From: Gene McAloon 

In an effort to keep this thing in perspective; the whole bit about Iraq is
not likely to rate more than a footnote in future history books. The war
(invasion) itself was an almost unimpeded romp to Baghdad. The subsequent
occupation has resulted in a minor guerilla war. The Bush people are
already planning their quick exit strategy, preferably before the elections
in November. After that the
Iraqis themselves will decide the fate of whatever government the US leaves
behind and I imagine that government won't be around for very long.

So, what will have been accomplished?  In fact, nothing but re-invigoration
of the Al Qaeda type of terrorism, itself a minor annoyance of the kind the
Europeans for example have been experiencing off and on for a long time.
But who
even remembers the Bader Gang now?  Who will remember 9/11 ten or more
years from now?  The moment that site is rebuilt the public will begin to
forget - and
justifiably so.

All of the above makes the constant criticisms of the Brits here seem
rather puerile . The incessant bleating about civilian Iraqi casualties is
pointless and can only be indulged in as a way to find fault with a US they
don't like. I don't blame them for disliking the US as much of the world
now does and as I do when I see what the US has become under Bush. But the
point of course is that Iraq doesn't matter in the wider scheme of things
and civilian casualties mean even less (ask the Vietnamese about that) and
of course Bush won't last either. In my opinion he will be gone next
November and he will be forgotten even more quickly that the pointless Iraq
thing.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:12:23 GMT, John Beckett
 wrote:

>While I have your attention, I will mention:
>
>* Phil's stream of hyperbole (nazi nazi nazi...) would possibly convince a
>parrot, but little else.
>
>* I feel that the "US in Iraq = Evil" position could be argued, but I
>don't recall anything convincing here. In general, it is true that you
>don't have to offer a better plan before pointing out problems in someone
>else's plan. However it seems to me that the "Evil" position
will never be
>convincing until due recognition is given to the practical difficulties of
>combating the 9/11 fanatics. These fanatics are not going away (look at
>the religious fruit cakes in the US to see what too much leisure time can
>do to those with a certain frame of mind).
>
>The US either has to be so nice to everyone that the fanatics learn to
>love them, or the US has to be so nasty that the fanatics decide to go
>elsewhere. I don't expect either of these outcomes anytime soon, so we're
>in for a rough ride. The appeasing noises from our UK friends here will
>only help prolong the mess.
>
>John
>
>Adam Flinton  wrote in message
>news::
>> John Beckett wrote:
>>
>> > For the record, I am not from the US or the UK, and I think
it is you is
>> > repulsive.
>> >
>> > The US may be over-reacting, but they are REACTING.
>> >
>>
>> & that is therefore per se good?
>>
>> Heck so if they started carpet bombing Sydney you'd be out there
>> cheering on the basis that hey at least they're reacting?
>>
>> Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5