To: Paul van Wijk who wrote (43614 ) 5/11/2004 10:46:43 PM From: ManyMoose Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793725 OK, Paul. That is a much more sensible position than I thought you were espousing. I disagree on several points, but that is OK. There is talk tonight about an American beheaded in Iraq. There is no excuse for that, and the embarrassment any Iraqis felt for the way they were treated (which was wrong everybody seems to agree) does NOT compare. Frankly, I think the entire Muslim world has a big problem and if it doesn't grow up we should try other ways of dealing with it. I'm sure they would not like some of the ways that has been suggested, so it is in their interests to grow up. It is NOT always the US that has to eat crow.Message #43614 from Paul van Wijk at May 11, 2004 12:53 PM Did I miss a year or something? I thought the elections were still in the future. 1. You are right. I simply do not believe that Bush will survive the fallout of what is happening in Iraq. But at this monent it is looking in a crystal ball. But I do want to bet big money that I will be right. For what it is worth. 2. I do not admire the French. Period. And I prefer beer over wine. I saw Ville-what-ever-his-name-is make his point in the Security Council in the run up to the war. And I believe his analysis was much closer to the truth than the analysis by the US. Especially when it comes to the impact the war on Iraq would have in the Arab world. I have a very simple logic about the Arab world. Angry Arabs = More Terrorism, less cooperation from their with sharing intelligence, etc. I don't say Arabs are perfect nor am I a fan of Islam (or any other religion). But if Bush had managed to get the majority on his side, the odds of winning the war on terrorism would be much higher. Furthermore, the only positive of French, relative to other European countries is that Paris is located in French. I had the most romantic weekend of my life over there. 3. I absolutely believe that this war in Iraq is very, very contraproductive when it comes to winning the war on terrorism. (Not to mention how much damage this war has done to the reputation of the United States, not only in the Middle East or even Europe.) I have numerous arguments to back up this opinion. The best argument I can come up with is that Richard Clarke has the same opinion. He is the man with the best CV when it comes to beating terrorism. There is no single man on this planet who has a better track-record. And I am sure that his book would be a bestseller if he had let out this specific opinion on the impact that the war on Iraq would have on the longterm the war on terrorism. 4. I am not a historican, nor do I have the urge to defend French foreign policy. Although I do know that they were the most cooperative with the Germans during WWII. Regards,