Five Vital Lessons From Iraq

Forbes ^ | 2 mar 03 | Paul Johnson

[Wonder Warthog]

"...deal with Chiraq, and not with someone much nastier and more competent, such as Cardinal Richelieu."

I'm sure "Chiraq" sees himself as this century's incarnation of Richelieu.

[sourcery]

I'm sure "Chiraq" sees himself as this century's incarnation of Richelieu.

Hopefully, such an overestimation on his part of his talent and abilities will have the usual consequences.

[Bonaparte]

We are in position to virtually dictate who is and isn't on the permanent UNSC. Withdrawal of our funding would kill the UN overnight because nobody else is sucker enough to pay these thieves to stay in business. If we want France off the permanent SC, it's easy. And what would we lose? 95% of UN membership is rabidly anti-American. That would only go up to 99%.

Tony Blair wanted UN approval, it's true. But his policy does not depend on UN approval. He just made that abundantly clear. And he held his majority in Parliament, despite the 122 Labour defectors. There is no way Blair will ever back away from his commitment to make war on islamic terrorism, even if it means becoming an ex-PM sooner than he'd planned.

The intervention in Somalia was disastrous for one reason only: Clinton. And concerning interventions in general, we have no choice. The islamist terrorist network operates through 160 countries and is determined to produce many more 9/11s for us. If we leave them and the states that sponsor them alone, we are dead in the water.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Good article, thanks for posting it!

OFFICIAL BUMP(TOPIC)LIST

[caltrop]

I agree we fund the UN but we don't run it and we can't decide who's on or off the Security Council. I agree with you that, where the UN's concerned, we're chumps and shouldn't put up with their nonsense.

Clearly Blair's sticking with Bush but, when the idea of attacking Iraq first came up, I think Blair felt he'd need to see the effort made.

As far as I'm concerned, the problem with Somalia was we were involved at all. Same goes for Bosnia and Kosovo.

I don't share the enthusiasm for attacking Iraq. Nobody's been able to connect Saddam with AQ and the evidence is, in fact, that they're bitter opponents. North Korea is at least five years ahead of Iraq towards having a nuclear capability, has missiles which can reach Alaska, is working on missiles which can reach the West Coast and sells to anybody with the funds. We'd be far better off addressing the threat from NK than involving ourselves in the Middle East, an area which - except for the region's oil - isn't worth an American sprained ankle.

[First_Salute]

Nice catch.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[jalisco555]

The recently-published book, "An Army at Dawn," shows that the only major WWII action fought by the French Navy was against the U. S. Navy.

The book also documented something else not often talked about. This was the fact that Vichy French troop killed hundreds and wounded thousands of Allied soldiers and sailors during the North African landings in the name of French "honor" while they stood aside and allowed Germany to pour hundreds of thousands of troops into Tunisia without firing a shot to resist them. Disgraceful.

A book well worth reading.

[ggekko]

Paul Johnson is an intellectual beacon and a cool drink of water in a desert of superficial and mawkish thinking that masqerades as analysis in the media.

Bravo!

[ggekko]

The "coalition of the willing" should begin to replace the UN as soon as possible. The UN's moral authority was irretrievably ruined with their complicity in the Rwandan genocide.

Iraq has become the UN's "Munich moment"; it is time to move on.

[Bonaparte]

Amen and amen!

[Bonaparte]

"Nobody's been able to connect Saddam with AQ and the evidence is, in fact, that they're bitter opponents."

Then why did Saddam give them a base of operations in his country?

[Bonaparte]

And I think we'll be addressing the NK problem very soon.

[Bonaparte]

Here you go.

[Bonaparte]

Here's more on the aid and comfort Iraq has been giving to its "bitter enemy," Al Qaeda.

[caltrop]

I'm familiar with most of the very thin reeds people are trying to use to connect Iraq and al Qaeda. As the article mentioned, there are plenty of skeptics out there. I'm one of them. If al Qaeda really wants WMD North Korea will sell them to them. You may recall that the Spanish Navy intercepted a ship carrying missiles from NK to Sudan in December.

When I was a student at the Army War College in the mid-80s we were briefed on Iraq's biological and chemical programs. They even had the name of the woman in charge of the program, nicknamed Dr. Bugs. Since then, nobody has been able to connect Iraq with exporting any of this stuff. Iraq is a buyer not a seller. North Korea is a seller to anybody with the price, which al Qaeda (and perhaps other terrorists) clearly has.

[KC_Conspirator]

I like what Johnson has to say, but I have a few points to argue with him, and most of it is over Germany. He is spot on about France - they are not a very moral or dependable people and are backstabbers.

As for Germany, I don't share Johnson's hope for us to recover our previous relationship. In a country struggling with economic, crime, immigration, terrorism, and defense issues, Germany allowed itself to vote for a candidate who substituted any positive plans to turn the country around for one of pure anti-Americanism.

I also don't believe we should bring our troops home. I think we should move them from Germany into other eastern european countries who appreciate us more. I would hate the lose our logistics because we will surely need them in the future as most other nations are totally cowardly or impotent.