From: Grant Callaghan (grantc4@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun 10 Nov 2002 - 00:22:17 GMT
>
>But we ARE thinking about a Post-Saddamic Iraq...
>
>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-438299,00.html
>
The writer of the article you referred us to seems to take the opposite
position:
There has been much less debate on the second great question: how will Iraq
be governed after the American victory? This failure is harder to overlook,
as we have reached the same point twice before — in 1919, when Britain
became the mandatory power, and in 1991, when the Gulf War had been won. On
each occasion there was a lack of preparedness. On each occasion, the
failure to answer the question of Iraq’s future government led to great
further difficulties.
Perhaps one can make a checklist of the Iraq policies. Can the United States
remove Saddam Hussain? Yes. Will that have UN support? Probably. Will
Britain take part? Yes. Will victory remove Iraq’s threat of weapons of mass
destruction? Yes. A better Iraq? Very probably. Are the US and UK willing to
pay the long-term cost of their global defence commitments? There’s the rub.
* * *
My point is that there has been little or no debate of what to do and who
will pay for it. What this writer says doesn't do much to assure me that
the problem is being addressed and debated by the American and British
people or the leaders of the two countries.
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 10 Nov 2002 - 00:25:48 GMT