What has the Iraq War wrought?

My personal feelings have changed a bit, in light of the fact that there seem to be no WMDs found. I am concerned that this lends credibility to the pre-war Bush detractors.

Reports kept surfacing that al-Quaida training grounds had been found... that weapons labs were discovered... Yet, most of these reports were later retracted.

As an average citizen, who was not a blind Bush supporter, but honestly believed that widespread WMD production was on-going in Iraq, I am left to wonder if I was wrong, and if the war was indeed the best option.

Has anyone else felt they may have been wrong? Has it been proven that WMD production had ceased pre-war? Can it be proven that in the pre-war build up, Saddam covered his tracks?

I am concerned that this issue may be a very important election point for the Democrats, if Bush's allegations can't be proven.

There still is a version that WMDs were transferred across the Syrian border before the war started. In 1991 Saddam attempted to hide his warplanes in Iran, to prevent their being shot down by the allied Air Force. Maybe, diplomatic pressure on Assad-Jr. will make him disclose and destroy the Iraqi weapons being currently in his disposal? And such a pressure may be efficient only after the military victory over Iraq: Assad may realize the magnitude of threat to his regime if he does not comply.

Actually, I've had some second thoughts, Sophia, and I'm glad you asked on this forum. I was completely convinced of the existance of those WMD, and still consider the possibility that they are still in Iraq, and remain well hidden. It is a big country, yadda, yadda, yadda, but the claims that our intelligence services knew the locations (at least some of them) are wearing a bit thin. There may well have been good reasons to not reveal them to the UN inspector teams, but right now would be a splendid time to just drive over and dig them up.

My pet theory since Powell's presentation (pre war) to the UN is that he was advised of the intelligence, but not given details. There he was, facing the toughest critics (next to a2k); he opened his little packet of proof, and quietly said "Oh ****". Kind of like the newscaster, reading from the teleprompter and realizing that he was reading his own resignation. What to do?

Obviously, this is pure speculation. Just as obviously, we've been lied to. Does that mean that every thing we've been told by the administration has been a lie? 'Course not. Even a clock that's stopped is right twice a day, but you have to wonder about those that don't quite stop, and don't always give the correct time.

I have considered that the whole WMD flap was a red herring, in order to give us a credible reason to invade Iraq. As been said before, there is certainly a possibility that a lot of the WMD is sitting in Syria, but I think that if we found them it would have been considered a bonus, and not the main reason for invading Iraq.

I think that the main thrust of the war was to change the face of the Middle East. It had become a breeding ground for terrorism, which, like a chimera, is difficult to find and destroy. One of the things that CAN be done is to help turn off the money supply to the terrorists.

There is some evidence that Iraq had some part in funding the terrorists. Only by cutting off that money supply, can you begin to contain the terrorism, which extends through the Muslim world.

Have we succeeded? Who knows! I think that this war is one that the West will be fighting, maybe for decades. One of the things that I DO know, is that the Muslim people put great stock in strength, so we had to do SOMETHING. By sitting on our hands, as was done during the Clinton administration, we were ensuring that the terror networks were becoming stronger and stronger. We had to exhibit a show of might.

What we have in the world now is a metastasized cancer. As soon as we destroy one tumor, another rears its ugly head.

That's funny - my feelings about the war have changed quite a bit in the other direction.

I never really believed in the American case about WMD, and I am not wholly surprised about the lack of WMD being found now. I truly think they're probably weren't any anymore, though one can never be quite certain. The hype against Blix was shameful.

But if I look back now I realise I came to be much too consumed by the case the Americans were making, which was in all its aspects wholly unconvincing, instead of making an independent appraisal of pros and cons of military intervention. There was no acute threat to world security from Iraq, I think. But the Hussein regime posed an obvious enough threat to the security of its own citizens, as we all knew. There is a fair enough case to be built for saying: forget what the real motives of the Americans to do this are - if they're ready to topple this dictator, lets use their readiness to get one more totalitarian system out of the way. Kindof like those Iraqis that say: thank you for liberating us - now please go away.

Freedom from tyranny is in itself a reasonable enough case to be made for war, I believe, even if its historically an unprecedented one (as a case by itself, I mean), and one that raises serious questions about who will be able to control the power one's profited from to have all these dictators toppled, once, in the end, it reigns supreme in a newly established absence of traditional limitations on the use of force in foreign policy. Freedom from tyranny - even someone else's freedom from it - can be worth dying for, to put it crudely, more so than some of the national interests wars are traditionally fought over, in any case. (What would you rather die for - "liberating" the Falklands or freeing the Cambodians from Pol Pot?) Perhaps that's the lesson of the 20th century, already learned for a first time under Clinton in the Kosovo war.

The only real remaining problem the whole WMD issue in that respect evokes is - if the US government was indeed either lying or blundering in their dire warnings about an acute threat to world security (and i tend to think its the former), how can we expect them to be all too helpful in ensuring this newly retrieved freedom from tyranny for the long term? Both the fact that, as a cause, "iraqi freedom" had not been of any apparent concern to the us government until the very last moment and the apparent fact that, regarding the causes it did gamble on, it seems to have been lying or blundering, suggests scepsis might be justified. That this might be a power you might indeed, like the above-quoted metaphorical iraqi, want to use to liberate yourself with but otherwise keep at a safe distance or on a short leash. But still - bottom line - all that, again, is notes on the side - scepsis about the exact extent to which the US can be trusted in defending this new "Iraqi freedom" - but nobody can deny that it did create this freedom, through the war it fought, and that such a freedom would have been years away still if the UN-approach had been continued.

Last remaining question: the terrorist threat. I'm among those who think the Iraq war must have been a blessing, a true gods' end for Al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan and the persecution of Bin Laden must have harmed it a lot, but the war must have refired its recruitment and organisational drives across the Arab/Muslim world.

Facing the question Phoneix asks about stamping out the tumors, you must ask yourself where Al-Qaeda comes from. Al-Qaeda itself comes from religious zealotism and political fanatism, of course. But where does its sudden increase in financial and human support come from, this last decade? What fuels the radical Islamist movement, in general? If you dont tackle the root causes, whether they be poverty, injured pride, Palestine, name it, and focus solely on military clampdowns, you risk the thing about, err, slamming the bubble under the carpet. Everytime you slam it, it props up somewhere else.

The more blanket your approach - the more blanket your retribution, your violence - the more people you turn into enemies, and the bigger the bubble becomes. Terrorism asks for merciless attacks - with surgical precision. Refrain from the "merciless" part, and the cancer will spread. But replace "surgical attack" by blanket-approach (and I think the Iraq war falls in the latter category, if we're strictly speaking war on terrorism) - and you will actually feed the cancer, rather than eradicating it, making it spread at least as quickly.

Isolating the actual terrorists from their potential feeding grounds should be paramount. The merest suggestion of the war being against Islam, or even political Islamism - or of it being about any other ulterior causes (gaining economic advantages, a strategic US foothold in the Gulf, etc etc) - rather than about the actual extremist terrorist networks responsible for 9/11, specifically - and you'll just drive more sceptics into the camp you're fighting.

To eradicate a tumor you must radiate it, but you must also be careful to isolate it, and do all you can to ensure the patient himself gets all the nourishment, rest, etc he possibly can - otherwise the patient will die with the tumour.

(Sorry for the hapless metaphors, it's late ..).

Like Phoenix, I believe the WMD issue is just a red herring.

I believe we didn't forcibly topple Saddam in 1992 (1) because the coalition then would have flown apart had we entered Iraq in a big way after driving Saddam's forces out of Kuwait; and (2) because we still saw a need for some counter force to a still very radical Iran. Very likely we hoped or expected that he would be overthrown soon after his defeat, but that didn't happen.

By early 2001 the international pressures to remove the economic sanctions on Iraq were increasing - it was just a matter of time before they would be lifted. The U.S. had to consider life with Iraq (and Saddam) after the oil and the money valves were reopened. Armed with $10-$20 billion of oil revenues per year, Saddam could do a great deal of harm. Soon after 9/11 the Bush administration announced its intent to bring about a "regime change" there. None of this was exclusively centered on the WMD issue, though it was indeed a factor.

We made WMD the issue in our effort to get Security Council resolution 1441. It was the very legalistic process required in the Security Council by nations that, for their own reasons opposed our aims in Iraq, that made the whole thing rise and fall on WMD - even though that was never the sole reason for our intervention.

Why did we intervene? Many likely reasons; (1) An example for other outlaw nations, (2) to change the balance of terror in the Mideast; (3) to foster a modern secular government in the one nation in the Arab world likely to thrive under such a system and provide a model for the others; (4) to lessen our dependence on a failing Saudi regime; (5) to remove a major player in the international WMD market and a potential host for terrorists. (6)to remove a cruel tyrant from the backs of the Iraqi people.

I don't think we have really added many new recruits for al Queda. With those so disposed we already had nothing to lose. If we could create a more positive model in the Arab world and, in the process achieve a breakthrough in the Palestine/Israel matter, we will have much to gain.

Hmm.. I've mulled this over for the last 2 weeks or so and have come up with a slightly different take on the whole thing.

Personally, I don't think the war was about WMDs, Freeing the Iraqi people, oil or any of the usual suspects. I think it's simply long term strategic military positioning.

Up until the late 1970s we had a solid base of military operations in Iran. That was our only real base of operations in the Middle-East and provided a staging area for the US to keep an eye on the USSR as well as other countries in the region and also served as a possible launching point for any military action.

Since the fall of the Shah of Iran the US hasn't had a solid point of operations for the Mid-East. We've had some sort of presence in Saudi Arabia since then but will considerable limitations of what we could do from there and the Saudi's have actually kept a pretty close eye on our activites there.

Taking Iraq now leaves us with the option of taking over Iraqi military installations and having a long term presence in the region. It gives us back everything we had prior to 1979 in Iran. The European nations have been groiwing more and more reluctant to allow the US to use bases there for staging areas. South Korea has their own problems. Our presence in Japan and the PI are greatly reduced. Iraq gives the US everything we'd need with few limitations and is right smack in the middle of the region with the major hot-spots in recent years.

I'd guess that there are some folks at the Pentagon drooling at the possibilities....

Sofia - I recall the Bush administration citing numerous reasons for the war; chief among them Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions. That failure to comply went beyond simply having WMDs, it went to his refusal to show compliance, to open his books, to behave himself.

It seems to me that it has been primarily liberals and those in the media who have painted this war as being about WMDs, and have done so with increasing furor the more time goes by without unearthing huge caches of bio or chem agents. It seems their tactic is to focus on this one element and pretend that it was always the official and only focus, and then to say that the war was wrong, we were lied to, etc..

Am I wrong?

I failed to find my own posting (well, there are almost 3,000 postings of mine, and this makes search very difficult) that appeared around December 2002; I claimed there that neither oil nor WMDs were real reasons of the planned (by that time) war against Iraq, that it was about change of the strategic power balance that is being threatened by both Islamic factor and EU policies, about destroying the network of the terror support on the governmental level, about intimidation of the rogue states that became more and more audacious as a result of absolute impunity of their leaders, etc. At that time, no one supported my approach...

Perhaps this shows what a cynic I am, but I tend to differentiate between the reasons for the war and the goals of the war. Changing the strategic balance in the region was clearly the primary goal. My question is whether or not the administration actually touted the presence of WMDs as the primary reason.

Scrat, no one would buy the goal if it was presented as a reason. Unlike the USSR, USA and UK are democratic countries, and their leaders cannot neglect public opinion. So, something is to be given to the latter in order to appease it. In fact, the current war was really anti-terrorist, but since its anti-terrorist character is being implicit, no PR campaign could provide necessary public support. It is quite possible that there were some WMDs in Iraq prior to the war, and they were either destroyed in the last moment without leaving any documentation or exported to Syria/Iran or hidden. But everyone, including the President, understood that these did not pose global threat. The war was against the mindset of the Islamic world, the mentality that generates rogue regimes and terror, but declaring war on such grounds would not be understood by general public in our politically correct era. I would call the Iraqi campaign an episode of psychologic war rather than a "conventional" military operation. It was intended to show to the enemies that the reserves of patience of the USA have been depleted, and the next time when they plan to undertake some unfriendly action, they should regard possible unfavorable for them consequences.

A lot of people would not, but I and many others would. I can't comprehend what makes some in the US think that our government working for the interests of our country is inherently wrong. Of course the US government wants a more stable Middle East that is more likely to benefit US interests!

That written, I agree that we needed to present reasons to justify our goals. Shame that we must, but the world is what it is.

So you are saying the WMD issue was not the one main focus President Bush argued the need for war with? That suggesting it was, is a liberal ploy?

Well, perhaps we should go back to that momentous day, when President Bush declared in an address to the nation that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours left to leave Iraq. What did he say - how did he phrase his appeal to the nation to prepare for war - what was his opening argument?



The opening argument was: disarmament. That was what this war was about. And what disarmament did Iraq owe the world? "To destroy all its weapons of mass destruction". That was, after all, the condition for ending the Gulf War; the legal argument for the current war, you may remember, was that that condition had not been fulfilled and thus the old UN mandate for armed intervention was still valid, and no new resolution was needed.

What did President Bush say next, in his address to the nation, and to TV viewers around the world?



Still, no single other argument made except for the WMD Iraq "continues to possess", about which intelligence "leaves no doubt". The danger of these WMD "is clear" - Saddam's Iraq could and would provide terrorists with them to attack the US.

And, Bush continued to explain to his people, to all of us in the world, it was because of that threat - specifically that threat, with no other issue or reasonable cause for war mentioned - that Bush was obliged, "by the duty that fell to him, as Commander-in-Chief, by the oath he had sworn, by the oath he would keep", to lead the United States into war:



I don't think you can get a more unambigous answer to the question of "who has painted this war as being about WMDs".

Did he mention other justifications for the war at all? Yes. In paragraph 14 of the speech, a first secondary argument is mentioned: "We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near." A powerful message, and one the US army has largely fulfilled - well, "prosperous" is a bit much, but otherwise.

But that was paragraph fourteen of his one main speech to justify the imminent war. It was after he had already turned away from the US listeners, to instead address the "many Iraqis [who] can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast" - "I have a message for them". It was also one of the first major times the justification of "freedom from dictatorship" came up, at all. The first thirteen paragraphs, the entire appeal to "my fellow citizens", was about WMD. No liberal ploy there. Fair enough to ask questions about it now, thus, I'd say.

Much is being made by those opposed to the war in Iraq about WMD. Those in that camp in their pre-war arguments claimed the importance of Saddam's possession and proven use of WMD to be invalid when justifying military action. These same people now argue the importance that the U.S. finds WMD to validate its cause for the War. Which shall it be? Either WMD are important or they are not. Now war opponents are trying to put their own spin on Paul Wolfiwitz's latest statements when all he said was essentially that the administration decided they could all agree on WMD as a central issue to rally behind.

So what's all the "Hub Bub", Bubb? Well, we are seeing allegations by retired intelligence officials that the Bushies encouraged or participated in "creative intelligence" reporting. Perhaps, perhaps not. Will the truth ever come out? Who knows? But I sense a danger here. An administration that is perceived as crying, "Wolf!" to not only its citizens but also its allies is one without creditability. This is only more ammunition to its critics and enemies and does the U.S. no favors in regards to future international engagements.

What is sad to me is that the "powers that be" felt that their real reason for going to war would be misunderstood by the American public and understood only too well by the rest of the world. They were probably correct in this assumption. Its safe to say that on this thread everyone can agree mostly with the fact that Iraq was "ripe" for an ideological regime change, however we might disagree on its implementation.

Sadly I don't think the concept of paradigm shift as regards American/Middle Eastern interaction could be grasped by most of the American public, not because they are of low intelligence but because Americans do not want to take the time to educate themselves about the subject matter. This is understandable but regrettable and nothing particularly new. It has always been like pulling teeth when one tries to foster American international engagement. This is an old North American aversion that has its roots in the American psyche since before the American Revolution and specifically prescribed by George Washington in his Farewell address.



If the U.S. administration had just come out and cited regime change in Iraq and tried to explain this paradigm change and its reasons for such a policy change in the Middle East, American eyes would start to glaze over but not before cries of "Imperialism" and "Blood for Oil" would begin to be heard and hijack the Debate. Simpler seems better. This implies a lack of attention span on the part of Americans. Perhaps the "powers that be" were right in keeping it simple; Concentrate on the bad dictator willing to use the WMD at his disposal against his own people and his support for terrorism along with his willingness to thumb his nose at the rest of the world. Saddam and Iraq were a perfect fit to initiate the U.S.'s new policy towards international hooligans. Saddam didn't have a chance.

One thing is certain. The Middle East has never seen raw American power before. Various sources there may denounce and defame but they are surely "amazed about what they observed just by watching": A well respected Arab dictator for over 25 years with all kinds of weaponry and an army of over half a million men suddenly reduced, within a little more than a fortnight, to hiding somewhere in a Baghdad basement.

Formerly American power was viewed only when used sparingly to uphold monarchal, corrupt, and repressive governments in the region such as Iran, Iraq, and more recently Saudi Arabia. Can one really feign surprise when the Arab street gets pissed off at us?
In addition, America's almost pharmacological dependence on oil has allowed countries such as Saudi Arabia to insert the ring of Middle Eastern oil in our nose and lead us around like a castrated bull. This while they use the money we pay them for their oil to donate to "charities" that end up conveying their beneficiaries into NYC skyscrapers at 600 mph on our own aircraft. They then rub salt into the fresh collective wound by offering a $10 million check to the Mayor of NYC who nobly refused it. We should no longer allow these governments to deflect their own citizens' anger about their lack of self-determination towards the U.S. and Israel as perceived causative agents of misery of their own making.

Perhaps this new policy towards the Middle East has already produced results. When it was demanded of Syria to turn over certain individuals we got them... and not a diplomatic song and dance. Iran is also feeling their feet get warm as regards U.S. extradition requests for certain individual Al Qaeda members. The Palestinians have elected a cabinet Mr. Sharon says he can work with and both sides are finally having some success marginalizing Yassar Arafat the "Great Obstructionist". Some say that even the war on terror is showing results and cite how terrorist are attacking targets that they can (Saudi Arabia's 9-11) and not targets they would like to (such as a simultaneous attack on Paris's Eiffel tower, U.S.'s Ramstein Airbase in Germany, and the U.S. embassy in Madrid).

Good signs, but we have a way to go. We broke Iraq and it is now our responsibility. For whatever reason, this administration miscalculated. They thought they could just decapitate Iraq's regime, plug in their own people at the top, and sail on to calmer seas. Instead everything collapsed. We then gave in to our fear of being called "occupiers" by inserting a "Captain Kangaroo" head administrator who then moused around the government buildings and potential Saddam wannabes like a small mammal scurrying in between dinosaurs. We should have put in MacArthur-like Tommy Franks to break some heads, establish an ideological beachhead, and set up law and order and if the mullahs didn't like it they could get outta Dodge. Sound harsh? These suggestions come from many Iraqi citizens on the ground. Their biggest complaint after Saddam fell was that there essentially was no one responsible for law and order; some even said they were beginning to long for the good old days!

Why all this pussy foot'n around? Seems this administration didn't want the appearance of an occupying imperialistic force. They were afraid war opponents would criticize them. Why? These people will always find something to find fault with. They're opponents! This is tantamount to the avoidance of chicken ova destruction while trying to bake a cake. A major and grave result of this lack of law and order was the subsequent looting of major public buildings, ministries, utilities, and even Universities and museums. Tom Friedman of the NYT has visualized this as the U.S. trying to "Save Iraqi infrastructure from the top down with its use of 'smart bombs' while the 'Dumb Looters' destroyed Iraq from the ground up".

However, things may be looking up. The U.S. has put Paul Bremer in charge and he has already instituted firm changes. He loathes Islamic Fundamentalism. It has absolutely no place in America's new ME paradigm. Islamic Fundamentalism is just another variant of Ku Klux Klanism with different headgear and more prayers. It is vile not only because it preaches hatred and intolerance but does so to little children and robs them of the opportunity to think for themselves. Bremer feels, as I, that stability in Iraq is more important right now then is democracy. Some critics say he doesn't know anything about Iraq. So what? All that has to be known about Iraq is that law and order must be restored or all is lost.

America's legacy in the ME starts now. We should pour money and manpower into Iraq. The civil blitzkrieg should be overwhelming. When we get this right the other nations in the area will take notice, the people and their repressive regimes will come to a greater "understanding". Iraq could very well be the tipping point we need in this area but it needs Law and Order, economic viability, free press and electronic media (sans intolerance), and libertarian democracy (not just free elections) in that order. I hope we get this right. It is probably more important than the Allies defeating Hitler, but also much more difficult. Establishing freedom and self-determination in an area is important but doing so in an area, which does not share cultural values with us, will be daunting. So we must allow much time to build up Iraq correctly so that it will foster leaders that will at least understand that tolerance of others is one of our paramount moral tenets and we will brook nothing less. If the people of these nations are allowed to pursue property and happiness and given a fair chance to obtain these, such Godzilla-like scenes we all witnessed on 9-11 will cease.

What about the Allies question? The Kennedy clan of Boston fame has a saying of "Forgive but don't forget". Sound petty? Well, maybe, but as W. Safire has recently said "Actions should have consequences". I agree. France had reasons for its actions, good or bad it doesn't matter. But if Americans cut back vacations to France or boycott their wine or if French contractors lose out in rebuilding Iraq so be it. This doesn't argue against France helping us here and there with peace keeping, they are good at it and have had lots of experience via UN actions. In the same spirit we should invite in the UN and its peace-keeping expertise. We should spare no expense that the UN is willing to pay.

The Germans were honest. They told us they would not go to war or help us actively. They still allowed the use of military bases. The most significant difference of note is that the Germans did not actively try to obstruct our efforts to remove Saddam's regime via the UN, as did the French. Watching the French Foreign Minister De Villepin's obstructionist shuttle diplomacy, which found him scampering between Sub-Saharan Third-World African, nations was extremely distasteful to me. This was totally in contrast to the U.S. magnanimously allowing the French General DeGaul to march into Paris after its fall to the Americans. This is the DeGaul who never actually led any French Troops into battle (let alone a campaign) against the Germans occupying France.

However, we should and will work with both again in the future.

Russia. Still longing for relevance as a world power Mother Russia saw her chance for payback to the U.S. for dismantling the Anti-Ballistic treaty and took it. This is the nation so poor that during its celebration of St Petersburg 300th anniversary it put up fences and bill boards to hide slums and deteriorating buildings. The term Potemkin village springs to mind. This is the former socialistic state that could only dream of that socialism one finds in the western states of France and Germany today. The U.S.S.R. never seemed to understand that somebody has to pay for lunch. You cannot just announce you are a world power.
The St Petersburg celebration is ironic in that this was the city Tsar Peter the Great picked to be Russia's "Window to the West" in his attempt to westernize (read Modernize) Russia in 1712 by moving its capital here. After Russian support of the Serbs and Saddam we now see V. Putin, like the Tsar, turning towards the west for help. They still don't seem to get it; Maybe it's the civilization thing.

Saudi Arabia? Sorry, never was a true ally, see above. Again, this state along with Iran, Syria, et al must be shown the error of its ways.

China? It is at least an enigma wrapped in a mystery and certainly puzzling to me. We share no common interests and no common civilization. Might be useful in the DPRK thing, but only if it feels it has a dog in that fight. Current signs are hopeful, although. We don't need a Japan in search of nukes or more reactors subject to pilfering.

Turkey is spent as an ally. I won't even attempt to explain the extortion attempt. Turkey will remain in NATO. Membership in the EU is questionable, perhaps in 2012 says Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. We will see. Its only relevance was when the Cold War existed. Now it is a torn country with an ancient Islamic history desperately trying to westernize...still. Abu Kamel's attempt of westernization starting in the 1930's had some success but Turkey's leaders have begun to refer to themselves in Islamic terms and recent political results and actions towards the U.S. point to the scales increasingly tipping towards Islam and not Westernization. Here, it's definitely the civilization thing.

Lastly, and perhaps, most telling will be the Israeli/Palestinian question. Will it be resolved to the satisfaction of both sides? Let's hope not. Neither side feels satisfied with a good compromise.
I had tried to start a number of threads on this shortly before and after the start of U.S./Iraqi hostilities broke out but the timing seemed wrong.

The main source of my hope concerning this conflict is not very substantial but perhaps relevant to recent events. One may not like George Bush his morals his politics or economics or his aversion to sophisticated oratory, but you have to admit when he manages to focus on a problem its like a laser beam, all energy comes to bear. It is like he is some sort of savant. If he is able to concentrate long enough and bring the full weight of American pressure to bear perhaps we can make headway on this problem.


Ariel Sharon's latest statement to his cabinet is encouraging but the Israelis would be well advised to aggressively pursue this peace initiative with vigor. Currently, demographics favor Israelis (52%) while Palestinians (48%) are the minority. By 2007 these figures will have been reversed. What happens if the PLO changes its tactics and simply asks for one-person one-vote? At that time how successful will hard line American proponents of Israel and Israelis themselves be in arguing against self-determination and universal suffrage for all residing in the area? Of course the Israelis could always revert to former measures and increase its IDF and buy more weapons from...who?

Respectfully,

JM

Sure wish I had something to contribute. Reading JamesMorrison and nimh is a continuing education.

nimh - No, I was not "saying" anything, I was expressing my perception and asking you to challenge it if you thought it wrong.

Having written that, I appreciate your citations. While I read the president's words a little differently than you seem to, he clearly focused on WMDs as a reason, a primary reason. So it's fair game to cry "where's the beef" today if people want.

It does suprise me that so many are complaining that we haven't found WMDs, but don't seem to care that we've found mass graves, mobile bio-weapons labs, ... I suspect that IF life in Iraq is wondeful and free in ten years, some of these people will still be whining that we found no WMDs, so we should put Saddam back. :wink:

I second Roger. Deeply appreciative of the gentlemen's patient, educational (for me) responses.

One small comment on the "nit-picking" level. Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and they are enfranchised only in the Palestinian authority/Palestinian state (in future). Israeli Arabs pose more serious problem, being about 20 percent of population now, and by 2050 they may outnumber the Jews. Then we all have to hope that there will be a country or countries ready to accept the Jewish refugees in order to prevent recurrence of the Holocaust. I hope to die of natural reasons before this happens...

steissd,

Its not nick picking when you enlighten us as to facts. Thanks

I was just trying to make a point. The "fairy tale" election I hinted at could just as well take place tomorrow and be won by Israel given the demographics. However, the simplistic picture I painted could also have been where the "Israeli Arab Party" joined with the "PLO Party" to defeat "The Jewish Israeli Party", but you obviously got my point.

JM