Posted on 09/06/2002 5:28:31 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Cairo -- After months of expressing their individual opposition to a U.S. attack on Iraq, Arab leaders offered a united front Thursday, declaring their "total rejection of the threat of aggression on Arab nations, especially Iraq." The statement was issued at the end of a two-day meeting of the Arab League, the 22-member interest group that has often found it extraordinarily difficult to join forces behind a single agenda. But propelled by anger over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Arab leaders have notified the White House of the region's profound opposition to an attack. The only nod to U.S. demands was a renewed call for Iraq to allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors to the country. "If this war takes place, we see it against a backdrop of terror and anger in the Middle East," said Amr Moussa, the league's general secretary. "People are angry and frustrated and cannot accept what is happening in the occupied territories. We will continue to work to avoid a military confrontation or a military action, because we believe that it will open the gates of hell in the Middle East."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Sitting back & doing nothing will result in more of the same. Remember your history...it's the best teacher of all.
It's a safe bet that when a large number of people agree on something, it's in their self-interest to do so. Hussein threatens his Arab neighbors, but they still don't want America forcing him out. They must feel that as bad as Hussein is, the alternative of a possibly free Iraqi people, supported by America as they build a democratic Arab nation, would be worse.
And they're right, because it would probably mean the eventual end of most repressive Arab regimes, particularly the odious House of Saud, and the fundamentalists in Iran. So while this paragraph make it superficially look like Arab leaders are going against their better judgement for some higher principle, in fact they are operating in their own self interest in trying to keep America out of Iraq.
"The world cannot accept a weakened role for the United Nations," said Alawi, whose country is the site of a U.S. air base and arms depot. "Those who are thinking they can impose a new law for their own benefit, they are pushing the world into instability and chaos."
And here we see the confirmation. What they are really concerned about is instability in the region, which might lead to their own demise. But as one columnist (I forget who - Glenn Harlan Reynolds, maybe?) said about instability as an outcome of a war with Iraq, "That's not a bug, it's a feature." One of the secondary reasons to take out Hussein and try to forge a free Iraq is the potential domino effect it would have in the region to destabilize repressive regimes that feed the terrorist machine.
Despite their pledge of support for Iraq's diplomatic stance, the foreign ministers did not discuss whether they would lend military assistance to Iraq if it were attacked. The ministers "considered this issue too hypothetical, something they shouldn't go into," said Hisham Youssef, the league's spokesman.
In this, the article's concluding paragraph, we see that it's all blather anyway. They'll gripe because they perceive some risk, but actually fighting against us is an even bigger risk. So they'll do nothing more than gripe. Let 'em.
The gates will need to be flung wide open because massive numbers of Islamic fanatics will have to be ushered in.
If they were all blown up by a terrorist during their summit, would there be ANY negative impact on the world?
"Open the gates of Hell"
And the US MARINES HAVE THE WD-40
"Highway of Death"
Unleash the "gates of hell," you g-damn savages. We'll be ready.
Hillary, your ride is waiting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.