| Subject: Re: Why the sudden push to get Saddam? |
Author:
Astrid
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09:53:04 09/16/02 Mon
In reply to:
Raisinmom
's message, "Re: Why the sudden push to get Saddam?" on 05:54:08 09/16/02 Mon
>Well, as noted in my first post, there *are* links
>between Saddam and Al Qaeda; I'll try to dig up some
>Safire columns later today.
That would be great. I am aware that Czech intelligence is claiming that Atta met with an Iraqi gov't representative, but I am not aware that there are good reasons for the CIA denying this.
Second, I don't believe
>that Saddam differentiates between those terrorists
>that he will support and those that he won't. Rather,
>I believe he will provide arms to any group that may
>be able to succeed in killin the West or Israel,
>regardless of the group's motivation for doing so.
Except that Saddam is a secular leader who is trying to squelch fundamentalism. No doubt it represents a threat to his leadership--so funding such extremists could turn around and bite him in the butt (in this sense, he's smarter than the US was on this matter).
>As for Saudi Arabia, yes, it is a threat, but less
>urgent than Saddam. Saudi Arabia inculcates hatred
>and teaches intolerance, and creates the conditions
>that lead to terrorist groups and cells. This is
>certainly very serious. But Saudi Arabia's corrupt
>royal family is not giving arms to any who can destroy
>America (though they may be doing this for groups who
>wish to try for Israel). Moreover,
>Saudi Arabia at least wishes to keep the appearance of
>cooperation, and thus gives some concessions in the
>"war against terror." So from Bush's perspective,
>Saudi Arabia is a threat, but one to deal with later
>and differently (ie, not regime change probably).
Right, but then let's drop the "axis of evil" rhetoric, ok, Mr. Bush? We'll hold our noses as we dine with evil-doers when it suits us. Saddam is really no greater threat IMO, he's just far less of an ally.
>No, not if the electorate thinks it's right. It would
>be different if the UN actually represented the moral
>right, but it doesn't (Rwanda?), and neither does the
>EU (Germany's stance on Iraq right now).
Germany's stance on Iraq is that war will create destablisation which will spill over the entire Middle East. I think this is a moral stance worth considering. Of course, that's only the official stance. The unofficial stance is "say what the voters want to hear" as there's an election happening there right now. But is that much different from the Bush administration's take on things?
>Yes, this is troubling. But I guess Bush et al. would
>say that it's not like the Middle East is stable now,
>or that the "acceptable" regimes (like Pakistan or
>Saudi Arabia) are really all that great (of course
>they could easily be worse). Moreover, I suspect the
>hawks would argue that destabilization is certainly a
>grave risk, but that the risk of Saddam having and
>providing biological, chemical or nuclear arms to
>terrorists is much more grave. They may also be
>emboldened by the disavowal by some of the "domino
>theory" that got the US into several ugly situations
>in the past. Powell and Rummy -- well, I'll be frank,
>I don't have enough basis to judge these guys to know
>whether I trust their opinions. I think it's very
>difficult for even a politically aware, educated
>American to accurately gauge the competence of those
>involved in foreign policy and defence at the time of
>the actions -- we don't know the whole story, the
>threats, the side-deals, the coups we could back, the
>dictators waiting in the wings.
Makes it tough to be an active participant in democracy, doesn't it? ;-)
I think you're absolutely right. We can sit around speculating all day long, and we still have no clue as to what this is all about.
Astrid
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 