Nobody could have said this better.
Thank you Christian.
I, too am a 42yr old European and just remember those times.
We (germany) had terror and terrorists for several years in our own country.
I was not a nice thing to have or nice to have.
Being stopped by the border-patrol and looking into the muzzle of sub-
machine-guns and being asked for id, driver-license and such.

Also, the American people, tend to forget, that many weapons were given to
Saddam by the US-Government (Mr. Bush was vice-president then) during the
war against Iran.
Then Saddam was an allie.
Now Iraq, next North Korea, then Iran? and who's next then?

Just my personal opinion.
Michael


On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:26:28 +0100, Christian Lheureux <[log in to unmask]>
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 *

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