Iraq then, Iraq now...
The basic role of the US in the world today is both militarily and economically driven. If the US chooses not to take on this responsibility, terrorists and rogue states would have a field day disrupting the global economic climate (to their benefit).
For those who compare the current Iraq situation to the Iraq-Kuwait war, I have this to say: the first Iraq war was about oil, and its affect on the global economy. WMD and terrorism may have been a factor, but most (if not all) coalition members were concerned about the affect Saddam could have on the global economy by controlling so much of the world oil production. I think freeing the Kuwait people was secondary (no disrespect intended).
However, the current Iraq situation is certainly focused on the terrorism aspect, with oil as a secondary concern (oil meaning global economic impact), not to mention freeing the Iraqi people. Naturally, many countries will have a different perspective as to commitments to joining a coalition dealing Iraq. There certainly have been many articles concerning France, Germany, and Russia's vested interest in Saddam and oil, and appeared to not have a concern relative to the terrorist threat. No surprise that they were not part of the coalition. But many countries certainly have a vested interest in this conflict, both from a terrorism perspective, and ultimately, an economic perspective.
I praise President Bush and his administration for pulling together the current coalition based upon these circumstances, but to me it wasn't necessary. Even if we went totally alone to oust Saddam, many of these countries would have been thankful for the US's commitment to eliminating this potential threat, and it again demonstrates the courage and commitment of the US to take a lead role in the world. I, as a US citizen, certainly feel much better that Saddam is deposed. To me, this does eliminate some of the terrorist threat, and I feel more bullish about the economy ahead as a result (although I believe the terrorist threat continues to be the biggest issue).
I am also extremely grateful for the efforts of all of our troops. It's too bad that the American Press can't be bothered to feel a sense of patriotism, and show some leadership and courage to congratulation our armed forces on a job well done. This would go a long way towards building US goodwill in the world, the effects of which would further strengthen our economy.
9/11 did change everything. I think it is absolutely the wrong time to elect a war protestor as the President of the US. The US (and many other countries) are in the biggest and most difficult fight ever. First, we must protect the global economy, because it's collapse at the hand of terrorists and/or rogue states would be disasterous. With a healthy global economy, then we have the opportunity to win this terrorism battle, saving millions of lives in the process. And at the head of this battle is the President of the US (not the UN). This undoubtedly requires an exceptionally strong person (and staff) with total, undeniable commitment.
Here's to making the right choices!
For those who compare the current Iraq situation to the Iraq-Kuwait war, I have this to say: the first Iraq war was about oil, and its affect on the global economy. WMD and terrorism may have been a factor, but most (if not all) coalition members were concerned about the affect Saddam could have on the global economy by controlling so much of the world oil production. I think freeing the Kuwait people was secondary (no disrespect intended).
However, the current Iraq situation is certainly focused on the terrorism aspect, with oil as a secondary concern (oil meaning global economic impact), not to mention freeing the Iraqi people. Naturally, many countries will have a different perspective as to commitments to joining a coalition dealing Iraq. There certainly have been many articles concerning France, Germany, and Russia's vested interest in Saddam and oil, and appeared to not have a concern relative to the terrorist threat. No surprise that they were not part of the coalition. But many countries certainly have a vested interest in this conflict, both from a terrorism perspective, and ultimately, an economic perspective.
I praise President Bush and his administration for pulling together the current coalition based upon these circumstances, but to me it wasn't necessary. Even if we went totally alone to oust Saddam, many of these countries would have been thankful for the US's commitment to eliminating this potential threat, and it again demonstrates the courage and commitment of the US to take a lead role in the world. I, as a US citizen, certainly feel much better that Saddam is deposed. To me, this does eliminate some of the terrorist threat, and I feel more bullish about the economy ahead as a result (although I believe the terrorist threat continues to be the biggest issue).
I am also extremely grateful for the efforts of all of our troops. It's too bad that the American Press can't be bothered to feel a sense of patriotism, and show some leadership and courage to congratulation our armed forces on a job well done. This would go a long way towards building US goodwill in the world, the effects of which would further strengthen our economy.
9/11 did change everything. I think it is absolutely the wrong time to elect a war protestor as the President of the US. The US (and many other countries) are in the biggest and most difficult fight ever. First, we must protect the global economy, because it's collapse at the hand of terrorists and/or rogue states would be disasterous. With a healthy global economy, then we have the opportunity to win this terrorism battle, saving millions of lives in the process. And at the head of this battle is the President of the US (not the UN). This undoubtedly requires an exceptionally strong person (and staff) with total, undeniable commitment.
Here's to making the right choices!
posted by koby at
9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home