I am happy to answer your post but I don't want any e-mails from the three WOG's on this thread.
You are posing very tough questions: If we had the answer, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today.
Europeans leaders are opposed to President's Bush plans to invade Iraq out of self interest.
They feel that they the EC is strong enough to stand up state its own case. They feel that they are grown-up enough and do not have to go along with the US policies!
This is of course the result of envy, ingratitude, and political blindness on behalf of EC countries. These countries have forgotten that for nearly 50 years were protected by the United States against the Soviet threat. At the moment of need the had to ask the United States to lead the coalition in Bosnia, and Kossovo, because they could not even do their own house cleaning! Yesterday, NATO added their voice to the opposition to President Bush's Plan to invade Iraq.
France,the same nation that made billions of dollars from the sale material to Iraq to build the Osirak nuclear reactors,(and them provided Israel the plans so they could bomb the construction site!!!), and supplied billions of dollars in arms to Iraq during the Iraqi Iranian conflict,
has alos great interest in Iraqi oilfields (TOTAL-FINA-ELF). France hope to participate in re-building of Iraq once the sanctions are lifted. EC countries, with the exception of UK, know that once Iraq has been brought into the US sphere of influence, US companies will have over one trillion dollars in contracts to re-build Iraqi oilfields and infra-structure, and will just US not share contracts with French, German or other EC contractors.
Last but not least, with control of Iraq oilfields, (10% of the world reserve) passing under the US control, and adding that to the Saudi's and UAE's reserve, US will be in control of a very large oil reserve and that does not go down well with the EC that has its own agenda. (France and Germany in particular.) None of these nations have any love lost for Saddam, nor they could careless what happens to the Palestinians. It is only question of self-interest.
(Same as Bush realizes that an alternative to Saudi Oil can be the Iraqi oil, under a friendly regime that has to pay with under 20 dollar a Bbls to rebuild the country! I hope you get the messge!)
As for settlements in the West Bank, I fully agree with you, these settlements have to be abandoned. They are the result of the expansionist policy. It makes sense to abandon them. Today Israel is between a rock and a hard place. Israel realizes that they have give back these lands to the legal owners sooner or later. But these settlements are bargaining chips, the same as the Golan Heights. Israel would give the land back for a lasting peace, but peace with whom? With people who are bent to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea?
Peace with Arafat in power is not possible, because the man has promoted terrorism, and lost a golden opportunity that now he regrets it. There is no such thing is representative Palestinian State with whom Israel can negotiate, aand give the land back for peace. I have a map published by the Palestinian Authorities and on it there is no State of Israel! I guess that says it all.
As for Arab nations, they are hostile to the United States without exception, no matter the lip service paid to the US by their leaders after the 7-11. They see Iraq is the only Arab nation that fought with the supper power and the leadership fully survived, and not only, it posses a challenge to the US today, and a threat to US interests. Saddam has turned himself into the champion of Arab hatred against the West and US in particular, the Salaheddin Ayubi of the 21st century. As long as he remains in power, the Palestinians will not be ready to put down their arms and seriously negotiate. To them Saddam has resisted the West, and won, why shouldn't they resist the Israel? They are convinced that the time is on their side! |
