 |
From Heinz, Feb 6, 2003:
The point with Iraq is that there is for me today no real actual finally proven threat or attack as it was in 1990. Since the defeat of 1991, Iraq was kept under control at least so that no war was made. Why not to take this as a success of the UN policy??
But with constant pressure on Hussein, we hit the people too, and for a good percentage of the people the effect was that they didn't see him as the cause of the problems, but instead the others which kept the pressure as ordered by the UN. The embargo did not allow people to get back into real normal life. (I know Saddam was the reason because....., but that is not what the people see). That Saddam tried to find the weak holes to escape the pressure is normal. Maybe he needed it to show his strength.
The danger with a war is, that a much higher percentage of the people in Iraq will get hit. Especially the poor part of the people, which has only a low education (and this part is growing), will react with a lot of negative emotion which will finally grow the base of terrorism.
Have we really the chance to win the war or will we possibly win a battle only? I don't know a war which ended terrorism. For example Israel tries this since years and things turn out to get worse. (Only when the party of terrorists won and then the terrorist usually turned into fighters for freedom).
Why not look for a different answer than war? For example with a new mixture of support for the people and pressure to the government of Iraq keeping the situation in a certain balance. And knowing that Saddam is no youngster any more.....
For me the risk for attack is too high for the possibilities we have.
PS: And another risk with a war without a UN decision is present. What will be with the authority of the UN....? One thing is clear: until 15 years ago this situation would have been impossible.
|
|
