'American Gone Mad' - a British author's view on the current situation
In Paul Wolfowitz 1992 draft of the policy statement on America's mission in the post-Cold War era, under · Another major U.S. objective should be to safeguard U.S. interests and promote American values. He goes on to say "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil;" if US interests are threatened by regional conflict: So he had outlined different scenerios that the US should be taking preemptive strikes and that was one of them.
Sounds like fanatical right wing Christian fundamentalism behind a lot of this.
What a bunch of rubbish! It was people like him that kept Hitler going and going....
Over 30 Nations now support the Brits and US to kick out that mad man...........
He fails to mention how the UN voted for Resolution 1441 overwhelmingly!
Is this the best you can do? Shame....
In this mornings Montreal Gazette, it said, George Bush knows that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons because his father has the receipts! Yes, it was meant to be funny.
Thanks for posting that exchange of letters -- what a terrific exchange of invectives. Productive, no, but there's a palpable excitement in the volly of insults. It really didn't seem to be about the US conflict with Iraq, did it? More like the egos of writers one-upping each other.
My point was not that the exchange between Le Carre and Salman Rushdie had anything to do with Iraq, but if a writer starts out by bashing the US, and claims that the US has gone mad etc., I immediately suspect his background. Does he have an agenda? He seems to be biased, so what are his reasons.
If there is a court case, for instance, and someone testifies, the opposing attorney will try to discredit the witness by showing bias, or to show that the witness is unreliable for one or more reasons.
I think when a writer makes the claims that Le Carre has made, it is reasonable to question where his sentiments are and why. I think if I were to do a thorough background search on him, I would probably find that he leans very much toward the socialists, and even possibly toward the communists.
His attacks on Rushdie seem to indicate that he takes sides with the Islam extremists over a writer who would expose the teachings of those extremists. We could put ourselves in the position of Salman Rushdie and wonder how we would view a person who would take sides with the Watchtower Society against us as we attempt to expose the falsehoods of the WT. Even more so, if we put our lives on the line for exposing the falsehoods, as Rushdie has.
Don't compare the situation with Hitler; Saddam has'nt invaded the US or Britain, that's the point, that's why we have all the wrangling about the legality of the whole farce.The UN resolutions were never worded so that military action was to be a concequence of non- compliance.
The situation is a disgrace and I am ashamed of my country tonight.
God help the Iraqi people.
I think the US and UK and many others have filthy hands over what they have done to the Iraqi people over the last 25 years ... and don't insult our intelligence by pretending this ever had anything to do with things other than OIL
It's convenient to take a short-temr, blinkered view of things. It's like giving a known psychopath a gun, letting him shoot people and then disarming him ... and wanting to be praised as a hero.
I enjoyed this Email I received today. .......Pope
"All right, let me see if I understand the logic of
this correctly. We are going to ignore the United
Nations in order to make clear to Saddam Hussein that
the United Nations cannot be ignored. We're going to
wage war to preserve the UN's ability to avert war .
The paramount principle is that the UN's word must be
taken seriously, and if we have to subvert its word to
guarantee that it is, then by gum, we will. Peace is
too important not to take up arms to defend. Am I
getting this right?
Further, if the only way to bring democracy to Iraq is
to vitiate the democracy of the Security Council, then
we are honor-bound to do that too, because democracy,
as we define it, is too important to be stopped by a
little thing like democracy as they define it. Also,
in dealing with a man who brooks no dissension at
home, we cannot afford dissension among ourselves.
We must speak with one voice against Saddam Hussein's
failure to allow opposing voices to be heard. We are
sending our gathered might to the Persian Gulf to make
the point that might does not make right, as Saddam
Hussein seems to think it does. And we are twisting
the arms of the opposition until it agrees to let us
oust a regime that twists the arms of the opposition.
We cannot leave in power a dictator who ignores his
own people. And if our people, and people elsewhere in
the world, fail to understand that, then we have no
choice but to ignore them."-
by PETER FREUNDLICH
Don't compare the situation with Hitler; Saddam has'nt invaded the US or Britain, that's the point, that's why we have all the wrangling about the legality of the whole farce.
Hitler didn't invade the US or Britain either, although he bombed the daylights out of Britain. But, Saddam did invade Kuwait with plans for more invasions. After his defeat, part of his surrender agreement was to do certain things, like disarm and end the oppression of his people. In the 12 years since, that has not been done to any degree to ensure the safety of his neighbors.
Who all helped arm him is now a moot point. He has used these WMD on his own people and apparently has plans to use them again, even though it is said he doesn't have them. He has had 12 yeras to accomplish this and has yet to show even the UN weapons inspectors cedible evidence of it being done. Destroying a handful of missles isn't actual disarming, but more like buying time.
My biggest worry is that he shares these weapons with ones like Osama Bin Ladin and uses them elsewhere, even in France. They are fanatics and will stop at nothing to force their view on others. Britain and even France would not tolerate a group as that operating inside their country and would put their insurrection down immediately. Why they wish to now tolerate a regime that just may be supplying support to international terrorism, terrorism that has affected their very own countries in the past, puzzles me, other than the money they stand to make if they get to fulfil the contracts they signed with Saddam.