| Dividing the UN? |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: Bahman ® 03/05/2003, 21:25:21 Author Profile Mail author |
I just finished watching the Newshour on PBS TV and was surprised to hear that some people are complaining that Saddam is trying to “divide the UN”! That was first proclaimed by Collin Powell and then they had a discussion about it on TV. It seemed to me to be a waste of time. They should find something more substantive to talk about!! First of all, Saddam will do anything to save his neck, no surprise there. But the fact is that he CAN’T FORCE any wedges among the countries, unless THEY themselves have different opinions, as is certainly the case about the war. I think this kind of discussion sidetracks the real issues. What do you think? |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Re: Dividing the UN? Re: Dividing the UN? -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/05/2003, 22:50:37
Author Profile Mail author
Well stated! The charge that Saddam is trying to divide the U.N. is clearly Bush administration spin on events now developing. The fact is that none of the countries which now oppose the war (France, Germany, & Russia) were in favor of the war prior to the last two weeks or ever.
It may be the case that Saddam is doing all he can to avoid war and simultaneously preserve his status at home. That seems a normal response even though it is not the liking of Powell. Since both France and Germany have had real war on their own soil, their perspective of the potential for total destruction is genuine.
Unfortunately, I think with 200,000 troops ready, in place, and armed to the maximum, Bush intends to have the war no matter what Saddam does. It would throw further impediment into the Bush plan if Saddam would decide to go into exile.
I suspect a week or two at the most. I also think we Americans will be as surprised as the Iraqis at the moment of attack (politically correct preemptive strike).
The U.N. said Saddam had to disarm. There is evidence that some disarmament has/is taking place. Powell says it is deception and Saddam is not serious. Hans Blix disagrees and virtually pleads for more time.
The containment for the last 12 years of Iraq cost about 30 billion dollars for the whole 12 years. If the war, that sucking sound will be hundreds of billions going down and out of our economy fast. Then will come the rebuilding of Iraq And the cost?? It will make that 30 billion look like Monopoly money.
Don’t misunderstand that I have any kind word for Saddam. The evidence is that he is brutal, a killer, a dictator with no respect for even his own people. He must be gone.
Have we reached “the last resort”?
What do you think Bahman?JAK
Modified by JAK at Thu, Mar 06, 2003, 18:06:03
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Last resort Re: Re: Dividing the UN? -- JAK Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Bahman ®
03/05/2003, 23:32:05
Author Profile Mail author
I certainly think that we haven't reached there. I am not sure how it'll play out but I have a feeling that the Europeans in the UN will come up with some criteria for disarmament of Saddam with a deadline, and then if he didn't comply, "everyone" will agree the last resort had come. A better scenario will be that Saddam will comply and there won't be any war. Now a question for you. You say:
"It would throw further impediment into the Bush plan if Saddam would decide to go into exile."
Tell me exactly what you think is going to happen in that case?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Last resort Re: Last resort -- Bahman Top of thread Archive
Posted by: JAK ®
03/06/2003, 18:36:03
Author Profile Mail author
You state beginning with a quote from me:
"It would throw further impediment into the Bush plan if Saddam would decide to go into exile."“Tell me exactly what you think is going to happen in that case?”
JAK:
No easy answers and my reflections are not intended to be dogmatic because we all know that none of us knows.If Saddam were to go into exile and if the Republican Guard were to fold, surrender -- the U.S. would take over Baghdad and Iraq with the military now ready to move in place. The Bush administration would attempt to implement an interim government in Baghdad with the assistance of the U.N. (If there is war, the U.N. will be greatly in demand to fix the wreck.)
But, I don’t think that is a likely scenario. Bush wants the war. And he wants it NOW not in the summer or after weeks or months of further delay. He wants to claim victory over Saddam and over terrorism (which is really a different issue). But he will join the two if he can claim a successful war against Saddam.
However, there are likely to be surprises. If following days of bombing Iraq, there were to be a spectacular terrorist attack in the U.S. again Bush’s “plans” will be disrupted. Many other events can disrupt Bush’s re-election plans...the economy, the national debt, health-care issues are important factors to mention a few.
The more time that has passed, the less enthusiasm around the world for the war.
Bush goes to the nation in less than an hour to attempt building of support for war. He will be scripted. But it is also to be a “news conference.” If he answers questions off the cuff he is likely to do some foot shooting. Of course my pre-judgment is based on past performance. In my view, Bush only wanted to be ELECTED President not SERVE.
The pressure is building globally against a unilateral attack by the U.S. Will that be sufficient for a delay of the Bush war plan? I have doubt.
Regardless of the time posted on the form, I post this at 7:20 P.M. EST Thursday. Bush will speak at 8 P.M.
JAK
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | | Current page