Keith, Much speculation, as always good. Just a point that I've mentioned before.
You said: "One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent change of heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East and that this was what his invasion of Iraq was all about. This, despite the US being close allies of dictatorships in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging him to wage years of warfare on Iran." The war was with communism. At one point, 49 of the 51 African nations were dictatorships - military, or otherwise. Did we end our "friendships with Africa because of that? Dictatorship is the government of choice in much of the world - if choice is the right word. Our support for Saddam was of the nature of "Go to it, buster!" We didn't send him arms (the 2,400 tanks and 400 aircraft that invaded Iran were Russian - the French supplied some Mirages later.) Iraq owes us $4 billion but I don't know what for - could be food and suchlike. At least four times much is owed to France and Russia. Probably for refitting the armies and air force for the final invasion of Iran which ended the war, after a carnage that resembled the First World War. Sadam's weapons were Russian and French - not American. After Iran had made Carter and the US look foolish, we didn't like it much, so probably were very happy with Saddam's intention to invade. So, where were American weapons of war? Probably in Iran. Certainly their Air Force was composed of F14's, F15's, and some other American planes. (A couple of American shiploads did slip through the blockade with spare parts for the planes, but the slipping didn't last long when France sent Saddam 30 Mirages armed with Exojets.) That's all! Harry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 7:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] Bush's preliminary step to withdrawal? One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent change of heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring democracy to the Middle East and that this was what his invasion of Iraq was all about. This, despite the US being close allies of dictatorships in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging him to wage years of warfare on Iran. No longer, it would seem, did Bush invade Iraq because of international terrorism, nor because of Weapons of Mass destruction. (The Special Task Force of 2,000 American troops which have apparently been searching for WMDs for months have not turned up anything yet. WMDs were never there in the first place, as the UN Inspectors believed, and as further recent evidence suggests -- see the article below.) The US death toll reported in today's Independent article below (142) has already been augmented this morning by another four soldiers killed in a downed helicopter and possibly two more in other incidents on the roads. For electoral reasons a year from now, Bush may now already be deciding to leave well before next summer. One or two particularly dramatic terrorist attacks could cause the American electorate to swing ferociously against Bush at almost any time from now onwards. Of course, some believe, including the present writer, that Bush invaded Iraq in order to ensure that US and UK oil corporations would be able to develop the immense northern oilfields from which Saddam had mischievously excluded them. But, in the biggest mistake that Bush (or, probably, Cheney) made, these corporations refuse to be involved until there's a legitimate Iraqi government in place and not the American-imposed Coalition Provisional Authority. Two or three more speeches along the lines that Bush has just made would allow him to segue right out of Iraq -- throwing it a constitution and holding an election along the way which will ensure a Shia majority. If he makes sure that the Shias have sufficient well-armed forces at their disposal, this ought to ensure that the previous oppressors, the Sunnis, will be subjugated (or chased into Syria) and, if and when Saddam emerges from hiding, he will be quickly caught and executed. This scenario may seem unlikely -- even absurd at the moment -- but I don't see any other way out of Bush's predicament and possible humiliating defeat next November. He's not gained what went to Iraq for -- WMDs or oil -- so he might as well leave now as craftily as he can. He's been able to con most of the American electorate so far, so he ought to be able to swing this new strategy across them as a piece of international statesmanship in the name of bringing democracy to one more country. Just one postscript for non-UK readers: there are likely to be large demonstrations against Bush when he arrives. The usual state procession down the Mall has already been cancelled and it's exceedingly unlikely that Bush will be able to show his face in public in the usual way. Keith Hudson <<<< BUSH CALLS IRAQ MISSION 'WATERSHED FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY' Rupert Cornwell Washington -- Less than two weeks before what may be a stormy state visit to London, President George Bush yesterday cast himself as a new Ronald Reagan, vowing to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East and beyond -- just as Mr Reagan did with the Soviet Union, in his "evil empire" address to the British Parliament 21 years ago. Speaking on the day he signed into law the Bill authorising $87 billion of extra funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Bush set out his vision of a modernised and democratic Iraq serving as example throughout the region. Separately, administration officials confirmed that they had received a behind-the-scenes proposal, supposedly from Saddam Hussein, offering a deal last March to stave off the looming war. But the contact was rebuffed by the CIA. Though experts said the move may have been of little significance, critics presented the episode as further proof that Mr Bush would let nothing interfere with his determination to go to war. In his speech yesterday Mr Bush once again made no reference to mounting US casualties in Iraq, including two more fatal attacks yesterday, bringing to 142 the death toll since he declared the end of major combat operations. Nor did he refer to the strains on the military, and yesterday's Pentagon announcement that 132,000 troops and reservists will be sent to relieve units who have been in the region for a year. Instead he stressed that failure in Iraq would embolden terrorists around the world, but "the establishment of a free Iraq will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." That, clearly, is the message he will deliver during his address to an audience of dignitaries in London on 19 November, the centrepiece of his state visit. And his references to the dismissive reaction to Mr Reagan's speech in Westminster Hall left no doubt that he is expecting more of the same for himself. "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer of Ronald Reagan," Mr Bush yesterday quoted from a newspaper editorial of the time, recalling how some observers had pronounced the "evil empire" speech to be "simplistic and naive, and even dangerous". In fact the current unpopularity of Mr Bush and his administration -- widely perceived in Europe as high-handed, arrogant and ignorant -- eclipses that of Mr Reagan in 1982, at the height of the Cold War. But Mr Bush stressed he would not be deterred. Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East had done nothing to make the world safer, the President told the National Endowment for Democracy here. "It would be reckless to accept the status quo," he declared, defending his doctrine of preemptive action as "a forward strategy of freedom". He attacked the "outposts of oppression" in Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma, but praised Morocco and other Arab states such as Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan, who are gingerly taking steps towards democracy. He called on Egypt and Saudi Arabia to move faster along the path of reform, and delivered familiar tirades against leaders in Iran and Palestine who were blocking their peoples' aspirations to freedom. The Independent -- 7 November 2003 >>>> Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk> _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
