Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Article About The Protests From Daily Telegraph  
User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1141 times:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6197

Anti-Jew, Anti-American Rally In London
by: Barbara Amiel (originally written for the London Daily Telegraph)

The most revealing aspect of the anti-war march in London was what you did not see. You did not see any messages to Saddam Hussein or criticism of Iraqi policy.

These earnest seekers of peace, with so many signs denouncing George W. Bush and Tony Blair, had nothing to say to Saddam Hussein; no request to please co-operate with the UN inspectors. Not one small poster asking Saddam to disarm or destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps somewhere in that million people there were some bravely asking him to "Leave Iraq and prevent war," but I could not find them.

If this were a genuine anti-war demonstration, why, along with demands on the British and Americans, would there be no demands of the other party to the conflict - Iraq?commentators on the march were taken by the good order of it. I was taken by the sheer wickedness or naivete.

All those nice middle-aged people from middle England with their children bundled up against the cold, marching for peace; did they have nothing to say to the party that had ignored 17 UN resolutions? A similar silence existed in all the anti-war marches in Europe. One either has to question the good faith of the marchers - or their brains.

Television gave us brief interviews with "ordinary" people marching. ITV's Mrs Noon on the peace train from Stockport had never marched before, but she had work experience dealing with "challenging" children and adults, which she compared with dealing with Saddam. "The first rule," she said, "is to be non-confrontational." The TV cameras cut to the "----ing Bush" and "Stuff Your Imperialism" signs stacked in the train compartment.

A colleague I met at the march said he had counted only two or three anti-Israeli signs. "Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing!!! Welcome to Israel" was the wording of a large banner from the Muslim Association of Great Britain, but that was to be expected. The MAB, co-organiser of the London march, has a number of ideological and personal links with the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest Islamist organisation, four of whose members assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose offshoot is Hamas.

In fact, there were hundreds of anti-Israeli signs. What disguised this was the activities of the Jewish establishment. The Board of Deputies of British Jews, well-meaning but dreadfully inept, had worried about all the hate signs against Israel in the last "peace" march. Not understanding that it is best not to help your enemy disguise itself, they had written to the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament asking it about its relationship with anti-Israel groups.

The Deputies were reassured to receive a letter promising them that CND was "working hard to ensure that this march would be free from inappropriate slogans and chants". The result was that apart from a few "Boycott Israel/Boycott Murder" banners, the MAB restrained itself to hundreds of posters with the coded anti-Israel message: "Freedom for Palestine."

Freedom for Palestine, of course, could come the day the Arab world accepts the existence of a Jewish state. There could have been an independent Palestinian state as early as the Peel Commission in 1937 or the UN partition plan in 1948, if only the Arabs had said yes to co-existence with Israel. But anyone who has read the literature of the MAB knows that now, as then, "Palestinian freedom" for the MAB is achieved only at the expense of eliminating a Jewish state in the Middle East. All that the complaints of the British Board of Deputies had done was to make the MAB respectable to the ignorant.

In the end, under the guise of peace, this march was essentially an anti-America, anti-free enterprise, anti-Israel display. A similar approach appeared to have taken hold in the various other "peace" marches in Tokyo, Athens, Paris, Berlin and Madrid.

Looking at the news clips of jubilant Europeans marching behind banners saying "Death to Uncle Sam" shows how much the zeitgeist towards America has changed. I can remember the good-natured humour of the film "The Mouse That Roared." America was seen then as the generous saviour of Europe and the welcomed guarantor of freedom. In that 1959 film, a Ruritanian prime minister, played by Peter Sellers, declared war on the United States in order to get American aid. These days the mouse roars to scare or blackmail America.

The spirit towards Israel was different in those times too. After defeating the Arabs in the 1967 six-day war, Israel was seen as an incredible success story by virtually all observers - intellectually, morally and practically. The country was the recreation of a lost state, made all the more credible by its unique parentage - a democratic decision of the world through a UN vote.

One didn't have to be a Zionist in 1967 to list Israel's achievements.That small nation had revived a dead language for the first time in history, absorbed a million and a half people from both Europe and the Orient in 19 years and had made the desert fertile. It had no oil, its waters were insufficient and vulnerable to Arab diversion, and it had never had one day of peace.

Within five hours of its birth, it faced declarations of war by all its Arab neighbours. With no military background or weaponry to speak of, and facing the British-trained Jordanian army among others, it had defeated its enemies in 1948, 1956 and again in 1967. Israel was a classic success story.

Up to 1967, the Jews gave the impression of being the underdog against impossible odds, and the winner. Both those components are attractive to people and to nations. But the sheer weight of size and demographics on the Arab side and the willingness of Arabs to employ terrorism in the West began to eat away at this perception. Gradually, the tables turned. The sense that in the long run the Arabs would prevail gathered steam. It became the Arabs' turn to be carried on the double wings of underdog and winner status.

Israel is now seen as a surrogate for the United States and so destroying it has the added thrill of throwing sand in America's face. For centuries, the Arab world has faced the humiliation of punching below its weight. Given the value in its culture of the romantic masculine virtues of martial prowess and dominance, this realisation that its culture is regarded as backward and insignificant has created much resentment.

The Islamists have come along with the message that, if Islam's large population and wealth could be fused with its mystical fundamentalism,they would create the same fanatical strength that made rising empires from Christendom to Japan pre-eminent. In this climate, America and Israel are viewed as obstacles to an Arab renaissance.

Laying out the world's changing attitudes to Israel and America so barely, makes it sound like a conscious decision - which is absurd. But changes in the spirit of the times are as difficult to explain as those immense flocks of birds you see sitting on some great African lake, hundreds of thousands of them at a time, till all of a sudden, successively, they fly up and turn in a specific direction. One can never analyse which bird started it and how it became this incredible rush. All you see is the result.

One senses that the Islamists, with a billion Muslims in the world, and access to great riches (with some partial success in Iran and Afghanistan, where they defeated the Soviets, albeit with American help), now feel that they may be able to reassert themselves - and the Caliphate.

The world waits, unsure what to do as Muslims hesitate, poised on vast lakes of oil, ready to fly in some direction. The world hedges its bets by backing the Palestinians, who may benefit by any resurgence of Islam.

And one of the reasons many people sense how important it is for America and her allies to be successful against the regime of Saddam Hussein - quite apart from all other valid reasons - is that a perception that the side with the momentum, the winning side, is the Islamist-terrorist side, must be broken.

It is a dangerous and self-fulfilling prophecy that can cause untold bloodshed and tyranny in the world. There are infinitely better, more tolerant, less bloody ways forward for the Arab people. But the West is not yet a paper tiger, even if nearly one million of its inhabitants meekly followed behind those meretricious paper slogans held high in Hyde Park on Saturday afternoon.
---
pls. note-this is not written by a columnist from frontpagemag.com, this was just posted on the site.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNASA737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1138 times:

Not for nothing, but FrontpageMag isn't a very reliable source. Can anyone confirm that this was actually published in the Telegraph or was it just "written" for it and most likely not accepted?

[Edited 2003-02-19 00:13:36]

User currently offlineJcs17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 2, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1132 times:

If you cared to read any of my statements, they said that this was written for The London Daily Telegraph and not for frontpagemag.com. Frontpage just posted the article on their website, and I didnt feel like searching for the link on the Telegraph home page.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineNASA737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1130 times:

Written for and published are two very different things. While I do question the judgement of many of the protestors, I don't think most of them were screaming "Death to Bloody Israel."

User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1127 times:

Written for the Daily Telegraph? I doubt it was published and if it was wouldn't frontpagemag be breaking a few dozen copyright laws?

Ah frontpagemag...no one should even bother to respond. And oh...there weren't any anti-Jew rallies in London  Smile


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

I was casually sipping my decaff capuccino at a local Cafe here in Cambridge when I came across the following article from what most of us in the UK regard as a bit of a rebellious left-wing paper (The Guardian):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,897695,00.html

(By the way, the writer is also a columnist for The Independent which I opine to be more or less, yes, independent on most occasions).





User currently offlineNASA737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1119 times:

Capt.Picard

That article was interesting without any of the "propaganda" that FrontPageMag likes to put out. Surprised it appeared in the Guardian. As for the Frontpage article, I would love to believe it because it makes my arguement so much easier... but alas, I know most of it isn't true and basing my arguement on this is useless.

Let's remind people that FrontPageMag was also the site that "broke the story" about Mexican-American's pending coup d'etat against the US.

[Edited 2003-02-19 00:29:34]

User currently offlineOvelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1113 times:

The article WAS published in Telegraph. Here is the link

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2003%2F02%2F17%2Fdo1701.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=320722

But Frontpage changed the title. It is not "Anti-Jew, Anti-American Rally In London" but "If this was a peace march, why did Saddam get no stick?"

Jcs. If you care to read online newspapers why don't you drop frontpagemag and switch to REAL media instead?

Kostas


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1110 times:

On the other hand, what if you are wrong?

Oh! Oh! Last line of the Guardian article. If only he'd apply it to the implied judgement he has all the way through his article.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

An excellent article! Barbara Amiel paints those naive protesting terror-apologists exactly as they are!




Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

All those nice middle-aged people from middle England with their children bundled up against the cold, marching for peace; did they have nothing to say to the party that had ignored 17 UN resolutions?

Oh please. How many resolutions is Israel ignoring? It's far more than 17. Let's go bomb Israel!

One either has to question the good faith of the marchers - or their brains.

One implies quite well that marchers are stupid - simply because they're protesting. Mature. Even for one.

Television gave us brief interviews with "ordinary" people marching

Whether the Telegraph or Frontpagemag like it or not, "ordinary" people are against a war without a second resolution. It's as simple as that. The majority of people do not want a war without a second resolution! Whatever Blair thinks is best for us, or whatever the Hawks in the US tell us we have to do, shouldn't the majority opinion in this country count for something? Yes, the majority is wrong sometimes (Nazi Germany), but does that still make it right to ignore the majority? This isn't something realitivly small like the congestion charge  Smile() which most people are against, this is something that will shape the world for the next 30 years. However misguided and wrong the Telegraph thinks we all are, an overwhelming majority against war without a second resolution should count for something in a democracy.

A colleague I met at the march said he had counted only two or three anti-Israeli signs. "Torture, Murder, Ethnic Cleansing!!! Welcome to Israel" was the wording of a large banner from the Muslim Association of Great Britain, but that was to be expected.

Because all Muslims are backwards, towel-wearing anti-America/Israel idiots, right? How come the lack of banners against Iraq is frowned upon, yet banners against a country that is in breach of MORE UN resolutions, has MORE WMDs and is occupying MORE terriroty illegally are frowned upon?

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, well-meaning but dreadfully inept, had worried about all the hate signs against Israel in the last "peace" march

British Jews...? Er...last time I checked being anti-Israel didn't mean being anti-Jewish.

hundreds of posters with the coded anti-Israel message: "Freedom for Palestine".

Sums up this article, really.

Freedom for Palestine, of course, could come the day the Arab world accepts the existence of a Jewish state. There could have been an independent Palestinian state as early as the Peel Commission in 1937 or the UN partition plan in 1948

A wee bit pointless in an article that's supposed to be about Iraq, don't you think? Then again, I suppose it does insense more anger against those evil backwards Jew-bombing west-hating Muslims, right?

In the end, under the guise of peace, this march was essentially an anti-America, anti-free enterprise, anti-Israel display.

Not anti-war...?

Looking at the news clips of jubilant Europeans marching behind banners saying "Death to Uncle Sam" shows how much the zeitgeist towards America has changed.

Yes, all the millions cheering in the streets  Insane

These days the mouse roars to scare or blackmail America.

Whine whine whine "America is bigger! America is better! You must respect us! YOU MUST!!"

That small nation had revived a dead language for the first time in history, absorbed a million and a half people from both Europe and the Orient in 19 years and had made the desert fertile. It had no oil, its waters were insufficient and vulnerable to Arab diversion, and it had never had one day of peace

Jews are better than Muslims then, obviously.

Within five hours of its birth, it faced declarations of war by all its Arab neighbours. With no military background or weaponry to speak of, and facing the British-trained Jordanian army among others, it had defeated its enemies in 1948, 1956 and again in 1967. Israel was a classic success story.

I was wrong. Jews are a LOT better than Muslims! I might become religious and Jewish, I'd be superior to everyone.

The rest of the article prattles on about irrelevances about Jews and Israel. There were a FEW anti-ISRAEL (not Jewish banners). Instead of this author talking about all the UN resolutions Israel is in breach of, he just tries to scream and moan about how great Jews are and how much Arabs and those who support him suck.

[Edited 2003-02-19 00:58:54]

User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1083 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I just have this feeling that a lof of people are bitter at the fact that there are so many people against a war and that the worldwide demonstrations were a huge success in getting their message across. The pro-war people are a minority and haven't made their case, this is why you'll see all these newspaper articles pop up condemning the protesters.




In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineB747forlife From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 392 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1075 times:

Arsenal@LHR: You have no proof that the pro-war people are a minority. It only seems that way because all the media covers is the neverending screaming of the anti-war/pro-Saddam people.

-Nick


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1065 times:

I find it quite funny how 777236ER defends the idea of the protests being hijacked by Pro-Palestine/Anti-Israel (pick your term) elements, but as soon as someone mentions that the Arabs themselves refused an independent Palestine every time they had the chance, he says "A wee bit pointless in an article that's supposed to be about Iraq, don't you think?"

You're a riot, 7.

About the article, it raises some good points, including some very unpleasant ones.

7, You said that the march was anti-war, and not anti-US/Israel/Bush/globalization/Global Warming (take your pick). If it was truly a neutral anti-war message, don't you tell both sides to behave? I would take their position much more seriously if there were as many "Saddam Disarm" posters as there were "US back down" signs. That would show impartiality.

The fact of the matter is that most people LIKE to be rebellious. They know that Saddam probably has forbidden weapons, but are willing to buy Iraqi propaganda as an excuse to voice their frustrations on other things.

Let's face it, you really have to be stupid NOT to believe that Saddam doesn't still have WMDs. We know he had them. We have no evidence that he has gotten rid of them, therefore, he still has them. Very simple.

If you are willing to overlook such simple logic, either you are completely brain-dead (a small minority, I expect - in which case you probably would not be able to read or write on this forum), or you have other prejudices and hatreds that motivate you.

'Nuff for now,

Charles


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1030 times:

I find it quite funny how 777236ER defends the idea of the protests being hijacked by Pro-Palestine/Anti-Israel (pick your term) elements

I don't defend the idea of the protest being hijacked at all. It was meant to be anti-war (and for the most case it was) and anti-Israel, anti-Palestinian, anti-Iraqi and anti-Matt D sentiment shouldn't have been there.

I suppose you're agreeing that being anti-Israel doesn't make you anti-Jewish?

7, You said that the march was anti-war, and not anti-US/Israel/Bush/globalization/Global Warming (take your pick). If it was truly a neutral anti-war message, don't you tell both sides to behave? I would take their position much more seriously if there were as many "Saddam Disarm" posters as there were "US back down" signs. That would show impartiality.

Woah, I have a funky-ass nickname! 7! I like it!

It wasn't a neutral anti-war message, obviously. The US and UK aren't talking about both sides, they're demanding Iraq disarm or else. That's it.

Let's face it, you really have to be stupid NOT to believe that Saddam doesn't still have WMDs. We know he had them. We have no evidence that he has gotten rid of them, therefore, he still has them. Very simple.

"Not to believe that Saddam doesn't still have WMDs" = "to believe Saddam still has WMDs." I love double negatives. You just called yourself stupid  Smile

If you are willing to overlook such simple logic, either you are completely brain-dead (a small minority, I expect - in which case you probably would not be able to read or write on this forum), or you have other prejudices and hatreds that motivate you.

Erm...I never said I agreed with the protestors. I was merely pointing out how wrong the article was. You talk about overlooking simple logic, I don't see you shouting when the author declares that being anti-Israel makes you anti-Jewish.



User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1008 times:

Even in the United States, latest polls have shown that about 50% of all Americans are against a war in Iraq. Quite simply, a lot of Americans believe that Iraq is more of a nuisance than a menace, a nuisance that can be contained by UN Sanctions that eventually squeeze Saddam out of power. When GWB first upped the rhetoric against Iraq, a lot of us thought that this was a way of giving teeth to the sanctions (which were failing due to cross-border violations of the sanctions). However, I think it became clear that GWB wasn't using the threat of war to allow sanctions to work, but was using it as a platform by which to further other goals. Those are still undefined, even by critics of the President. Is it oil? Not entirely. Is it a personal vendetta? Thats ludicrous. Is it a substitute for a faltering economy? The best economic minds have ruled that out. Then what is this war all about? Certainly not terrorism. Terrorists have found refuge in states that are our allies - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even Egypt. So, unfortunately, for Bush and Blair, a significant number of Americans, a majority of Brits and Europeans and the rest of the world don't trust Bush, even as they find Saddam to be an obnoxious boor. Bush really does have a credibility problem here. We had no problems in selling the world on a downright war on the Taliban. Yes, there were a few ragtag protestors in the Arab world, but I didn't see an overwhelming critique of carpet bombings of Mazar el Sharif.

Although, the article is right in stating that such protests always bring about fringe elements and groups with a personal axe to grind, there is ample evidence that the majority were just sick and tired of the war rhetoric. Bush and Blair have been fumbling and bumbling in their attempts at selling this war to the world. And, who knows if they're ultimately right about Iraq - there is always that possibility. But apparently they have not made the case for war against Iraq as they did a case against war in Afghanistan. And until they do so, they are deserving of a very healthy skepticism.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 995 times:

7,

I love double negatives.

Oops. Well, you know what I mean.  Smile Would you admit that taken this way, it is up to Saddam to show evidence that these stocks have been liquidated, instead of having a hundred or so inspectors wandering a country the size of France on a treasure hunt?

By the way, I do agree broadly agree with your anti-Israel/anti-Jewish stand. I would add a caveat, however. You can be against Israeli policy (as I am on many things), without being anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. But if someone is anti-Israel, it implies that you are against the whole idea of the existence of Israel - that you would like nothing better than to see the whole country wiped out. The same thing goes for terms like "anti-American" (too damned common on this forum) which also implies the same thing. Bin Ladin and Mohammed Atta are/were anti-American. Most of the people who protested last weekend may be against American policy, but are not necessarily anti-American. But "anti-American" or "anti-Israel" make good sound-bytes - better than "Anti-American Policy". The latter actually requires the person to think, and we know people don't like to do that.

Jaysit,

Even in the United States, latest polls have shown that about 50% of all Americans are against a war in Iraq. Quite simply, a lot of Americans believe that Iraq is more of a nuisance than a menace, a nuisance that can be contained by UN Sanctions that eventually squeeze Saddam out of power.

You raise a good point - the sanctions.

We know, after 12 years, that sanctions do NOT work, as far as eventually driving out Saddam. They have had reasonable success in limiting his conventional rearmament (it's hard to hide a shipment of a few thousand 70-ton tanks). The sanctions' impact on WMD development is more questionable - the shipments are smaller and easier to conceal - and we know for a fact that Saddam has been importing such materials over the past few years. But for the sake of argument, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the sanctions have effectively halted his WMD program.

I think that we all agree that if sanctions are lifted and Saddam is still in charge, he will use his renewed freedom of financing and movement to re-arm - conventionally at the very least, and very likely WMDs. He would once again become a regional threat. Do you agree?

To stop him from becoming such a threat, you would have to maintain the sanctions as tight as they are now, at least, until Saddam dies of natural causes. We might have to wait 20 years or so.

We know that the sanctions have caused tremendous hardship and deaths on the Iraqi civilian population. If we continue the sanctions, it is quite likely that millions of Iraqis will die because of them between now and the day Saddam dies. Therefore, as long as Saddam is in power, Iraqis must die in large numbers.

So the French/German solution - Continued inspections (which can never truly certify Iraq as completely free of WMDs) and continued sanctions, will end up costing the lives of many hundreds of thousands, even millions of Iraqis, unless we get lucky and Saddam drops dead sometime soon.

Even if inspectors certify that Iraq is WMD-free (I wouldn't believe them if they did, but let's say they are correct), lifting the sanctions would allow Saddam to re-arm, restart his WMD program with virtually unlimited funding, and run the very real risk of him pulling off another Kuwait operation, the very expensive and bloody war to stop him, and once again sanctions, more civilian deaths, etc. We simply start all over.

The whole problem centers on Saddam. As long as he draws breath, we run a very real risk of his running amok again, if we allow him the funding to do it - and it is the same funding that feeds the Iraqi people.

So we have to break the cycle. Saddam must go, and a new government put in place.

So yes, To the U.S., France and most other countries, Saddam is in fact more of a nuisance than a threat (apart from the terrorism angle, but that is another story). But his potential for trouble is great, and as long as he is in power, Iraqis and/or other inhabitants of the region will die in large numbers.

The choice is between:

a) Maintain sanctions - Iraqis continue to die of malnutrition and lack of medicine by the hundreds of thousands (millions over time)

b) Remove sanctions, and face a repeat of Saddam's quest for conquest (I see no signs in a new humility in him), starting the whole cycle of war and sanctions again.

c) Risk a few hundred or a few thousand Western troops now, and if the endgame is properly and fairly managed, reduce the level of hatred in the area towards the West.

I read the French (and others') position as callousness. To them, a million Iraqi dead is preferable to risking French troops - the numbers barely trickle in and almost never make the news in any meaningful way.

I think it became clear that GWB wasn't using the threat of war to allow sanctions to work, but was using it as a platform by which to further other goals.

I'm not so sure about that. I think he needs to keep up the pressure, which he has been doing. He needs to increase pressure if he can, in order to try to get some real concessions from Saddam (those given so far have been pretty empty - designed for headlines). But going for a second UN resolution now is very high-stakes. I think it is slightly premature. I would continue making noise, but wait a few weeks on the resolution. But of course, I'm not the president.

But I would venture to say that Bush does have a separate agenda from the simple disarmament. He wants to break out of the three options paradigm I mentioned earlier. Removing the WMDs be force (and by the way, Saddam himself) would do that.

Like I said a month or two ago, if his plan works, he'll go down in the history books as a hero. If it doesn't, he'll be a bum who couldn't get elected as Garbage Collection Commissioner. He's playing for very high stakes.

I think that is what separates most of the people like Chirac. They do not like to gamble. They prefer a shitty status quo rather than a high-stakes gamble.

Charles


User currently offlineJaysit From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (11 years 6 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 982 times:

Cfalk:

You're right about sanctions not working to perfection. Jordanian and Syrian sympathizers have allowed Iraqi exports to thrive even before the oil for aid program. However, I think its incorrect to assume that they have not worked entirely (after all, even South African sanctions didn't work 100%). The Iraqis can't export oil unless its part of the oil for aid program now, their economy is in a shambles, the Iraqi military is virtually a cartoon image of guys who strut around looking like cheezy Tom Selleck parodies. We obviously can't remove sanctions because if we do, Saddam will go back to his dirty ways and actually have the gall to declare victory (as he did in 1991), and I doubt if the US will tolerate the deaths of a few thousand American troops especially if the reasons for going to war have not been fully articulated. Right now, that has not been done to anyone's satisfaction. I agree that the overthrow of Saddam will probably be in the best interest of Iraqi civilians at least in the short run. But unless Bush et al come clean with a way of politically dealing with Iraq post-Saddam such that the EU, NATO, and Iraq's neighbors are convinced that a viable solution is possible, containment appears to be the best choice so far.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Excellent Article About The Israeli War On Lebanon posted Sun Jul 16 2006 06:44:16 by BA
Interesting Article About The Arab World posted Sat Dec 4 2004 18:00:22 by Rjpieces
"The 'Wisdom' Of Paris Hilton" (Daily Telegraph) posted Tue Jan 31 2006 00:01:11 by Aloges
Zebastian The Zebra From Alberta Is Missing posted Thu Dec 14 2006 04:07:29 by CanadianNorth
The Big Lie About The Middle East posted Mon Dec 11 2006 16:11:28 by RJpieces
Good In The UK From NY posted Sun Nov 12 2006 12:40:09 by Kazzie
Regardless Of How You Feel About The War... posted Fri Nov 3 2006 07:05:50 by BCAInfoSys
Funny Article About Outsourcing! posted Thu Oct 26 2006 01:44:38 by Alberchico
US Report About The War In Iraq posted Mon Sep 25 2006 10:03:18 by Sebolino
Cool Vid About The New Movie: Flyboys posted Fri Sep 8 2006 07:22:46 by UH60FtRucker