A Few Jumbled Ramblings

[Coot]

In answer to Ethics in his thead "While Baghdad was Litup", to be sure a few more were created, but with Al Jazero helping out, (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&u=/nm/20030322/ts_nm/iraq_basra_jazeera_dc_1&printer=1) it could turn into many many more.

While I have been a proponent of removing Saddam and Co., I just have to ask...is anyone else feeling a tad ambivalent about Shock and Awe? While I haven't seen a lick of the video coverage, I did listen to some of the radio coverage out on the boat, and I'm here to tell you I was shocked. The message coming from our government seems to be in as much disarray as they claim the Iraqi regime is in. On the one hand, they tell us that the regime is seriously fractured and that surrenders are happening routinely. If this is the case, then why the necessity for the overwhelming amount of ordnance?

As the government and the planners have access to far more information than I; I will, at least for now, accept their determination that Shock and Awe was/is necessary. I pray we don't find out otherwise...for example, a few more days of psychological pressure and the whole house of cards would have crumbled.

Now tonight, as I was watching one of the news stations, I see James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA and close compatriot of Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense, advocating that we go after Syria next followed by Iran. I now have to wonder if there's not more afoot here, like Democratizing the ME one nation at a time? If it's true, I don't think that's what I signed up for when I voted Republican in the last Presidential election...well that and the Patriot Act and Son of Patriot Act.

Now, while I doubt the objectivity of this administration in doing something I believe needs doing, the next question that requires begging is France. Now that the hostilities have started, France continues to obstruct and attempt to sway world opinion on this issue at every turn, including the idea of who will administer Iraq after this mess. Why? Aside from billions in contracts they are about to lose, why at this late date, are they shopping for an exile home for Saddam? Aside from the likelihood that they will be found to be immensely complicit in all of Saddam's violations of UN resolutions, I have to wonder how many other regimes sponsoring terrorism will we find French footprints leading into those sacred chambers of power...and French trademarks on their weapons programs? Perhaps instead of targeting Saddam with all those Cruise missiles, a more suitable target might be Chirac.

[Coriolis]

There's little question in my mind that more terrorists will be created from this. I think Tom Ridge's job actually has only just begin. Homeland security is more important now, and from now on, than ever before. Unfortunately, with the likes of John Ashcroft, our rights to privacy will continue to erode. Such is the price we'll pay, among others more humanly tragic.

I'm not terribly surprised by those comments from Woolsey and Wolfowitz (although I didn't see the report you mention). Many, myself included, have been predicting this all along, but only to seemingly fall on deaf ears. Although I've become less convinced about the US taking on Iran in recent months. Time will tell I guess.

I'm curious, did Woolsey and Wolfowitz have anything to say about North Korea?

Regarding France... in my view they're only a CH more complicit in Iraq's WMD program than the US and other nations. Prior to GWI, many nations, including the US were complicit in Iraq's development of chemical factories. If Iraq does still have WMDs, and they are directly tied to France's aid after GWI then the UN ought to come down on them shiftly and without mercy. But let us not forget who helped in no small way to take us to where we are now. I think a US invasion of France (I'll assume you were joking) would be the start of WWIII, and end of life on earth as we know it.

[Coot]

I saw no mention of North Korea in the interview, but I just came across it channel surfing so I missed some of it. Woolsey was pretty adamant about going after Syria, more so than just removing them from Lebannon. It would be utterly naive to think that the likes of Woolsey doesn't have some influence inside the administration.

We're all aware of the 'special' relationship this country had with Saddam prior GWI, but I think we will find reams of documents and evidence showing French to be up to their eyeballs in complicity with respect to chemical agents Post GWI before this is over.

[ethics]

Not for nothing, Coot, but I would rather we went after Syria--and I doubt we would need to do it via military-- than Iraq is our integrity of terrorism was on the line. Syria, by far, supports more terrorism than any other country in this world.

[Techie2000]

Let us not forget our friends the good old Saudis. Once we have Iraq, I would not be surprised if George Bush had an epiphany telling him that he should go after Saudi Arabia since the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi and the Saudis are terrorists and bad people now that we don't need their oil...