Why is Iraq a good place to start?
Reader comment on item: [Appeasement and] Why Europe Balks

Submitted by Calisse Cansime (United States), Jan 29, 2003 at 09:48

...
It is true, many European nations ought to be grateful to the US for their strong role in World War II, particularly in trouncing fascism. But should that be seen as a ground for America to assume Europe would happily agree into anything and everything America fancies? Why does it irk US politicians when Europe disagrees? Europeans are entitled to their own view which need not be the American view, even if America helped restore their pride during World War II.
When Sep 11 occurred, Europe mourned alongside America and so did a large part of the world. Sep 11 justified the war against the Al Qaeda and the Taliban that harboured them. But now, without having captured Bin Laden, leaving behind a war ravaged Afghanistan once again in the control of fundamentalist local warlords, the US suddenly seem more interested in attacking Iraq.

Not only that, not attacking and looking for other ways becomes "appeasement", if we were to go by what Mr Pipes writes. What are wars then, exciting video displays broadcast live by CNN?

Mr Pipes writes, "Iraq is a good place to start". Why? There appears to be a failure to understand Iraq's situation: that it is very different from the usual middle east chaos he usually writes on. Saddam's seculairst Ba'ath party has nothing to do with the Al Qaeda. But the war on terror has stealthily shifted focus on Iraq, even though they did nothing to cause Sep 11. What happenned to capturing Bin Laden? How about telling the Saudis their nonsense won't be tolerated anymore?

In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait over a dispute of oil wells. That necessitated a multinational task force to teach Iraq a lesson. Years later, Iraq's foreign minister announced in the United Nations Iraq's regret over this act and said Iraq had suffered enough.
Western nations ignored his pleas. Of course an oil for food programme was brought about under which Iraq could sell limited amounts of oil in exchange for food. The US bought a lot of this oil but is yet to release large amounts of payments which could have
bought food and medicines for suffering Iraqis.

On top of that, the US and UK have setup "No fly zones" over sovereign Iraqi territory - which are not recognised by the UN. USAF and RAF have bombed Iraqi territory everyday since Operation Desert Storm. One TV report showed what these regular bombings
do: they attack villages of Iraqi shepherds and destroy livestock and have been known to attack other civilian targets. These sorties don't always get reported unless once awhile Iraqi anti-aircraft fire retaliate (in vain). How would you like a chunk of US aerospace
controlled by a non-US force? Ah, you won't tolerate that, would you?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.