Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DON'T START THE WAR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mao II who wrote (16648)	3/6/2003 3:52:37 PM
From: Mao II	Respond to of 25898

Ever new lines in the sand HAROON SIDDIQUI Another week, another American rationale for hurtling toward an invasion of Iraq. The latest from George W. Bush is that he wants to establish democracy there. "A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region." Its domino effect would even set "a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestine." These grand promises would be more convincing had Bush shown some respect for the free and democratic will of the world against his war; had America not been cavorting with the most repressive regimes in the region, including Saddam Hussein's at one time; had America not been perpetuating the medieval monarchy in Kuwait even after liberating it from Iraqi occupation; and had the president's father, George W.H. Bush, not made an equally empty pledge of Mideast peace on the eve of the 1991 Gulf War: "The time has come to put an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict." An elected parliament in Turkey has thus far refused to be bribed into letting American troops use Turkish soil to attack Iraq. A quarter of the caucus of the governing Justice and Development party, just like a quarter of British Labour MPs a week earlier, voted against their own government. Britons, Italians, Spaniards and Danes are against their governments backing America. Three-quarters of Spaniards oppose war even with the approval of the Security Council. Italian parliamentarians backed Silvio Berlusconi only on the condition that Italian troops do not participate in the war. In Greece, where the government lets American spy planes take off from Crete for missions over Iraq, the people are overwhelmingly against war. So are Canadians and Mexicans, whose governments are walking a fine line in trying not to offend America. In France, Germany, Norway and Belgium, both the people and the governments are solidly against this war. In semi-democratic Pakistan, Iran, Indonesia and Malaysia — with a combined population of a third of the Muslim world — there is near-unanimous opposition to war. So, too, in the monarchical or dictatorial Arab world where, faced with prohibitions against public assembly, people have grabbed every available opportunity to express their outrage. The fear of popular upheaval has turned even such traditional American allies as Saudi Arabia and Egypt against offering any moral or physical support for the war. Outside of Kuwait, only mercenary Qatar and Bahrain, with tiny, easily controllable populations, are hosting American troops. In America itself, nearly half the people are wary. Besides most mainstream Christian denominations, the labour movement — which supported the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1991 Gulf War — is opposed. Influential voices are besieging Bush to slow down. A senior American diplomat based in Athens has just quit, saying the "fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offence and defence since the days of Woodrow Wilson." John Brady Kiesling, a 20-year veteran of the foreign service, wrote in his letter of resignation to Colin Powell: "We should ask ourselves why we have failed to persuade more of the world that a war with Iraq is necessary. We have over the past two years done too much to assert to our world partners that narrow and mercenary U.S. interests override the cherished values of our partners." Narrow and mercenary interests indeed, but wrapped in the cloak of democracy for Arabs and peace for Palestinians. Under relentless pressure from Tony Blair and other allies, Bush has supposedly recommitted himself to a three-year timetable for the establishment of a Palestinian state. He did not say why only Yasser Arafat, the sole elected Arab leader in the region, must become "truly democratic" — as he indeed should — while Arab tyrants can continue to enjoy American patronage. And the president did not explain why he has set many conditions for the Palestinians and few or none for the Israelis. If "progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territory must end." If "the terror threat is removed" and if "security improves," Israel "will be expected to support the creation of a viable Palestinian state." Ariel Sharon could not have dictated that any better. Meanwhile, neither the Israeli civilians are safe from terror, as yesterday's suicide bombing in Haifa showed, nor Palestinian civilians safe from Sharon's relentless and largely fruitless drive to a military, rather than a political, solution. What we are witnessing in Washington is a dangerously ideological administration so bent on waging war that it would say just about anything to justify its holy mission. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Haroon Siddiqui is The Star's editorial page editor emeritus. His column appears Thursday and Sunday. He can be reached at hsiddiq@thestar.ca. Additional articles by Haroon Siddiqui thestar.com