Re: French cry babies? Probably not as much as former king of chimpanzee...

Some might say the good reason to be involved is that if the USA lost the
war or became isolationist, the terrorists would move to other targets.

Maybe india, maybe Europe, and just maybe France.

If you take the attitude we will wait until it threatens you, then some
might say morals have gone wrong somewhere.

In my opinion the harsh truth is this. The participating western countries
knew they needed to fight the terrorists somewhere. Iraq was just a
scapegoat, the fighting there is mainly financed and often manpowered by
foreign sources. If the west started a war in any country in the middle
east they can draw the terrorists in and take care of them there, rather
than having to pick them off in each country.

>From a western leaders perspective:

The Benefits:
1) They drain the terrorist resources and kill alot of them off, the
fighting in Iraq acts as a magnet to more terrorists
2) The west dosent fight them on their own soil

By Products:
1) Get rid of Saddmam Hussein as his potential to create WMD and promote
terrorism
2) Democracy might be seeded in the middle east

The Nastier Aspects
1) Morally reprehensible picking any particular country as the fighting
ground
2) Political/Financial Cost

Only my opinion of how it might be thought of, not how I think it SHOULD be
thought of. Personally im undecided.

As regards to the USA's acting in its own interest you can hardly blame the
USA for that. For starters:

1)Britian and France declared war on Germany for its own interest, in that
Germany might sway the balance of power. Their actual caring about the
Polish folk was probably not that instrumental. (Russia invaded Finland and
we didnt declare war on Russia)
2) Russia partitioned Poland with Germany so that when the fighting started
in would hopefully not be on its own soil (although I havent read that but
its probably likely)
3) Britain occupied the Middle East to avert a German link with Southern
Russia

And it dosent really apply anymore as most western countries would now fight
for most other western countries if it things were turning really bad.



"LordAvalon" <monsieurdavallon@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1129884937.604005.107500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Dear UKFolk,
>
> What would the good reason to be involved be? I read last friday's
> special
> report on Irak in The Independant ( because "involvement" these day
> revolve around Irak). And "fucked up" is still a bit of an
> understatement.
> Today we (I actually mean they!) have to cope with threats of our own
> making, like the arsonist fire man!
> Then if by "involvement" we mean that intelligence agencies should be
> on the watch, contact should be made abroad, places, people,
> organizations
> should be monitored... we are positively involved.
>
>
> As a son or grand son of british citizen who lived through WWII
> you may have heard about the Blitz over London.
> The Cash n' Carry clause may sound familiar to your ears too.
> I will not rant on it since it has been done a thousand times in the
> present NG
> but USA participation in WWII was late and at best reluctant if not
> even unclear
> in its shady contacts with the Third Reich's intelligence...
> At least it was a political position coherent with the defense of one's
> interests.
>


.