From: Scott Chase (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun 10 Nov 2002 - 00:47:28 GMT
>From: "Grant Callaghan" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: Post-Saddam Iraq?
>Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2002 16:22:17 -0800
>>But we ARE thinking about a Post-Saddamic Iraq...
>The writer of the article you referred us to seems to take the opposite
>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
>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.
Yes. There should be more thought given to what should be done if a point is reached where there's a "post-Saddam" Iraq. This website offers an interesting historical angle and makes it out to be a complicated problem:
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 10 Nov 2002 - 00:50:58 GMT