Susanne Vitoux wrote:

> > So yes, I think that Bjorn is 100% right.  Do you think that I am
> > biased?  Maybe, but I think that I have the right to be this way.

> The US administration and hirelings have miserably failed to build a solid
> case.

Right.  Let's look back at a few facts:
1. The U.S. said that Iraq had weapons of mass distruction and other weapons
related violations of U.N. resolutions that had not been enforced in more
than 10 years.
2. The U.S. said that Sadaam suppports terrorism and, as a result, the U.S.
was more concerned about the weapons that were in Iraq than the would have
been if they were in a less critical country.
3. The U.S. asked the U.N. to enforce the sanctions that were part of the
resolutions they had passed and failed to enforce and the U.N. did . . .
well, the U.N. did nothing.
4. A man living in Israel, who told you about the gas masks sitting in his
living room, told you only a little about how bad it is to live next door to
a terrorist country, one that has openly stated that he, his country and his
religion are targets of his hate.
5. He also told you about missiles, missiles that, according to U.N.
resolutions, can not legally be in Iraq, that have been fired from Iraq,
into his country, civilian areas of his country, without regard for how many
or who dies.
6. The news has told you about missiles fired by Iraq in this war, that by
U.N. resolutions, can not legally be in Iraq.
7. Hopefully, the news has also told you about the perimeter around Bagdad
that, according to Iraq communications, if crossed, will result in use of
chemical or biological weapons.

Which of the issues has the U.S. failed to confirm?

You say that the world as a whole sees this as an imperialist move by the
U.S.

1. France, who does not back the invasion, is known to have substantial,
that's substantial to France, contracts with Iraq for goods and materials
that have already been supplied to Iraq, in return for oil which France does
not yet have.  Do you suppose it is coincidence that they fail to back  U.N.
resolutions that they helped formulate?  Do you maybe think that it's not
the U.S. whose primary concern is oil, but France?
2. Since when did you speak for the world as a whole?  Count the number of
votes in the U.N. and you tell us who the "world as a whole" sides with.
Tell me how you think the vote would go if the U.S. stopped all foreign aid
to countries that did not vote with us, diverting it to countries that have
proven to be willing to stand at our side when necessary or, better yet,
diverting it back to our own people.
3. When was the last time you can recall that the U.S. has taken military
action in a country, any country, and retained control of that country or
its assets?  What, if anything, makes you think it will be different this
time.  Did you happen to notice that France, you know, the country that
wanted no part of the war, wants very much to be part of the reconstruction
of Iraq after the war.  Do you suppose their might be motives there that you
should be concerned about, like imperialism perhaps . . . or oil?

I'm not sure war is the right answer.  I don't think the U.S. made a
particularly good case for this being the only, or even best solution to the
problem.  On the other hand, I think that they made sufficient case for the
need to do something and, given the way that France and a few other
countries have failed to back U.N. resolutions in the past and in this case,
I think I'll forgive my country for acting in a way that might, note only
might, not have been the best or only way to deal with a problem that
desperately need to be dealt with.

> The whole "liberating" Iraq thing came very late into play as a fig leave.

It does seem that way.  Then again, it's not a bad way to counter statements
like "The world at large doesn't buy it and rightfully sees this mess as an
anglosaxon imperialist venture."  By the way, your statement is
discriminatory on the basis of race.

> While too early to get a comprehensive picture, the world starts to get a
> feel on how welcome the occupant is. I'm shocked by the blatant disregard
> for common decency and awed by the Iraqi resistance.

We're shocked by the blatant disregard for common decency too.  We were
shocked when Iraq last used chemical weaspons.  We were shocked when Iraq
fired missiles into Israel without even the pretense that military
facilities were the targets.  We were shocked when we realized that Iraq
supported terrorism and even more shocked when we found that those who
should know better, were not only not interested in doing anything about it,
but were actively against those that would move from addressing the known
problem . . . well, up to the point of actually risking something of their
own, at least.

> The only thing that went well until now was the capture of the "oh so
> strategically important" oil fields. It is very obvious that this is
crucial
> for the capture of Bagdad... Couldn't help but shed a tear when hearing
some "leaders"
> claim that this was to avoid an ecological disaster. Don't be surprised if
you learn in the
> future that those who put a few wells on fire are not Iraqi citizens.

Do you have some information or are you just throwing this out to defend
statements that, so far, have no other defense?

> I would define myself as traditionally pro american, pro Israel and
usually
> hawkish. I'm not with you on this one.

Glad to hear it.  I would define myself as traditionally pro French, pro
Germany and usually cautious about when and where I support direct military
action.  I'm not with you on this one.

> George W and clique have managed in an incredible short amount of time to
> squander the worldwide elan of sympathy after 9/11.

Maybe the next terrorist action on a 9/11 scale will be in one of those
countries that things Sadaam is not enough of a problem to require a
solution.  Maybe after that happens, there will be one more country for
action and one less country in the way of getting the job done as quickly,
efficiently and humanely as possible.  Maybe we'll resist the temptation to
say "I told you so" instead of bringing the full economic power of the U.S.
to helping in the post disaster recovery.

Lee