On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 07:46 AM, Chuck Ryan wrote:

> As far as world opinion goes the US cannot win no matter what action,
> or
> inaction, it takes in any situation.

Our problem is that, generally, we keep helping the rich, for business
reasons. We supported the Shah of Iran in spite of his murderous
dictatorship (we needed the oil). The Iranians ultimately overthrew
him, no thanks to us. No wonder they came to hate us.

> If a government is starving its own people and we send food, we are
> propping
> up a repressive government.
>
> If a government is starving its own people and we do not send food, we
> are
> heartless and greedy.

We have done neither of the above to/for Cuba or Iraq. The suffering of
the people in those countries has been compounded by US led sanctions
(which you failed to refer to).

>
> If a government is facing revolution and we assist it, we are propping
> up a
> repressive government.

Like we did with Iran.

>
> If a government is facing revolution and we do not assist it, we are
> heartless and greedy.

Not in the eyes of the revolutionaries.

> If a government is facing revolution and we assist the
> revolutionaries, we
> are interfering in another nations internal affairs.

If the government is repressive and if the revolutionaries solicit our
help, it would be OK to help them even if it won't help us get oil.

> Europeans like to use the Palestinian issue as a way to attack the US
> and
> Israel. This is another no win situation because to the Arab world the
> Palestinian's are a weapon in the war of world opinion and nothing
> more.
> They will never permit a peaceful resolution to this crisis until
> something
> happens to shake up the status quo in the region.

After Israel invaded Lebanon, the US made no attempt to sanction Israel
in any way, form or manner. After Iraq invaded xxxxx, the US instigated
strict sanctions against Iraq, furthering the suffering of its peoples.
Surely you can understand how the Arab nations can view this as a
double standard.

> If you truly get your opinion of the US from our media, it is no
> wonder you
> have such a distorted view of our president.

Where have you been? In most cases our news media, except for weather
reports, is just another form of polite, inane, entertainment for our
entertainment-starved public. It reports what all of our leaders
espouse, as the US position. I'm almost 79 years old and have never
been polled about any issue. I have difficulty recalling more than 4 or
5 positions taken by any president which I could agree with. The vast
majority of their positions are dictated by Big Business.

> Every Republican president since I have been old enough to follow
> politics has been accused by the news media and Democrats of being
> intellectually inferior and out to kill old people, children and
> wounded puppies.

Actually, they're very intelligent, greedy, puppets of their business
supporters.

> Many in the US have finally woken up to this fact and it has sparked a
> panic in these organizations that is a great deal of fun to watch.

This makes sense??? I guess I haven't "woken up" yet. What panic? What
organizations? Could you please be specific instead of just throwing
unguided darts?

> One thing I have found common with liberals in the US media and around
> the
> world is that they surround themselves with people who think only as
> they
> do. They ignore any dissenting opinion to what they say as their
> opinion is
> free speech but what others say in disagreement is hate speech and not
> worthy of consideration. So I guess it is natural that they begin to
> believe
> that everyone thinks the same way as they do. And if they do not, they
> must
> be discredited and destroyed at all costs.

Can I conclude that you are a US liberal? This describes just what you
are doing to the Europeans.

> After the 9/11 attack Bush was accused of seeing the danger and not
> doing
> enough to stop it. Now he says he sees the danger and is moving to
> stop it.

By attacking Iraq??? The 19 terrorists were all from Saudie Arabia,
none from Iraq.

> Of course, the same people who spoke up before now say he cannot do
> this. He
> must wait until we are attacked and we have new casualties, for which
> he
> will be blamed, before he can take action against the danger. Gee,
> what a
> surprise, another no win situation.

Although Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction (like us, and some
of which we supplied him with), there has been no assertion by Bush (or
any other US leader) that he is planning an attack on the US. Why would
he? He doesn't have to. Usama is doing it. Furthermore, Iraq is more
vulnerable than Usama and overwhelming retaliation would be easy for us.

> With Iraq, the French and German governments have aligned themselves
> against
> the US. The German resistance was a disappointment but the French
> tactics
> were no surprise.

They and their people have aligned themselves against Bush and his Hell
bent goal to attack Iraq (and to seize control of its oil). Remember,
its business-driven.

> In the end, both governments are irrelevant to the outcome of the
> situation in Iraq.

What "situation in Iraq". How different is it from, say, 10 years ago?

> But they might cause the final crack that destroys the UN. So perhaps
> it is true, in every cloud there is a silver lining.

So-o-oo. After all these years and billions of investment which all
previous administrations believed as being eminently worthwhile and
after all of the good deeds that the UN has performed over those years,
you're elated to see the UN perish. Congratulations on your "worldly"
views.

> Comments are my own, not my employer's... etc.

For which your employer should be extremely grateful.

FW

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