OT: Question for the Americans

[gforbess@attglobal.net (Gordon Forbess)]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002 18:14:20 -0400, Cathy Boyko <losinit@usa.net>
wrote:

>Pardon me for not being very astute politically, but what's the deal =
with the
>president and Iraq? I'm not sure of the urgency, I realize there is a =
lot of
>tension for a number of reasons, and has been for some time, but it =
seems the
>international community isn't too into this project of his. (Canada was =
rather
>cool on it) Just wondering why the need right now, is it the polls? I =
would
>certainly hope it's more than that

Most of the international community does not (yet) see the risk of
Saddam having a nuke or WMDs, since they do not feel he threatens
them.  This is wishful thinking, along the same lines as Britain and
=46rance allowing Hitler to build a military machine in violation of the
treaty ending WW1 and then annex Austria and parts of Chechoslovakia
prior to WW2 because he said that was all he wanted.  This was, of
course: 1) appeasement and, 2) bullshit.  Ask the Poles, Belgians &
Dutch (among others) what the word of that megalomaniac dictator was
worth.

Saddam must be dealt with before he gets the big boom.  The Europeans
couldn't even deal with an obvious situation in their own back yard
(Balkans) without US troops. The Russians are desperate for money and
Iraq is a valued trading partner.  The Arab governments are afraid of
their own people (in most cases for good reason).  The UN is as gonad
challenged as ever (how many resolutions can you have ignored before
acting?) so that leaves the US and Brits to put it together.

As long as the Brits have nothing to do with putting an automobile
together..=20










Gordon
75 Mk I/Drake 1.9
http://home.att.net/~gforbess/scirocco/scirocco.htm