Just wondering, supposing the US and some allies do attack Iraq at any point in the near future, driven by economic interests of the US and other countries (I don't buy this danger thing that is supposed to go out from Iraq, really! Stick to the core, the only reason for an attack is economy and economic interests only, not weapons), I was thinking Bush might be a greater danger to public safety in the US than SH. I wouldn't want to live in the US after an attack. It's like an open invitation to terrorist retaliation. I really fear the worst.
If the US administration and president Bush (and for what's it worth, about every administration after WWII) would have been and would be more consequent in their foreign policy, they would have gained some credibility in the middle-east and they wouldn't have created that many ennemies over there, but unfortunately they have done just about everything to avoid making friends. I am against any undemocratic regime like the Iraq one, but there are more countries in the region that have nuclear and chemical arms and still are far from democratic or respecting human rights... and people in the region know this very well, helas. How many UN and safety council resolutions related to the region were never enforced or burried silently?
Please note I don't see the countries now using their vetoes against a new UN Iraq resolution as the better defenders of peace: they have other economic reasons to be against a war now. Russia for the oil for food program and the country's interests in Iraq oil fields, France always had a good economic relationship with Iraq and Germany was never to ashamed to export hi-tech technology to Iraq either...
The most annoying thing lately however, is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world making himself quite ridiculous. It seems like the only phrases he can still utter is about the threat of Iraq to the US and that he's going to disarm him. He can't back out, so he only repeats himself time after time until very few people still believe anything of the messenger.
I can't say I have much respect for SH, but I found it far more creative to listen to his proposal for an open discussion with president Bush on CNN :-)
Oh well, at least Europe is divided again. That's a welcome colateral damage *grin*.
I'd say, if there are any people still buying the reason for a potential attack being the weapons of SH, let's give the UN another 6 months to clean them up. And be sure public safety in the US will be served better by this than by attacking a country.
Sorry for the typo's, English is not my mother-tongue.
If the US administration and president Bush (and for what's it worth, about every administration after WWII) would have been and would be more consequent in their foreign policy, they would have gained some credibility in the middle-east and they wouldn't have created that many ennemies over there, but unfortunately they have done just about everything to avoid making friends. I am against any undemocratic regime like the Iraq one, but there are more countries in the region that have nuclear and chemical arms and still are far from democratic or respecting human rights... and people in the region know this very well, helas. How many UN and safety council resolutions related to the region were never enforced or burried silently?
Please note I don't see the countries now using their vetoes against a new UN Iraq resolution as the better defenders of peace: they have other economic reasons to be against a war now. Russia for the oil for food program and the country's interests in Iraq oil fields, France always had a good economic relationship with Iraq and Germany was never to ashamed to export hi-tech technology to Iraq either...
The most annoying thing lately however, is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world making himself quite ridiculous. It seems like the only phrases he can still utter is about the threat of Iraq to the US and that he's going to disarm him. He can't back out, so he only repeats himself time after time until very few people still believe anything of the messenger.
I can't say I have much respect for SH, but I found it far more creative to listen to his proposal for an open discussion with president Bush on CNN :-)
Oh well, at least Europe is divided again. That's a welcome colateral damage *grin*.
I'd say, if there are any people still buying the reason for a potential attack being the weapons of SH, let's give the UN another 6 months to clean them up. And be sure public safety in the US will be served better by this than by attacking a country.
Sorry for the typo's, English is not my mother-tongue.
