oh good lord - would the French pre-emptively surrender already and get out
of everyones hair?

At 03:26 AM 2/11/2003, Christian Lheureux wrote:
>Wirt wrote :
>
> > To me, George W. Bush represents the embodiment of one of
> > America's shining
> > ideals: the notion that *anybody* can grow up and be President.
>
>That's the kind of utterly striking irony I relish in !!!!! ANYONE, just
>ANYONE, can be President of the United States of America, even Dubya !
>
> > But beyond that, I have never felt so out of touch with the
> > American public.
>
>Since Election Day 2000 and the Florida mess that ensued, most Europeans
>(not all, I agree) have spent a lot of time in Dubya-bashing. All that was
>mere irony for a while, faded under Sept. 11 solidarity (we were all
>Americans, at the time, weren't we ?) an re-emerged later.
>
>But now, things are becoming dead serious. The USA, by the voice of its
>President, is pretty seriously considering going to a preemtive war, thus
>turning back centuries of political and military doctrine against
>pre-emptive strikes. I can't remember of another unprovoked war in history
>that did not end in a catastrophe. Think of the Nazis attacking the USSR in
>1941 (if that was not a pre-emptive strike, then what was it ?), think of
>the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor, and lots of others.
>
>And if it were only some lines of doctrine that were endangered, it would be
>a lesser evil. Behind the proposed pre-emptive strike against Irak are
>civilians. Of course, who is at stake when a war is started ? Mostly
>civilians. The Christians (me, not the religion), the Wirts, the Yosefs, the
>Mikes, the John (and Jane) Does the world over. Did everyone (EVERYONE ?)
>seriously considered carpet-bombing Irak, in the process killing hundred,
>and probably thousand of innocent civilians in the process (refer to another
>thread about "collateral damage").
>
>As French poet Jacques Prevert once wrote, "If war only killed militaries,
>it would be a blessing".
>
>Seriously ... Does the President think that bombing innocent kids, women and
>men will help enhance US standing in the Arab world ? The risk as I see it
>is as follows :
>
>1) If Saddam does not sponsor terrorism (who said rethoric ?), major
>misunderstanding (at best) will ensue, and (worst case) thousands of little
>Bin Ladens scattered all over the world, ready and willing to avenge their
>loved ones.
>2) If he does, bombing Irak back into Stone Age won't do much to remove the
>terrorist menace. Remember Sept. 11, which proved that a very small group
>(19 people !!!) can wreak quite some havoc, were they to decide doing so at
>the price of their own lives. The difference between John Doe and the
>terrorist next door is that John Doe cares for his own life whereas the
>terrorist does not.
>
>I'm not trying to attack America or its people. I'm not even criticizing
>you. I simply think that US public opinion is not nearly as monolithic as
>perceived in Europe. The bias is relatively easy to explain : In Europe, US
>public opinion is only perceived thru the US media, or by the US media
>relaying what the US Government has to say. In other words, we tend to mix
>up what Bush says and what John Doe says, which is not correct.
>
>No wonder the US is perceived as acting as a global bully : its President is
>! I'd be much more cautious about US public opinion, and I'm certainly not
>asserting that US public opinion as a whole is acting bully.
>
>The conventional wisdom in Europe is that :
>
>1) No doubt Saddam is cheating - He's proven adept at doing that since he
>came to power 24 years ago. We're not discovering much.
>2) So why the heck would he be considered more of a clear and present danger
>in 2003 than in, say, 2000 ?
>3) Saddam probably has some hidden WoMD (NBC - Nuclear, Biological,
>Chemical, not the TV channel) somewhere, perhaps in his own basement. UN
>inspections are there precisely to uncover that WoMD program. So give Blix,
>El Baradei and their team a chance.
>4) There are other clear and present dangers around. One is called
>Palestine. Youger people may not exactly remember that, but I spent most of
>my childhood watching prime-time news reports of PLO (and other groups)
>attacks in the early-70s. Whether those were plane hijacks, the Munich
>Olympics athletes or others is not that important. What's important is that
>the collective memory of Europeans of my age (I'm 42) is scattered with
>vivid memories of such attacks. At no price -AT NO PRICE- do we want these
>attacks to resume. So we would advocate fixing the Palestinian issue now and
>for good and forever instead of sowing the seeds of another wave of
>terrorism. In a nutshell, Palestine is a much clearer and much more present
>danger for us than Irak.
>
>Now what ? Flame suit on ?
>
>Give Peace a Chance !
>
>Christian
>
>* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
>* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *


Regards,

Shawn Gordon
President
theKompany.com
www.thekompany.com
949-713-3276

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *