Thread

An interesting letter in a paper

An interesting letter in a paper Troubleshooting 9 posts Mar 31, 2003 — Mar 31, 2003

#1 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 01:32

Quote:

THOSE who believe this war is about freeing the Iraqis from a repressive regime are missing the point.

The US has frequently supported cruel and repressive regimes when it was in their strategic interest to do so, as they supported Saddam when he was just as barbaric but had a more pro-Western stance. This is about having a greater degree of influence in a volatile part of the world. Oil is not the issue although it is one piece of the jigsaw. Israel is another.

Why is Australia involved? Again, it's strategic interest. Howard believes it is in Australia's interest to have a close relationship with the US.

If anyone doubts this, ask yourself if we would be there if Russia was taking the lead and the US was not involved. Did we send troops to help the Russians in their fight against terrorism in Chechnya? Of course not � no strategic interest.

The most interesting question is why Blair has involved Britain. One would have thought that Britain's strategic interest would preclude causing such damage to its relationship with "old" Europe. Perhaps, of the three leaders, Blair has the purest motives (or maybe he just miscalculated and backed himself into a corner).
Greg Trigger
Chermside, Qld

This letter was from 'The Australian' newspaper, which is a paper of Newscorp (Rupert Murdoch).

I think this guy summed up the situation pretty well.

#2 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by undotwa:
I think this guy summed up the situation pretty well.

Yeah - Along the same lines. I found this one:

Quote:

Baghdad Butcher - or hero in the making?
Sun, Mar 30 2003 at 7:02 pm

ONE of the reasons that the US and Britain invaded Iraq was for regime change (We won't mention oil or Israel).

If regime change is the main reason, they can go home now because they have changed Saddam's regime, detested by all, into one which will be seen by many now as heroic.

Saddam will not be seen as the bully anymore: he will be seen as the man who defended his people against a bigger bully.

Thanks to George and Tony, the men who cannot see beyond tomorrow.

Or can they? (Let's not mention oil or Israel).

#3 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 01:57

Quote:

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yeah - Along the same lines. I found this one:

What?

#4 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 08:43

Just curious, if this wasn't about liberation of the Iraqi people, how come every Iraqi-in-exile I've seen interviewed is fully in favor of the action?

#5 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 08:47

Quote:

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
If regime change is the main reason, they can go home now because they have changed Saddam's regime, detested by all, into one which will be seen by many now as heroic.

Saddam will not be seen as the bully anymore

And if the regime has changed so significantly, why is their government still brutally murdring its own citizens?

Why are they encouraging/ordering the use of women and children as human shields?

#6 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by kvm_mkdb:
Yeah - Along the same lines. I found this one:

I wonder how much coverage of Saddam's brutality the Arab world has ever seen. The author(s) of that letter assume that the Arab world was fully informed of it.

#7 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 16:04

Quote:

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Just curious, if this wasn't about liberation of the Iraqi people, how come every Iraqi-in-exile I've seen interviewed is fully in favor of the action?

Hey now...let's not bring people who have actual knowledge into this. Can't you see undotwa is more concerned with people who have actual opinions?

#8 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 17:16

Regarding the initial letter. Of course strategic issues are involved. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people demand the issue to be oversimplified. Either it is solely for humanitarian purposes or it is solely for economic issues. Such demands will always distort what is going on.

Clearly we'd not get involved if there weren't also American interests involved. There is the whole issue of 9/11 and Islamic terrorism. Even if you don't think this will help, I think most would agree that the adminstration thinks it will. Further our economic interests are at stake in terms of mideast stability and the oil issue - not to mention the economic effects of terrorism. But on top of all that is the fact that Sadaam Hussein is an evil man. He may have been an evil we tolerated for other reasons in the past. But that doesn't make him less evil.

I think that Bush really does want mideast peace. While one can make good arguments for a certain naivete in all this, it seems odd to attack him for it all being about something else. This is hard for me to understand, I must admit.

#9 Mon, 31 Mar 2003 - 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Just curious, if this wasn't about liberation of the Iraqi people, how come every Iraqi-in-exile I've seen interviewed is fully in favor of the action?

we have quite a buch of iraqi people live here, most of them interviewed overhere seem to be against this war, only a few are in favor. for the kurds here it's the oposite, few are against most are for.

all of them hate saddam, and none of them trust the US.