive, transforming effect on the entire Arab world — a region desperately in need of a progressive model that works.

And liberals need to take heed. Just by mobilizing for war against Iraq, the U.S. has sent this region a powerful message: We will not leave you alone anymore to play with matches, because the last time you did, we got burned. Just the threat of a U.S. attack has already prompted Hezbollah to be on its best behavior in Lebanon (for fear of being next). And it has spurred Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah to introduce a proposal to his fellow Arab leaders for an "Arab Charter" of political and economic reform.

Let me sum up my argument with two of my favorite sayings. The first is by Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, who says: "In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car." It is true of countries as well. Until the Arab peoples are given a real ownership stake in their countries — a real voice in how they are run — they will never wash them, never improve them as they should.

The second is an American Indian saying — "If we don't turn around now, we just may get where we're going." The Arab world has been digging itself into a hole for a long time. If our generation simply helps it stop digging, possibly our grandchildren and its own will reap the benefits. But if we don't help the Arabs turn around now, they just may get where they're going — a dead end where they will produce more and more undeterrables.

This is something liberals should care about — because liberating the captive peoples of the Mideast is a virtue in itself and because in today's globalized world, if you don't visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/opinion/22FRIE.html?tntemail1

 

Anyone who makes this argument demonstrates an incapacity for geopolitics. If North Korea were at the center of the US's interests rather than at the periphery, and if it wasn't in the neighborhood of two other major nuclear powers and one potential major nuclear power, then its regime very likely would have been "taken out" a long time ago. It may also be worth noting that North Korea effectively holds Seoul hostage with or without nuclear weapons.

More to the point, no country or group needs special new lessons from North Korea on the usefulness of nuclear weapons as a means to make potential enemies think twice. In addition, the deterrence argument is a sword that cuts both ways: Why should North Korea or any other "rogue state" take the US and allies seriously, or the UN and the rest of the international community if, even after all this, we still remained unable to enforce our clearly stated position vis-a-vis Iraq?

Freedland's argument amounts to suggesting that, because North Korea presents special problems, we should allow Iraq to create even worse ones. North Korea does present great dangers, but its situation, like that of every other country in the world, is unique. In any event, it makes no sense to let policy in other parts of the world be determined by the difficulties posed by this unfortunate relic of the Cold War.

It should be rather obvious that US policy is not to change all regimes that possess WMDs: We'd have to begin at home if that were the case. The policy isn't even to change all unpleasant or dangerous regimes that possess WMDs. The Administration's case for giving Iraq special attention has been stated so many times that it's probably pointless to attempt to re-state it here, as those who are not yet convinced that Saddam Hussein's Iraq represents a unique and proven threat probably cannot be convinced.

 

War should be inevitable, Sadam has lied for over a decade while he has silently built an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and has aided, abetted and financed terrorism.

Enough of this weak liberal crap and the weak European wimps!!!!!

He should be taken out...period ....this would make the world safer and as an additional advantage maybe gasoline will drop to under $1.00 per gallon.

That would be worth it to me.

As for the other countries in the world who care if France and Germany are for or against us. Are they really going to help or are they going to be like the little kid that we let play on our teams because we felt bad for him.

Realty is France and Germany combined could not defeat Iraq and we could beat them all even if they ganged up on us.

 

Could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Fact is the United States with 6 Carrier Battle Groups, Submarines, and several Armored Divisions can make Iraqi Generals Surrender on sight, and the Premier Air Forces both Navy, and Marines included, I cannot see that the Iraqi Generals would be stupid enough to fight, they certainly cannot control anything out in the desert after the first night of bombing.

Saddam's Government will fall apart on the first night, the psyops people are arranging it now.

Germany and France are afraid we'll find them heavily envolved in the Iraqi WMD prograrm.

For France, Germany, Russia, and China that could be a PR NIGHTMARE.

The only way we gona find out is with BOOTS ON THE GROUND, and I'm not talking about Hans Blix, LOL.

 

1. Iraq falls in days, with little casualties, and most the Iraqi welcoming the Liberators.

2. WMD are found, with German and French Companies finger prints all over the Iraqi covert programs.

3. Iraq becomes the democratic state and show place of the Gulf, with a little help from the US.

4. The UN, our supposed European Allies, sit with EGG on THEIR FACES.

5. The Liberal SHILLS have nothing to grasp on to.

IT WILL BE the GREENS (Socialist Euros) worst nighmare, I its all about to come true.

Then the whole Middleast will change.

 

candle is anti-american.


KymarFye, nice article.

 

BRITISCHER ÖL-EXPERTE

"Die Falken sind kurzsichtig"

Welche Rolle spielt das Öl bei einem Feldzug gegen Saddam Hussein? Der britische Energieexperte und Weltbank-Berater Mamdouh Salameh warnt im SPIEGEL-ONLINE-Interview vor den hohen Risiken einer amerikanisch-britischen Invasion im Irak.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,231854,00.html


it´s the oil, studid ... nothing but the oil

regards

wild