I am no great historian. And, after spending the last 25 years waiting for Jehovah to come and fix up the mess he let accumulate since the day he decided to gather some dust together to make a man in his image, I am now trying to get a little more involved in the "real world." What is so great about this forum is that we get to hear how the real "joe" feels over there across the ocean without the prejudices of politically correct news agencies, newpapers or televsion. That all said, here are some quotes from Kenneth Pollack, one of the world's leading experts on Iraq. He was an analyst on Iraq for the CIA and the National Security Council. Yes, he is an American. But, nevertheless, he has some interesting things to say about the world's involvement in Saddam's removal from power.
Great Britain-"London is under no illusions about the problems Saddam's regime could cause if it is someday free to do as it likes, and since it is the US that will have to bear the serious costs, Blair is willing to go along if we are serious enough to do it right. That said, the British are sticklers about international law and often have a much higher legal threshold for military action against Iraq than does the US. Consequently, London would very much like to have a clear green light from the United Nations before launching into new military operations against Iraq." Voted "yes" for resolution and stands besides the US against the dictator in Iraq.
France-"is one of the Iraq's chief advocates and, while still a NATO ally of the US, believes that taking an "independent" line is critical to French stature and the good of the world. In addition, Iraq owes France $4.5 billion from pre-Gulf War sales. France is also one of Iraq's largest trading partners. To be blunt, the French have not hesitated to compromise their principles if it meant a greater share of Iraqi trade." More said on this subject, but too much to type out here. "..if France becomes convinced that the US is absolutely determined to remove Saddam and is willing to use all of its power to do the job, they likely will flip and become supporters of the operation to try to secure some piece of post-Saddam Iraq's trade and reconstruction." Not a very high opinion of France's integrity here by Pollack. Remember I am just quoting. Again, in the last days, voted "yes" for the resolution.
Russia-"has been Iraq's strongest advocate since the Gulf War and has been rewarded with a heallthy slice of Iraq's oil-for-food contracts, vying with France for the top slot during each round of contracting. Iraq owes Russia $8 billion from pre-Gulf War sales, mostly for military equipment. The Russians have signed numerous long-term contracts with Iraq for the development of Iraqi oil fields, infrastructure, and other lucrative projects. Consequently, Russia has quite a bit at stake with Saddam Hussein's regime. What's more, post-Soviet Russia hates to see the US throw its weight around the world and therefore tends to oppose American military moves for geopolitical reasons as well." "...if the US makes it clear that it has the will and the regional support to get the job done, Moscow(like Paris) will have a huge incentive to try to secure its economic interests in the inevitable post-Saddam world. The Russians might not be willing to contribute an armored division to such an effort(and the US military would not want it) but they might be willing to be helpful in other ways-perhaps even in the United Nations." Guess the US found that help from Russia they needed. Attacking Russia and France's integrity here? Russia voted "yes".
China-"will probably end up opposing any US policy on Iraq. Beijing vehemently opposes any use of American military force, and the idea of the US forcibly overthrowing another regime is anathema to the Chinese-whose record on human rights and WMD(weapons of mass destruction) is probably closer to Iraq's than to Sweden's. Like Russia's and France's, China's advocacy of Iraq over the years has paid off in large oil-for-food contracts as well as some hefty illegal contracts, such as the construction of a fiber-optic communications network for Iraqi military and internal security forces." "...the Chinese will also likely oppose any efforts by the US to create a new containment regime that will patch up the holes in the current sanctions." Again, China voted "yes" for the resolution.
Pollack also gives his views on ..."America's other core allies, such as Canada, Australia, and Japan, can be expected to be as supportive as Britain and the northern European countries or more so in terms of a more robust policy. All of them would probably prefer a revamped form of containment, if only because they would all find regime change somewhat unpalatable for one reason or another." "In the end, all would likely go along with a military compaign if the US made clear its commitment and willingness to pay the costs and rebuild Iraq afterward."
Some of the above is Pollacks personal opinion. The rest is fact. I found this book to be very enlightening.
I do not advocate war. My mother had a brother who came back from WWII. She asked him "What did you do over there?" She was very young and would ask this question over and over again. He would not answer her. One day he could take it no more and said to her "I KILLED PEOPLE, NOW LEAVE ME ALONE!" She never talked about his time in the war again. My mother also lost another brother in that war. His body was never found.
No one wants war. But, I fear for the world if ruthless and cruel dictators, like Saddam, are not dealt with in a swift and decisive matter. Will it take a mushroom cloud over a major city anywhere on this planet to "stop the bully from hurting others on the playground?"
In my opinion, all political correctness put aside, the UN Security Council passed the resolution because they see a "mushroom cloud" on the horizon if Saddam is allowed to continue his reign. Let's hope and pray that they get rid of him (war or not) before we see it.
Mrs. Shakita