Fred wrote :

> Agreed. It is too bad that many people perceive ALL anti-war folks as
> Peaceniks.

Depending on how you define a "Peacenik", I may or may not be one.

My late-teens and early-adulthood years were about the time Pershings were
deployed in Europe. Many Europeans at the time protested against. However, I
supported the move, for it helped contain the other superpower of the time,
which (but who remembers that, nowadays ?) had about 60 armored divisions
massed along its westernmost border. Oh, BTW, the westernmost border in
question was about 65 km from Berlin, at closest. When the protesters
chanted "Better Red than Dead", I wanted to chant "Neither Red nor Dead -
Free".

But the clear and present danger of our time is, I maintain, terrorism. And
I still do not get the link, if any, between al-Qaeda and Saddam. That's why
I do not support the current push toward war against Irak (Iraq ?) as a
retaliation for 9/11. In a nutshell, wrong target. Powell's presentation
was, in that respect, less than convincing.

However, I maintain that Saddam has violated a whole string of UNSC
resolutions that have been passed since the early-90s, culminating most
recently with 1441, and must be dealt with. I still have a hard time to
understand why no action was taken back in '98 when the UN inspection team
was forced out of Iraq and why action is so urgent now. Of course (one touch
of irony can't do no harm, OK ?)that can't be due to Clinton (more
preoccupied with keeping his pants sealed) back then and Bush right now, OK
? That would be a case of submitting the fate of a whole region, unstable at
best, to issues pertaining more to US domestic politics, and it's not the
duty of the international community to abide by US domestic politics issues.

So my question is : has the situation changed so much since '98 that it now
puts Iraq as a clear and present danger ? I believe it has not changed that
much.

> Probably, some/many of them are, for whatever reason.
>
> But many of them are not. Many simply want to deal with
> Saddam in a way
> which will accomplish the mission with a minimum of bloodshed.

That exactly sums up my feelings in a nutshell. France's attitude is that it
supports going to war against Iraq AS A LAST RESORT. Not as a starting point
as implied in the current US attitude. The perception here is that Bush and
Co. will go to war against Saddam come hell or high water, then we Europeans
will be left with the dubious legacy of having to maintain peace in a
troubled region and having to deal with thousands of little bin Ladens
wreaking havoc all over us, that would of course not have been put into
existence, had the US not antagonized the whole Muslim world.

In the same way, France will of course abide by its NATO commitments and
support Turkey if it's attacked by Irak. But of course, Turkey would not be
attacked if  the US had not attacked Irak beforehand using Turkey as its
staging area. Now, lesson 1, how to enter a vicious circle of attack,
counter-attack, retaliation, on your own terms and on your own will.

The perception of the person in the street here is, basically, that the US
is going to war against Saddam, alone if necessary, come hell or high water.
So protesting against peace is not really relevant, because the leaders who
should listen most have now closed their ears to the rest of the community.
I'm afraid a no-return threshold has been trespassed, there's no turning
back, and whatever we may do to go to war as a last resort is now
irrelevant. Too bad, more civilians will pay the price (as always), more
moderate muslims will be antagonized and turned into little more than
terrorists in our own backyards, and in the coming years we will have the
pleasure to show the rest of the world (who does not seem to give a damn
about it) footage of dismembered bodies and broken lives once again.

There may be a link, however faint, between 9/11 and war with Iraq, after
all, but it's not the one Bush and Co. have put forward. It's purely
emotional. I was shocked to see the Pentagon/WTC/Shanksville, PA. footage,
and I don't want that to happen again, anywhere. That's why I am resolutely
against sowing the seeds for more terrorism in the future. We did that in
Palestine by our own passivity and inaction, and we see the results in the
form of innocent Israeli and Palestinians civilians killed in retaliation,
then more retaliation, and so on.

> My opposition to the Bush approach is  based on his precipitous attitude
> embodied in his "If you're not with us, you're against us" speech. It
> makes his strategy sound like it starts with an all-out war
> rather than ending with one.

Exactly the same here. That is why I strongly, staunchly support France's
attitude at the UNSC.

Christian

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