Good points, Kat.  Problem is, the world's leaders are not as altruistic as
the populations they represent.  Global opinion is often created by "State"
media--even in so-called democracies.  If the leaders have a vested interest
in the status quo, as the French obviously do, then they couldn't give a
rat's arse about the Iraqi peasantry.  I do feel that the US leadership does
have the Iraqi proletariat at heart--maybe in a minimalist way, but at least
more so than our partners in the Security Council.

The U.N. is not without blood on it's hands, either.  Anyone besides me
remember that Boutros-Boutros Gali was from the same clan as the Somali
warlord Aidid?  I have some trust of NATO, but as far as the "blue helmet
gang" is concerned, the more marginalized they become, the better.

-----Original Message-----
From: Kat [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 12:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Iraq


One thing against oil being a major motivation:  Why spend all the money and
time building up the armed forces and support for a paltry return on
investment?  Doesn't make business sense to me. Kyle's right - it's about
getting Saddam out.

The major problem I've got with this is that we have to be so very careful
not to play into Saddam's hands.  He can very easily turn this into a PR
disaster for the US; I know it's easy to say go ahead and damn the
consequences, but we cannot afford to go against global opinion as we cannot
effectively operate in isolation in a global economy.  And make no mistake:
we are functioning in a global economy.  For example, my corporation, Sara
Lee, not only manufactures and sells products in the US but over 500
products and brands worldwide.  Every thing that happens overseas affects us
as well as every person in the US.

Kat