John and Russ, first let's agree that our differences are mainly concerning the means, not the target nor the principles. Please don't take me for an American basher, though sometimes I overreacted to the invasion of Iraq which I oppose, not for some cloudy political reasons, but very pragmaticaly because I believe it does not defend the interest of the US and the rest of the free world. What Omin is saying is not what I am saying.
It's better to keep Iraq out of this. My view there is clear. Let me put it this way: when Kadhafi suddenly showed remorse and pledged to stop supporting terrorism and become a good world citizen, I could still accept this. His motives are clear: he did not want to end up like Saddam. So far so good, it maybe "realpolitik" from the west to prefer a contained former terrorist dictator than to take other measures against his country, though I don't think I could shake hands with a man who coldbloodedly killed so many western people out of sheer hate.
Economic sanctions are lifted, to relieve the situation of the people in Libya. OK, I can follow.
But now the EU wants to lift the WEAPONS EMBARGO for Libya. QUE? Can anybody explain to me what these weapons will do good for the population under this cruel dictator? Can anybody honestly say that there is any other reason here than to again do a favor to the European weapons industry? I sincerely hope that the US does not follow this madness, because IF you do, I guarantee that later you will have to clean up the mess again, since Europe is good in arms trade but not in coming up for itself.
OK, I can't control: I have to get back on the Iraq topic, because it's so closely linked. Did you ever consider that it might have been better to sanction the European countries that were breaking the embargos on Iraq, than to spill blood in Iraq? ( Of course that would imply sanctions on American companies too, doing the same)
Don't you think, with hindsight, that the US has made a huge diplomatic blunder? It could have been like this: the Bush administration reckognizes the mistakes made in the past, i.e. to regard Saddam as an ally against the Islamic radicalism in the region. They warn everyone, inside the US , as well as outside that the embargo to Iraq will be strictly imposed, and all means will be used to correct the situation, stopping short of an invasion, but leaving THE THREAT of it. I can tell, you, I am in shipping, and the last few months before the invasion, the suspect cargoes suddenly stopped going to the ME, and the US who was the biggest user of "illegal" oil shipped out through Syria, stopped these imports (for verification, just consult your own countries' oil statistics) Saddam, who was already on his knees, would be biting in the sand after a few months. French and others would have had no "moral high ground" over the US, like most people in the world now believe, but exposed as the opportunists that they are. Iraq would not have become a recruiting ground for Islamic terrorism as it is now. I firmly believe that it would have taken less time and lives and would have left the US much stronger (and wiser) than it appears now. That's why I wrote "wrong". John.
fair enough
