I didn't post my oppinion on this subject yet. It's my first post about it. But I want to state one thing crystal clear. In this Iraqui issue, I step, undoubtfully, with the USA. They are making their best efforts to comply with UN and international sensibilities and, remember, it's not your head but theirs which have the Islamic terrorists guns directly pointed at. And this makes a world of differences. We know it very well in my country.
You might use checking your history books. At the times where Germany was overunning Sudentenland America was, if anything, isolationist, except for a minority. It were only UK & France who actively gave Sudetenland away (and Alsacia-Lorena, and Danzig, and...). By that time, that was a European conflict. Probably if America were more "proactive" history would be different. Who knows.
But this comes handy on the Saddam & Irak issue. What strikes me most (and it's only my opinion) is the similarity between Germany post depression situation and Irak post war situation. Germans had a raving lunatic in a pretty much destroyed and humiliated country after WWI and '29 depression who managed to bring his country from his knees to a second-line military power. This raving (mind it, not stupid) guy was able to use his skills to molder the public oppinion and make it fit his own agenda, using the external aggression and the racial argument. And there was a fertile field to receive that seed.
Now, you have Iraq. A pretty much destroyed and humiliated country after he lost 2 wars in a row. But he managed to stay in power and he the willing to make any kind of weapon although he still has not the money. It shocks me why so many people fails to see the ultimate objective of Saddam is becoming a regional power in a first stance, but this only as a partial goal. He did it when he attacked Iran. He did it when he invaded Kuwait. He used his pro-western attitude when it was useful for his goal, and now he is turning a first-line muslim believer. Both blatant lies. Trying to glue his people against the common external enemy.
I can agree with blitz saying that Iraq is no threat to U.S. but only from a short sighted perspective. If you leave a raving lunatic in charge of such huge amount of money, you are only capitalizing future failure. And that's where oil comes to play. It's not only about America's economic power, it's not only about protecting U.S. interests. It's also about "not letting this happen, in the first place" better than facing awful chances if you fail to deprive a lunatic dictator the means to achieve his ultimate goal of being the ultimate regional power in the area.
Are you implying that we (and I am not american) should take the risks? For the sake of what?....I fail to see why.
I feel sorry for the civilian casualties if war ever starts. I don't like war, and I think war itself is the sum of all fears. But hiding the head in the sand won't make war not happen. Tell Chamberlain who, incidentally, was received like a hero in London after we was cheated miserably. Like all english who honestly believed in Hitler's promises. Are you saying we should believe Saddam's ones? Why is Saddam less dangerous than Adolf H.?
Last, but not least, if we are talking abot sheer power, well...there is one single world power nowadays (only China could rival this and nobody can guess when). No matter how loud France, Germany or even Russia can shout, they are still the chihuahuas in front of the pitbull. Whatever they bark, the result will be the same. We are allies (and I'm happy myself to be that) of the one superpower. We are not his equals or similars. Face it, guys. Germany, or France, or both, or the whole EU would not stand the first round of an economic war against US. Let alone a military one.
And don't bring the "honour" or the "hipocricy" or the "interests" flags around. Everyone here follows his own agenda, and France is paramount. They are only playing his cards to protect their national interests (Elf Aquitaine comes to mind). They are appearing as if they are defending the weak (Iraq) against the powerful (USA) but they will step with America once the war begins. Mark my words. In the very moment they perceive they have a losing hand, they will run for their share of the winning pie. French diplomacy is absolutely brilliant and excels over time. Arguably the most efficient in the world since Louis XIV. But that's it. (sorry, Straffo, that's how I see French stance at the time being
).
Of course, this is my just barely educated opinion.
