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 *