Posts Made By: Dominique Dierick

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.

Just out of curiosity, we get a relatively balanced covering of the Iraq crisis here in the European media, with thorough analysis on what the real reasons could be for an attack on Iraq (last night a rather shocking documentary on the background of GWB, and the cash flow from oil gigants towards his campaign, amongst other things like the very doubtful selling of stock with pre-knowledge
as an auditor of the company - investigated, but investigated by what seem to be close friends of GWB). Also the motivation behind the viewpoint of Blair, historic reasons why he acts the way he acts etc.

How do the media cover all this in the US? Do you get this kind of balanced analysis as well? If not, it could lead to a biased public opinion.

I watch CNN regularly, but hardly hear anything about it on that channel.


D.

forgotten a little bit about North Korea? Didn't I hear they threw out international inspection for their nuclear program? I remember even they have long range missiles that reach thousands of miles...

Perhaps if we have to wait too long to enter Iraq, the climate will be against an attack. How's the weather in Korea this time of the year?

Nah, who cares about Korea, nothing economical over there, just trees.

D.

For the victims that will fall in a few days.
Crazy world.

Bombing a country which obviously militarily is quite defenseless apart from a few rusted missiles. I am disgusted by it. At least BBC did show civilian victims, women and children last night so we can see something else than the "shock and awe" fireworks hurray news on CNN.

PS. Once again, I do not back SH at all, and he had better leave and even brought to trial for human rights violation, but there were other means. And if it will be a victory for the so-called allies, it is a victory of shame only. The worst thing that can happen to the US and its allies is that Iraq does not use any chemical and biological weapons (provided they still have them). That way the population in the Arab world will definitely see Iraq as a victim of Western aggression, and the world will have gained in instability again.

Please guys over there, if you vote your next president, vote for someone with more capabilities like Powell, not someone who in pure macho style goes to his holiday home while people die overseas.

The good thing is that at least it's obvious not all the American people support this war, be it that hundreds got arrested in the land of freedom for blocking a few crossroads.

My 0.02 Euro

D.

I have been thinkering a bit.

What if the situation where to be frozen on the field as it is now, with an immediate cease-fire on both sides.
Present troops of US and UK could be assisted with other UN troops from different countries (Indonesia, Japan, some European states, some Arab countries) under the banner of UN. They could help the inspectors look for the so-called AMD's. The pressure would still be on SH, given troops are there. But troops with a cause of helping inspection, not immediately trying to create a new regime.

If they don't find anything, well, there will be nothing and they can withdraw peacefully, happy ever after. I think you might even get the French and Russians behind such a plan.

Some of you will argue that this will not relief the population (part of the population, because some part is behind SH) from SH's dictatorship, but that will eventually end anyway. Let enough medical and food aid slip into Iraq to help the population who have suffered from the boycot of the passed 12 years. In other words, show a human face. Perhaps this will create enough power that the Iraqies themselves can get rid of their local dictator, without further cassualties or destruction.

After all, the absolute real goal of this campaign (if we give Bush et al the benefit of the doubt) was just the AMD (be it US has changed a few times and added more reasons later on). If we have to change every regime in the world that has an unelected dictatorship and which is cruel to its own population, we'll be busy for the next decade...
(some will be a bit too hard to change because they have nuclear capability) and we won't be able to because the cost is extremely high.


How about this? You win in legitimity, have far less casualties, will probably get support from many more countries and reach your goal without body bags shipped back to the US and UK...

Is historic gratitude a reason to accept everything from another country? Does historic gratitude replace a right to form an opinion? Don't think so.

Nah, you will need them to get the oil from, because they happen to be in charge of that business in Iraq. Be sure very few Baath members will get prosecuted. Wanna bet?

It's war. In a war people do silly things, it's the nature of the game I fear.

The Belgian government have just send some C130 Hercules planes to Kuwait with pumps and water purifiers as aid to the Iraqi population. Completely insignificant and irrelevant of cours.