On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 14:14:49 GMT, "Bob Schmall"
wrote:

A less slanted article would have also included
statistics showing our economic improvement, the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and its brave new political system, etc.

As someone who was laid off from a large US corporate during Bush's
reign, I'm not seeing much "economic improvement". The dollar is
through the floor, the deficit is enormous and all your manufacturing
base are belong to China.

Iraq has almost no infrastructure. Now I'm hardly surprised by this -
we've just fought a war through the place. I hope they will have one
soon, and I have faith that many well-intentioned soldiers are doing
their damnedest to assist this.

Neither does Iraq have a "brave new political system". It has protests
on the streets against a US-led war to bring "democracy", where this
appears to be US-selected non-elected placemen.

The US government _hates_ democracy. Democracy keeps giving the wrong
answer, so America has to depose the freshly-elected popular leader.
As democracy in a united Iraq would almost certainly give power to a
Shia majority, this would lead to rapprochment with Iraq and
everything that America is most scared of. America's best hope for a
permissible democracy in Iraq is to Balkanize it (in the original
sense of the term) into federal states where no one state can dominate
the others. And then try to mollify Turkey when they have a US-created
Kurdistan on the doorstep.

I am not a fan of
Bush nor am I defending him, but that article does not represent American
opinion, merely British.

I wouldn't say that article represents anyone's opinion. It's a
collection of isolated facts that doesn't look anything like the
"opinion" of either a "My President, right or wrong" Blairite, or a
"Make noise, not war" Spartist.

Nor is the Indie a British tabloid. No tits, no royals, no soapstars.
If anyone can see a single erroneous figure in that list, then please
correct it so that we may all learn.


--
Socialism: Eric, not Tony