The second thing that I think:
(yeah, only two thoughts today)
The world has roundly critisized the USA (and UK) for having ulterior motives in the Iraq situation. They have been labeled
Hypocrite!!,
Self-Interested!!,
Imperial!! And everyone wants to point out that the US helped to "create Saddam" as well. In the mean time proponents of the US action love to point out that France has some ulterior motives, to which people with anti-war leanings yell "foul! you can't hide the US motives behind they wonderful French"
I say, certainly all of those critisms are true to some degree. However, the point is not that France is bad because they sold Sadam some weapons... the point is that France is claiming the
moral high road when their hands are as covered in filth as the US! For goodness sake people, the US is not the only group with self-interest at stake here... France gets oil at <$5/barrel through the food-for-oil program. They have oil contracts with Iraq ready to go as soon as the sanctions are lifted - but the contracts are with Sadam's regime. A huge percentage of the population of France is Muslim, and Chirac would really like to get re-elected. France, like many countries sells arms to developing and third world regimes. There is nothing illegal about that. Is it unethical? Yes, often it is. But name me a single country that isn't selling or buying weapons. Name me a single country that isn't selling or buying oil. Name me a single country that doesn't want to control Iraqi soil, and I'll concede to you that this is the country that is "sanitized" in this whole affair - they should be finding and executing the solution to Sadam instead of the USA.
But that nation does not exist! So I think it would be best for everyone to scrub the angry accusations of "self interest" and "ulterior motive" altogether.
Everyone has self interest and ulterior motives in this affair. Once these accusations and the historical blame game (see my previous post today) are done with, we can begin to really deal with the questions:
1) should Sadam be deposed (irregardless of who should depose him)
2) how can damage to the Iraqi population and infrastructures be minimized
3) how do we "rebuild" Iraq after the war considering it multitudes of factions (ethnic and religious)
4) how do we utilize the wealth potential of Iraq to benefit the people of Iraq, not just a small elite?
5) how do we keep neighbours, such as Iran and Turkey, from gobbling up a demilitarized Iraq?
Those are, IMHO, the things that should be debated. The blame game is becoming tiresome.
Edit
Aloofi: you seem surprised or disappointed that the US does not live up to it's promises. If we step away from "shoulda coulda" however, into the mists of international politics, name me a country that
does stick to it's promises! If it ain't on paper with the President's signature, it ain't a contract my friend. Dishonourable, sure! That's the way the world works though. Crying won't solve the problem, just lawyers
[ March 21, 2003, 19:20: Message edited by: jimbob ]