Email written by Iraqi exile SUPPORTING the war

[MC Habber]

www.cbc.ca/national/news/iraq/letter/index.html
====================================
Email written by Iraqi exile,
Cambridge undergraduate Rania Kashi
Reporter: Joe Schlesinger
Airdate: March 11, 2003



Rania Kashi at her computer
Nineteen-year-old student Rania Kashi wrote this letter, not for publication, but to inform her friends about the reality of life in Iraq, and the life of someone whose family comes from Iraq. But somehow, the letter took on a life of its own. It ended up on the internet, and then on the desk of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who mentioned it in a speech on February 15th.

Rania's letter is now famous. Here's the text of her letter. For a transcript of the documentary, read below.


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

I am writing this email after a lot of deliberation about whether I have the right to use my strange and unique position (within our group) to argue the case FOR an invasion in Iraq. But in the end I have decided that I have more to lose if I keep quiet.

Firstly, my parents, my family, are from Iraq. My parents fled from Iraq some 23 years ago leaving everything and everyone behind when at that point 17 of our relatives had been "disappeared" or imprisoned for no reason whatsoever. They sought refuge in Kuwait for four years, but once again were forced to flee with us (my brother and I) in tow when Saddam had the Kuwaitis deport the Iraqi men back to Iraq. On the border he had these returnees shot dead.

We were lucky; we made it safely to Britain. My father was lucky - his brother was caught trying to escape and tortured. So here I am, 19 years later, never having set foot in the country of my parents.

The anti-"war" feeling prevalent amongst people I speak to seems to me totally misjudged and misplaced. I have to be honest here and say that I feel it is based partly on a lot on misunderstanding of the situation in Iraq and partly on people's desire to seem "politically rebellious" against the big, bad Americans. And let me say, that I also agree the American government is indeed big and bad; I have no illusions about their true intentions behind an attack on Iraq.


Rania Kashi
More than you or I, the Iraqis know the ignorant and truly atrocious attitude of the American government towards most of the world's population. Iraqis felt the effect of this when America (and the rest of the west in fact) eagerly supported and supplied Saddam when he waged his war-of-attrition against Iran causing the death of 1 million Iraqis and Iranians and the disappearance of many more - there was no anti-war movement to help them.

They felt the effect of this attitude when America and the West ignored, supplied even, Saddam's use of biological weapons on the people of Halabja, killing 5,000 people in one day, and causing the deformed births of babies in the area to this day.

Iraqis know well the untrustworthy nature of the western governments when the coalition gave Saddam permission, a few days after the end of the Gulf War, to massacre the uprising peoples of Iraq when they had wrested control from him in most cities of Iraq.

The people of Iraq echo our discontentment with America and the west's policy in Iraq, for they know the realities of such a policy far better than any of us shall ever know.

I want to ask those who support the anti-"war" movement (apart from pacifists - that is a totally different situation) their motives and reasoning behind such support. You may feel that America is trying to blind you from seeing the truth about their real reasons for an invasion. I must argue that in fact, you are still blind to the bigger truths in Iraq. I must ask you to consider the following questions:

Saddam has murdered more than a million Iraqis over the past 30 years, are you willing to allow him to kill another million Iraqis?
Out of a population of 20 million, 4 million Iraqis have been forced to flee their country during Saddam's reign. Are you willing to ignore the real and present danger that caused so many people to leave their homes and families?
Saddam rules Iraq using fear – he regularly imprisons, executes and tortures the mass population for no reason whatsoever – this may be hard to believe and you may not even appreciate the extent of such barbaric acts, but believe me you will be hard pressed to find a family in Iraq who have not had a son/father/brother killed, imprisoned, tortured and/or "disappeared" due to Saddam's regime. What has been stopping you from taking to the streets to protest against such blatant crimes against humanity in the past?
Saddam gassed thousands of political prisoners in one of his campaigns to "cleanse" prisons - why are you not protesting against this barbaric act?
An example of the dictator's policy you are trying to save – Saddam has made a law to give excuse to any man to rape a female relative and then murder her in the name of adultery. Do you still want to march to keep him in power?
I remember when I was around eight I went along with my father to a demonstration against the French embassy when the French were selling Saddam weapons. I know of the numerous occasions my father and many, many others have attended various meetings, protests and exhibitions that call for the end of Saddam's reign. I have attended the permanent rally against Saddam that has been held every Saturday in Trafalgar Square for the past five years. The Iraqi people have been protesting for YEARS against the war – the war that Saddam has waged against them. Where have you been?
Why is it now that you deem it appropriate to voice your disillusions with America's policy in Iraq, when it is actually right now that the Iraqi people are being given real hope, however slight and precarious, that they can live in an Iraq that is free of the horrors partly described in this email?

Whatever America's real intentions behind an attack, the reality on the ground is that many Iraqis, inside and outside Iraq support invasive action, because they are the ones who have to live with the realities of continuing as things are while people in the west wring their hands over the rights and wrongs of dropping bombs on Iraq, when in fact the US and the UK have been continuously dropping bombs on Iraq for the past 12 years.

Of course it would be ideal if an invasion could be undertaken, not by the Americans, but by, say, the Nelson Mandela International Peace Force. That's not on offer. The Iraqi people cannot wait until such a force materialises; they have been forced to take what they're given.

That such a force does not exist – cannot exist – in today's world is a failing of the very people who do not want America to invade Iraq, yet are willing to let thousands of Iraqis to die in order to gain the higher moral ground. Do not continue to punish the Iraqi people because you are "unhappy" with the amount of power the world is at fault for allowing America to wield. Do not use the Iraqi people as a pawn in your game for moral superiority - one loses that right when one allows a monster like Saddam to rule for 30 years without so much as protesting against his rule.

Some will accuse me of being a pessimist for accepting that the only way to get rid of Saddam is through force. I beg to differ; I believe I have boundless optimism for the FUTURE of Iraq, where Iraqis are able to rebuild their shattered country, where Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, communists – all peoples of any and all backgrounds are able to live in peace and safety and without fear of persecution. I beg you to imagine such an Iraq, such a democracy in the Middle East, and ask where in that do you see pessimism? Such an Iraq is what is being envisaged and sought by many millions of Iraqis; such an Iraq is where I hope I will be able to take my children.


If you want to make your disillusions heard then do speak out, put pressure on Blair, Bush & Co to keep to their promises of restoring democracy to Iraq. Make sure they do put back in financial aid what they have taken over the years, and make sure that they don't betray the Iraqis again. March for democracy in Iraq. If you say that we can't trust the Americans then make sure that you are a part of ensuring they do fulfil their promises to the Iraqis.

So I conclude by asking you to consider your REASONS for supporting the anti-"war" movement, and if you are going, the anti-"war" demo. If you still feel that what I have said does not sway you from this stance, then I can do no more.

In some ways I do admire the movement because it proves what people can achieve when they come together and speak out. Unfortunately for Iraq nobody spoke out earlier.

(* I use apostrophes with "war" because in truth it will be no war, but an invasion. A war presumes relatively equal forces battling against each, with resistance on both sides. A US-led force will encounter NO resistance from the Iraqi people or the army.)

[MC Habber]

I posted this because it's one of the better arguments for the war that I've seen, as opposed to most of them which make mostly unsubstantiated points and ignore many of the facts.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

MC said:

I posted this because it's one of the better arguments for the war that I've seen, as opposed to most of them which make mostly unsubstantiated points and ignore many of the facts.

And doesn't portray the Americans as white knights valiantly charging to the rescue.

Thank you Rania for your eloquence and balanced perspective. May you be able, one day, to set foot in Baghdad without fear; after the Americans destroy the monster they helped create.

[Ged]

Who's she kidding? After all, we all know it's about the oil.

[Cranky]

How many people lived under a totalitarian regime? No, not your parents, cousins or distant relatives. You, personally.

I will put my hand up first.

I lived in Greece in 1967 (13 years old) when the relatively benign military junta came in and in 1973 (19 years old) when it was toppled.

The reason I am asking is that I am curious to know who has lived under the "wonderful" experience of a totalitarian state.

I feel that Canadians honestly do not know what it feels like to live under a dictatorship. The disappearance of people you know. The torture of close relatives. The fear of talking to anyone the wrong way. The corruption of the entire infrastructure. The privileged few who seem to “find” money and position in life. The “official” indoctrination at every level in school.

*sigh*

On a lighter note but a true story.

What am I complaining about? I was responsible for the “lead step and advance” of the entire primary school system parade (march) in Sparta in 1968. That was for the 25th of March parade (Greek posters know what I am talking about). Yup, “HA the Mischievous” was responsible for opening his gate and causing a block long gap between schools and then shortening his gate and bunching everybody on each other. And just for good measures, I would switch step every few hundred feet. Those of you who have participated in a march know what kind of a mess one creates by changing step. It looks like a wave passing through the entire line. Now imagine 8 to 12 year olds trying to change step. What a freak show of a parade, courtesy of yours truly.

At one point I was ready to take a right turn and take all of the 1100 primary school students on a long march through the local stadium. BUT, visions of that olive wood strap repeatedly swishing at my tender butt and hands danced painfully in my head. Instead, I shortened my gate after I passed the “big shot” podium and squished the tail end on itself. It was real easy to do because you are suppose to look at "them" and salute as you passed the podium. I will tell you with some authority that 8-12 year olds can not keep their step, distance, salute and look to their right at the same time. Mayors, Generals, Cardinals and my Principle got a first hand look at the Domino Effect.

Bad HA.

[PTH]

mr said:

And doesn't portray the Americans as white knights valiantly charging to the rescue.

Thank you Rania for your eloquence and balanced perspective. May you be able, one day, to set foot in Baghdad without fear; after the Americans destroy the monster they helped create.

I just worry they'll be creating a newer, more powerful monster in just a few years....
And I wonder if Iraqis are really as ready as she thinks to be a diversified, open society. She's never lived there, and the Iraqis she does know are those who've left the country as well and also have been exposed to the outside world. Not a representative sampling, to say the least...

[PTH]

HA, no one, no one at all, is saying that Saddam is a good guy in any way, shape or form. It's the process used by the US and their complete lack of diplomatic savvy, combined with some serious doubts about their real motivations, that leads to some questionning. And we have yet to have anything close to reasonable answers.

[Cranky]

PTH said:

And we have yet to have anything close to reasonable answers.

Are you asking if anyone on this forum providing you with an answer? Or are you talking in general, as in Goverments providing answers?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH said:

I just worry they'll be creating a newer, more powerful monster in just a few years....
And I wonder if Iraqis are really as ready as she thinks to be a diversified, open society. She's never lived there, and the Iraqis she does know are those who've left the country as well and also have been exposed to the outside world. Not a representative sampling, to say the least...

To build something takes time, to blow something up takes no time at all.

The aftermath is bound to be infinitely more difficult, and could quite possibly plunge the entire region into crisis. Old claims will be brought up. Scores will be settled. Ambitions will be tested. I shudder to imagine the possible magnitude of all this. Especially if the INfidel occupies a Muslim country on whatever pretext.

The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that.

[PTH]

HabsAddict said:

Are you asking if anyone on this forum providing you with an answer? Or are you talking in general, as in Goverments providing answers?

Both.
I've yet to see a hint of a credible response in the news, and no one on here has brought up anything to answer my questions either. But it's the governments who should be answering. Especially those who are starting a war (un-needed IMO).

[MC Habber]

PTH said:

Not a representative sampling, to say the least...

I agree, but I have to say I was quite stunned when I read that email, because almost every thing I have read that supported the war ignored the facts and made the US out to be 'white knights' as mr bozo said. This was actually a well thought out opinion which acknowledged some of the complexities of the situation. I think there is a possibility that some good will come out of this war and that the world will be a better place, but I think that possibility is pretty remote.

Another reason I posted this is because she raises an important point - that despite all the activism now and despite all the people condemning the plight of the Iraqi people, within a couple of months of the war ending it will all be forgotten by about 85% of the people in the West. It is important to pressure the US government to finish what it started this time, rather than abandonning the Iraqi people once again.

BTW, some people have lamented Canada's non-participation saying that the US has always been there for it's allies and we have let them down. Obviously this is not true, just ask anybody from Kurdistan. The US has been our ally because it is a profitable alliance, but, should that change, we would not be the first ally to be let down by them when the alliance is no longer profitable.

[Cranky]

BAGDHAD, March 06, 2003 (Reuters) -

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein agreed late Friday to European proposals to switch his military apparatus to environmentally-safe, biodegradable poison gas and other chemical or biological weapons that do not contribute to global warming. According to sources close to the negotiations, this would bring Iraq in line with the European-led Kyoto Protocal on greenhouse gases, a proposed treaty to control gases thought to cause global warming. Under the plan, all Iraqi chemical and biological weapons would be manufactured to minimize potential damage to the environment. Existing covert stock-piles of Sarin and other nerve agents, will be modified so to elminate ozone-harming ingredients, the principle factor in global warming according to most scientists. Iraq's stockpiles of Anthrax would also be altered to minimize risk of water-pollution in the event of large-scale attacks on metropolitan areas.

European leaders applauded Hussein's bold move over the weekend. German Foreign Minister, Joscha Fischer said, "We are very pleased that our good friend, Iraq, has taken its responsibility for the global environment. I only wish that we, here in Germany, hadn't gotten involved with that ozone-damaging Zyklon-B years ago". Ex-French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine said, "This shows that the America's simplistic villainization of President Hussein is misplaced. Even when it becomes necessary to gas to death ones enemies, each and every one of us must work in a multilateral way and work together to minimize environmental impact. Iraq's bold multilateralism is a role model for certain other countries, which I need not mention...."

Last year, the United States pulled out of the treaty to widespread criticism in Europe. An alternative U.S. proposal released by President George Bush last month was poorly recieved. Iraq would be the 80th country to join the protocol.

Hussein said in a speech on Bagdhad TV over the weekend: "The Republic of Iraq, in a gesture of friendship to France and Germany, takes full responsibility to protect the environment. From now on, Iraq will use only clean, non-polluting poison gas and other chemical and biological weapons. I have personally ordered all of our covert weapons to be tested by a special Kyoto Protocal Inspection Team, which will independently verify our compliance with the Kyoto Treaty. While this can be seen as a concession on Iraq's sacred sovereignty, we will make this sacrifice in a gesture of good will. May this serve as an example to less responsible so-called "rogue nations" around the world."

Neighboring Iran's President Khatami and North Korea's Kim Il Jong II both had were gravely disappointed by the extra expense of this Iraqi move.

Just tell me when you had enough reasons. Or do you want to see more? When is it enough? Will it make it easier to understand if it was your mother? Sister? Brother?

They came to get them in the other town and I did nothing.

They came and got my neighbor and I did nothing.

Then they came for me......

[Rhiessan]

mr said:

The restructuring of Iraq is best left to the UN. The Americans are a useful tool with their technology in the first stage of the process, but their Coca Cola foreign policy should be kept on this side of the Atlantic after that.

Do you honestly think that after dismantleing/destroying all the chem/bio weapons, ousting/killing Saddam and freeing the Iraqi people that the US is just gonna pack their bags and leave the Iraqi people to manage THEIR millions of trillions worth of oil any way they see fit?
I'd like to believe that but I would also like to still believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny.

This is one "grey area" subject to deal with, I mean you could easily have an arguement between multiple pro-war speakers on the motives alone.

My personal views are as follows:
Is the US right in going in? Yes
Is the US right in going in without UN support? No
Is the UN right in withholding support of the US? No
Is the CAN gov't right in not supporting our US allies? No
Is booing of the American national anthem right? No
Do people have a right to boo the American national anthem? Yes
When all's said and done is the cause and effect bottom line spelled O-I-L? Oh Yeah in the biggest fattest capital letters you can find.

[PTH]

Thoroughly tasteless.... and counter-factual - namely on Iraqi-French or Iraqi-German friendship, and Saddam has little to no chemical weapons left as far as dozens upon dozens of weapons experts could find..

As to those images - are those the Kurds that the US encouraged to rebel before feeding them to the shark ? Or are they the ones the Iraqi's killed with US-supplied biological weapons in the 80s? Or are they they Kurds that Turkey has been suppressing for decades now ? So many options...

HabsAddict said:

BAGDHAD, March 06, 2003 (Reuters) -

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein agreed late Friday to European proposals to switch his military apparatus to environmentally-safe, biodegradable poison gas and other chemical or biological weapons that do not contribute to global warming. According to sources close to the negotiations, this would bring Iraq in line with the European-led Kyoto Protocal on greenhouse gases, a proposed treaty to control gases thought to cause global warming. Under the plan, all Iraqi chemical and biological weapons would be manufactured to minimize potential damage to the environment. Existing covert stock-piles of Sarin and other nerve agents, will be modified so to elminate ozone-harming ingredients, the principle factor in global warming according to most scientists. Iraq's stockpiles of Anthrax would also be altered to minimize risk of water-pollution in the event of large-scale attacks on metropolitan areas.

European leaders applauded Hussein's bold move over the weekend. German Foreign Minister, Joscha Fischer said, "We are very pleased that our good friend, Iraq, has taken its responsibility for the global environment. I only wish that we, here in Germany, hadn't gotten involved with that ozone-damaging Zyklon-B years ago". Ex-French Foreign Minister, Hubert Vedrine said, "This shows that the America's simplistic villainization of President Hussein is misplaced. Even when it becomes necessary to gas to death ones enemies, each and every one of us must work in a multilateral way and work together to minimize environmental impact. Iraq's bold multilateralism is a role model for certain other countries, which I need not mention...."

Last year, the United States pulled out of the treaty to widespread criticism in Europe. An alternative U.S. proposal released by President George Bush last month was poorly recieved. Iraq would be the 80th country to join the protocol.

Hussein said in a speech on Bagdhad TV over the weekend: "The Republic of Iraq, in a gesture of friendship to France and Germany, takes full responsibility to protect the environment. From now on, Iraq will use only clean, non-polluting poison gas and other chemical and biological weapons. I have personally ordered all of our covert weapons to be tested by a special Kyoto Protocal Inspection Team, which will independently verify our compliance with the Kyoto Treaty. While this can be seen as a concession on Iraq's sacred sovereignty, we will make this sacrifice in a gesture of good will. May this serve as an example to less responsible so-called "rogue nations" around the world."

Neighboring Iran's President Khatami and North Korea's Kim Il Jong II both had were gravely disappointed by the extra expense of this Iraqi move.

[Cranky]

Tasteless? Or too powerful? Ever see anyone die "tastefully" by gas?

Counter-factual? What facts? I have yet to see any. All I see is the "Americans-R-Oil" argument ad nauseam. Then it’s backed by they will, may, could, should rhetoric and speculation.

Those images? Reality sucks, doesn’t it? The even interfere with perfectly good “facts” as one sees them. Those images are the result of a man who cares nothing about anyone but himself. Beautiful aren’t they? *cries*

The debate is very simple if distilled down to it’s basic level.

Someone has to put an end to Saddam. By any means.

France, Russia, Germany, Americans, oil and monkey sway bars are not the issue. Saddam is.


Can anyone debate that she will be better of with Saddam in power? What else counts?

[MC Habber]

HabsAddict said:

Tasteless? Or too powerful? Ever see anyone die "tastefully" by gas?

Counter-factual? What facts? I have yet to see any. All I see is the "Americans-R-Oil" argument ad nauseam. Then it’s backed by they will, may, could, should rhetoric and speculation.

There have been plenty of facts thrown around by both sides in this debate, as well as speculation and rhetoric.

Those images? Reality sucks, doesn’t it? The even interfere with perfectly good “facts” as one sees them. Those images are the result of a man who cares nothing about anyone but himself. Beautiful aren’t they? *cries*

You could just as easily find similar images that are the result of US interferenc and imperialism

The debate is very simple if distilled down to it’s basic level.

Someone has to put an end to Saddam. By any means.

I see. No matter how many thousands of people die, no matter how much the assault against the environment is increased and the point when this planet is no longer habitable approaches ever faster.

France, Russia, Germany, Americans, oil and monkey sway bars are not the issue. Saddam is.


Can anyone debate that she will be better of with Saddam in power? What else counts?

Would she be better off if she were killed by American bombs? Maybe she would be better off if a religious war started in Iraq after the fall of Saddam?
What about America's poor? Are they better off with Bush in power? What about all the other countries where equally bad atrocities are being committed?

America's motives matter. So do the consequences of this war for the stability of the Middle East.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Increasingly lost in the hysteria and testosterone rush of wanting and seeing big explosions is the fact that very few have advocated keeping Saddam in power. His removal has been called for by almost all. It is the question of methods and motives (or M&Ms as I'm sure the Cheerleader News Network would quickly get around to calling it) that is eyed with suspicion.

The Americans are far from holier than thou: In fact, employing rhetoric slung about in recent years, this can be described as a battle between The Great Satan and The Axis of Evil (there's a working title for a Sunday morning cartoon show for some enterprising young American). This mortal coil is, after all, the domain that was granted to the Fallen One.

As for the Shocking and Aweful photos: so what? Such photos can be dredged up daily from the four corners of the world. Might as well show photos of homeless people dead on heating grates and in alley ways, subway suicide victims; and make the claim that a nation that can't guarantee the safety and well-being of its own population has no business policing the world.

It is ironic to see the Americans using the two things that they have more of than anyone else in the world to destroy one of their own creations. What remains to be seen is what the embryo they will seek to nourish with their money and weapons will look like as it grows. Recent past history has not been flattering in this regard.

[Cranky]

If no one is challenging the statement that Saddam must be removed then why all the dead cyber trees?

The only ones that can do it are the Americans. Face it, they are the military masters of this planet and people hate them for it. What are you going to do about it besides complain and toss cookies? NOTHING. No one can. They ARE doing it, they will do whatever THEY deem necessary in order to achieve their goals. You think they give a damn who is opposed to them? Do you? They could not care less.

Doesn’t reality suck?

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place.

Reality doesn't suck. It just is. The American government (especially its foreign policy) is what sucks.

The Americans are not the only ones who could remove Saddam. They are the ones who have chosen to do it in their own unpopular fashion. Though in a sense it's fitting that they clean up the mess they created in the first place. Of course, that they leave a greater mess behind them due to their shortsightedness won't be surprising, given their lack of understanding of the greater reality beyond their insular boundaries.

[spozzy]

Europe can't even handle issues on their own soil (e.g. former Yugoslavia), what makes you think they can possibly solve foreign problems?

Just look at North Korea now. The US wants the UN to handle it, yet everyone is throwing the burden to the US. The fact remains that it is only the US which is capable and willing to face its responsibilities.

[Cranky]

spozzy said:

Europe can't even handle issues on their own soil (e.g. former Yugoslavia), what makes you think they can possibly solve foreign problems?

Just look at North Korea now. The US wants the UN to handle it, yet everyone is throwing the burden to the US. The fact remains that it is only the US which is capable and willing to face its responsibilities.

You are underestimating Europe.

If they can unite under Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon and the mini skirt, they could certainly unite under another great leader and start another World War.

[BadCompany]

As graphic and as gruesome as those pictures are, they still don't answer any of the proper questions; why here? why now? The fact that those pictures are now over a decade (at least) old, says something all by itself, doesn't it? As Bozo pointed out, you could find daily pictures like that just about anywhere, particularily in poorer, African or Asian nations.

Why Saddam Hussein and Iraq? Why not North Korea? Why not Syria? Why not Sudan? Congo? Indonesia? China? Chechyna? Liberia? Somalia? Iran? Angola? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Saudi Arabia is a country that is one small step ahead of the Taliban, huge sponsors of international terrorism, brutal oppressors of their own people (especially women) where most of its leading government (i.e religious) leaders despise America and the West with a passion strong enough to make a good dozen or so of them fly planes into American buildings. Why isn't the US invading Saudia Arabia? (I think we know the answer to that one)

The world is full of places that are just as bad, and often a good deal worse than Iraq, why isn't the US invading them? Why did the US refuse to commit aid and/or troops to Rwanda? Will Bush attempt to establish freedom and democracy elsewhere now? If so, why have they all but abandoned the Afghanistan rebuild, reneging on their promises of money, aid, and infrastructure?

Again, why here? Why now?

I am not a peace-knit, bongo-banging, pot smoking anti-war crusader. War, in my opinion, is sometimes, often, necessary. World War II springs quickly to mind. I supported the war in Afghanistan, I supported the NATO air-war on Serbia, and for me the UN's biggest failure was its inaction in both Bosnia and Rwanda. I supported the first Gulf War. But I cannot in good conscience support this war, not for the reasons given for launching it. They don't make sense, they are inconsistent with global realities, and it just seems wrong. I am no lover of Saddam Hussein, but if the only reason to wage this war is to get rid of him, and his cronies, then repeal the "no assassination " law, and have a go at him that way. Cheaper, cleaner, and just as morally correct.

[Rhiessan]

mr said:

What really sucks is that the American government created and sustained Saddam in the first place.

Well the US didn't create Suddam per say, the Russians had their hands on that one pretty good. The US(CIA) was more directly responsable for Iran and all the problems there in the past. All of it was about cold war oil interests.
If you want something interesting go and find out who was the directer of the CIA during some of those turbulent times.

HA no one is gonna disagree that Saddam must be felled.
What doesn't sit well with people are the true motives behind the situation.
Everything that happens in the middle east is about oil, always has been always will be!

To take oil out of the equation or to downplay it's political and economic ramifications is just plain short sighted.

[MC Habber]

spozzy said:

Just look at North Korea now. The US wants the UN to handle it, yet everyone is throwing the burden to the US. The fact remains that it is only the US which is capable and willing to face its responsibilities.

Whoa, talk about contradicting yourself!

[MC Habber]

Rhiessan said:

Everything that happens in the middle east is about oil, always has been always will be!

That's true for now, but wait another 20-40 years and there might not be any oil left there. Then nobody will care at all.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Then it will be our turn, because it will be all about water.

[PTH]

mr said:

Then it will be our turn, because it will be all about water.

Probably. Then again, I doubt we'll see much happen that'll be dramatic, they'll just buy us out, the process is largely started anyhow, with the "free trade" agreement and all.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

PTH said:

Probably. Then again, I doubt we'll see much happen that'll be dramatic, they'll just buy us out, the process is largely started anyhow, with the "free trade" agreement and all.

It could be different if we all grow moustaches, wear berets and army fatigues, smoke cigars, and hang out at les salons de bronzage during the cold months. And I mean the women too.

[Rhiessan]

mr said:

Then it will be our turn, because it will be all about water.

Dam you Mr. B. I was saving that one

[MC Habber]

Lol... maybe Canadian soldiers will practice a scorched earth policy like Iraq and boil the great lakes as they retreat.