It's situations like Sudan which make a lot of us (although not necessarily those of us on this forum) wonder where the American priorities really lie. If you want to right injustices, then look for injustices to right which actually mean something. Africa has more than anyone could possibly want. The Sudanese situation has been seesawing for nearly 100 years, with flare-ups like the current one occurring from time to time. The Sudanese government is a bunch of bandits who make Saddam Hussein look like a humanitarian on the same scale as Mother Theresa. But NO foreign government - except, funnily enough, the French government - has allowed itself to become involved in the Sudanese situation. Bush's statement is all very well in its way, but I will remain sceptical until I start seeing reports that things have, somehow, "got better". This is not a slur on Bush, it is a realistic assessment of the commitment of the Sudanese government - which, as the article points out, is financing the Arab aggressors - to any kind of peace which does not involve the "removal" of the local tribes from the southern Sudanese border area. Oddly, I guess, I would actually support an American incursion into the Sudan to sort things out. Not by overthrowing the current bandit gang in Khartoum, although they actually deserve a wall and a bullet apiece in a way which Saddam Hussein never did. No, they could make a difference by going in, on the ground, and eliminating the murdering bands of Arabs. Even the Americans could spot them, after all. They ride camels. Although, of course, given the "friendly fire" incidents in Iraq, the local tribes' donkeys would need to be carrying IFF transponders. Camels and donkeys are so easily confused, aren't they? The European powers know better than to try to do anything in that part of Africa. There are all kinds of reasons - many of them historical - why they shouldn't. Perhaps America, which isn't carrying the baggage and other impedimenta of colonialism in the area, would be seen as a genuinely neutral referee. But then again, maybe not.

Oh, I totally agree. I was being ironic rather than cynical, though. America has "lost" the opportunity to do anything in Sudan which would not be seen as self-serving. And the opportunity was lost by Bill Clinton, not George Bush. I would imagine that Bush is under a lot of pressure from the oil companies to lift the embargo against Sudan which was put in place because of its support for bin Laden et al. He's certainly trying to score points through his support for the peace agreement which has been brokered between the Khartoum rabble and the SPLM/A rabble. As I read somewhere, it wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that there will be another one of those momentous "peace meetings" at Camp David with photo ops for all, but especially for a sitting Republican President with major popularity problems just prior to an election ... The problem is that the Khartoum-backed genocide/ethnic cleansing/scorched earth policy (or whatever you want to call it) in the southern Darfur province carries on unabated, courtesy of the janjaweed bandit gangs, ably supported by the Sudanese air force. Women are being raped, sometimes branded to add to their misery and are probably also being kidnapped into slavery on occasion. The men are being murdered out of hand. Their villages are being razed and their livestock stolen. And since there's not much oil in Darfur, America's interest in trying to achieve real peace in the west of Sudan is likely to be, shall we say, limited?

I agree that Europe's response has been that there is no response. But Europe hasn't been flexing its muscles and proclaiming the need to spread democracy or right wrongs across the world and the US has. Europe has been focussing almost exclusively on internal issues such as trying to absorb the impact of ten new EU members. The US has also been showing an increased amount of interest in Sudan - witness President Bush's statement. So I don't believe that I have been "unfairly" targeting the US here. Europe just isn't a player. My major point was, and remains, that the US has gone into Iraq (admittedly with the uncritical support of the UK and others) to "right wrongs", portraying herself as the Robin Hood or Zorro of the West. Well, that's the current story anyway. Yet for all his autocratic/tyrannical control and past transgressions against some groups within his country, notably the Kurds and the marsh Arabs, Saddam Hussein wasn't being more than moderately nasty towards the Iraqis at the time of the invasion. The Sudan, on the other hand, has had 20 years of more-or-less continuous civil war, with none of the approximately 35 sides involved being much fussed about human rights abuses. In the past year, the Khartoum government has upped the odds by pursuing the clearance of tribespeople from the oil-bearing areas and now the negroid population of Darfur. What it is doing is ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. If the US wants to be the world's policeman it seems to me that this is a much more deserving use of the US' resources than Iraq. Or Syria. Or Libya.

Well, perhaps ... nothing ... is precisely what should be done. My point was merely that if the US had wanted to find somewhere where playing Robin Hood might possibly have been applauded, Sudan was a more "deserving" case than Iraq. Or the Congo. Or Rwanda, too, I suppose. I would also point out, since you obviously don't know, that "Europe" is NOT a sovereign nation and that "Europe" doesn't - because it can't - make decisions about military adventurism. Only the individual countries can do that. Or NATO, of course, but that's an American plaything anyway. Two of the sovereign nations in Europe, Great Britain and France, are in fact providing quite a lot of military support in Africa. YCLIU. Britain - in case you hadn't noticed, as a lot of Americans clearly haven't - has thousands of troops in Iraq. Others - Italy comes to mind - are also supporting the US' holiday schedule in the Middle East. More European countries would probably have become involved except that the UN was lied to and then sidelined by Mr Bush in his rush to be the first kid on the block to own his own sandpit. For some reason the Europeans have objected to that.

Capfka: Absolutely right. Europe is not a sovereign nation. Dozens of nations. . . none of which do anything. A famous scene from Life of Brian comes to mind: "This calls for a serious . . . discussion." DW: The consequences of non-intervention have been dramatically demonstrated, don't you think? In Germany in 30's and 40's? In Cambodia, in the 70's? In Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90's? The great advantage the opposition to intervention has is that the horrors that MIGHT have occurred in the alternative universe are never visble. Thus, if the League of Nations had thrown Germany out of the Rhineland in 1936, the brolly's of that era would have been writing infuriated placards about the few dozen (there wouldn't have been more) casualties. The world that did come about would have remained a matter of speculation. Unfortunately, it did not. That doesn't mean there isn't a moral choice. You can do as much violence to the human condition by inaction as action, as witness the above examples. What it does mean -always - is that action requires a lot more political and moral courage than doing nothing, because the known evil of the act will always have be compared to the speculative might-have-been. You may damn Bush up and down for whatever reasons. But he does have courage. Blair is beyond that - unparalleled and amazing, already the stuff of legend - although his integrity is not going to be appreciated until today is a long time ago. A prophet without honor, etc. Chirac,Schroeder, Zapatero? Politicians. Message was edited by: fdbjr

> The consequences of non-intervention have been > en dramatically demonstrated, don't you think? In > Germany in 30's and 40's? In Cambodia, in the 70's? > In Bosnia and Rwanda in the 90's? I am aware of all of this, and would agree that there are many occasions which undeniably justify intervention... ...however that is not what I was asking. I was asking you to consider cases where intervention has occured, regularly (perhaps you might call it interference punctuated by intervention) and particularly in the Middle East, not to speculate, but to consider what has actually happened and evaluate the results.

The US intervention in Somalia was initially greeted with great hope. It became bogged down in the pursuit of Aideed, but did quite a bit to stabilize the region (and offer security to those doing good work that had otherwise to pay 'protection money' to the militias) and might still have been able to accomplish more than what had passed before, if they had not gotten into a fixed mindset of "Aideed = bad guy = must eliminate" and then decided to rush out once things got messy. The removal of US forces from Somalia led to the current power vacuum and instability, and forced many NGOs to suspend or reduce their activities. The problem lies less with the US than with the fact that there are no "rules of war", or intervention. The US, as the (and this is a loaded term) current hegemon could be blamed for not putting those rules in place, but you cannot accuse it of failing to intervene, or failing in its interventions, if there are no guidelines to judge success and failure. PS The casualties in Somalia were largely due to urban warfare, but you could call that a jungle of sorts.

It is true that appeasement in the 1930s was a policy of despair, and, as a 1950s bunny, I had much contempt for those who practiced it. Yet meeting and talking to a few people on the fringes of power from those times I came to understand just how the Great War had affected them and distorted their actions. Their past coloured and distorted their present, and destroyed their future. That being said, I do think that looking back on the events in the Balkans in recent times 'Old Europe' behaved in a disgraceful and immoral way. They sat on their hands and did nothing, or nothing terribly meaningful until it was all too late. So I tend to think fdbjr more or less hit the nail on the head. As to the UN it is basically set up to be a gas works. Sudan at the moment is just the latest in a long line of failings. Wish that these ample failings did not cost so much human life and suffering.

Cheap brolly. I doubt very much it would merely take 'a few thousand men' and would require far more forces than that. It is good tank country though ! But what has the UN actually done ? Passed another resolution, which is what it is very good at and saves it having to do very much at all. And what of the 'Old Europeans' then ? I don't see the French and German tanks racing across the sands. Or what of the Africans themselves ? I don't see any action from neighbouring states. Why not ?

Brolly, Wyseowl is exactly that, very wise. I did not see him dodging any issue. Besides that, are you actually advocating military on humanitarian reasons alone in the Sudan? Because, I thought that you did not believe in that.

Brolly, You would agree that I usually answer your questions. You may not like the answers, but I do answer them, right? Answer this: Why was the US in Somalia?

Republican X, ["If ever words rung true. What Americans fail to understand from history is that we can not fix other countries problems. If we participate in anything in regards to the U.N. the contribution should be money and troops but in very anemic amounts. Isolationism seems to be the answer for America today. Withdraw and let the dust settle. Re-asses who is friend and foe and determine what our posture should be to each. Revise the Bush-Doctrine to eliminate all out invasion to hit our enemies. This in exchange for anouncing intent to conduct surgical assasination strikes on any terrorist group or national leader that aids them without notice or permission from the U.N. Of course this will demand thorough Congressional oversite. In short, bring back T.R. style foreign policy."] Did Congressional 'oversight' make any difference to the decision to invade Iraq. The Republican majority in Congress and the Senate were always going to support the President, who as Commander-in-Chief, has so much confidence reposed in his office by the American people. Are the 'surgical strikes' to be pre-emptive? If so, what will the basis for the decisions be? We have seen how inaccurate or exaggerated 'intelligence' can be, right from the original sources ( Iraqi defectors)through to the CIA and other agencies analyses of it. Or do you mean launching these 'strikes' after a terrorist incident? I cannot help thinking that the policy you recommend would lead to even bigger mistakes than have been made in Iraq, which bears the hallmark of not having been thought through (post war disasters and consequences). The suggestion that the US should only get involved in helping to fix other countries problems in concert with the UN is an idea that I support. It would help avoid the charge of arrogant and sinister unilateralism, that other countries or political leaders level against the US.

I thought this thread would find this article interesting reading: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/they_knew_0802 08/04/2004 Published "In These Times" "They Knew..." By David Sirota and Christy Harvey "Despite the whitewash, we now know that the Bush administration was warned before the war that its Iraq claims were weak... ...Top administration officials repeatedly ignored warnings that their assertions about Iraq’s supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and connections to al Qaeda were overstated. In some cases, they were told their claims were wholly without merit, yet they went ahead and made them anyway. Even the Senate report admits that the White House “misrepresented” classified intelligence by eliminating references to contradictory assertions. In short, they knew they were misleading America. And they did not care." On the scary list going around, this rates No. 2.

Republican X, >>"Are the 'surgical strikes' to be pre-emptive?" [“By pre-emptive I assume you mean we think they will do something. So no, not pre-emptive. This for the exact reason you stated...”] Yes, I am in accord. >>"We have seen how inaccurate or exaggerated 'intelligence' can be, right from the original sources ( Iraqi defectors)through to the CIA and other agencies analyses of it." [“To me, this is the scariest thing about the world today. It is widely known that besides Mosad British Intelligence is the best and even they screwed up to. Now, in the U.S. we have the silly season going on and everyone rushing to implement recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Add another bureaucracy they say to streamline communication. As if the numerous intel agencies are not enough. I do not pretend to know the answers but I do not think this will work either.”] I would like to qualify the view that British Intelligence screwed up. They certainly had no clear idea of the situation in Iraq regarding WMD. However it is clear from reading the Butler and Hutton reports that Tony Blair and his advisers exerted maximum pressure on John Scarlett (Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee), to ‘sex up’ the notorious ‘Dodgy Dossier’, which the British Government published. Scarlett, who was keen to ingratiate himself with Blair, deliberately left out all the caveats and cautions that his analysts were coming up with in their assessments. In other words, Scarlett, acted in a most unprofessional manner in order to provide Blair with the pretext he needed to swing the Parliamentary vote for war behind him. Scarlett has now got his reward, as he has been promoted to be the Head of MI 6 despite numerous objections from the other political parties and the press. >>"Or do you mean launching these 'strikes' after a terrorist incident? I cannot help thinking that the policy you recommend would lead to even bigger mistakes than have been made in Iraq, which bears the hallmark of not having been thought through (post war disasters and consequences)." [“True. However, there must be consequences for enemy action against this country. It should not be limited to the scope of military action but action must be taken.”] This seems reasonable but the action must be justified by fact and not fiction with regard to the actual perpetrators. >>"The suggestion that the US should only get involved in helping to fix other countries problems in concert with the UN is an idea that I support. It would help avoid the charge of arrogant and sinister unilateralism, that other countries or political leaders level against the US." [“This will work but only when the U.N. takes its mandate seriously. Additionally, much like you and your European citizens require a rebuilding of trust from either future President. So to does the U.S. require a rebuilding of trust with the U.N. Their current lack of transparency in the Food for Oil scandal is disturbing.”] The UN is like other Institutions in that it can stand improvement. It can benefit from less condemnation and being made the scapegoat for not quickly solving the world’s ills and more constructive effort to develop its conflict resolution capacity and its other important agencies. It is an organisation that the world needs, as was recognised by the more far sighted politicians of the post-war era, notably Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. >>"Did Congressional 'oversight' make any difference to the decision to invade Iraq." [“No it did not. I would have very much preferred that we had layed low and let Saddam think he was safe enough to pop his head and then execute the strike. Approved by congress. It is disgusting how Congress has willingly given away its responsibility for approving war. Our Constitutional architects never intended for the Congress to give the President a blank mandate for military action. The executive branch is responsible for executing the war. The people (Congress) is responsible for deciding whether this is needed. Oversite will work if the voters start to punish Congress at the ballot box for conveniently dismissing their Constitutional responsibility.”] Should not the President and his cohorts also be punished for ignoring the Constitution, which he constantly refers to in such haloed words. Surely his professed regard for democracy and its institutions should be demonstrated by example and not hypocrisy. However, the US is more fortunate than Britain, in that its Constitution does afford some protection against executive abuse of power in the matter of war, although this has been abdicated lately. In the UK, there is no written Constitution and the Prime Minister, through the power vested in him by the Crown, can make a decision to go to war without Parliamentary authorisation. Blair did allow a vote in Parliament but he was not bound to accept its verdict and in the event, the enormous majority that his party, new Labour has and the fact that the main opposition party, the Conservatives (who are closely identified with the Republican Party in the US) were in support of Bush, gave him a majority vote. The fact that one man, Blair, who in my opinion has a strong authoritarian streak in his character, can bind our country to war, is something that has given the very many opponents of the war in the UK something to think about in regard to our system of government and its undemocratic foundation.

I was alarmed to discover that MI6 (British Intelligence) only had 5 sources (for weapons) within Iraq, and of these 3 were not considered reliable. I assumed there would have been more. To my knowledge the JIC has never before, and certainly should never again, become involved in what was basically 'political pamphleteering'. While the government had every right to publish a dossier if it chose to do so it most certainly shouldn't have used the JIC in this way. That is inexcusable. John Scarlet is to blame for allowing himself to become enmeshed in the 'lad culture' at Number 10, but Scarlet, though a very good spy, should never have been made chairman of the JIC. The Franks report made that point 20+ years ago. What is more Blair is so arrogant he has appointed another relatively young man to the chair of the JIC in Scarlet's stead. Also I was very surprised that Lord Butler did not seek evidence from, nor call as a witness Blair's former Press Secretary, Alister Campbell. This seems even now illogical and rather strange. Michael Howard (Conservative Opposition leader) hit the nail on the head in the Commons when he told Blair that the question he must answer was why 'their (the Intelligence services) qualified uncertainties became his unqualified certainties'. Why were all the caveats removed and by whom and upon whose authority. Well, we know. I would also be curious to know when Iain Duncan Smith was briefed by Blair on the situation as a Privy Counsellor just what he was shown and told. And on a point of fact, Blair did not table a motion for war. Again as Howard has said had he known then what he knows now he would not have voted for the motion. There is one crumb of comfort in all this: Blair will never be free of his duplicity and it will stain his place in history. For a man obsessed with image one wonders how he dug himself into that particular hole.

wyseowl, ["And on a point of fact, Blair did not table a motion for war. Again as Howard has said had he known then what he knows now he would not have voted for the motion. There is one crumb of comfort in all this: Blair will never be free of his duplicity and it will stain his place in history. For a man obsessed with image one wonders how he dug himself into that particular hole."] There are different explanations for Blair's decision to support the war. You can take your choice. My own favourite, although not necessarily true, is that the image you say Blair is obsessed with, is the key to the situation . Blair liked the idea of being perceived as the most influential (at least in his mind) person on the most powerful man in the world .i.e. George W.Bush. This was next best thing to actually being President himself, something of course he could never be. Being seen at Bush's side while holding counsels of war and then affecting to be the bridge between the Bush administration and Europe, exactly suited this glory seeker. In pursuit of such an opportunity to appear on the premier world stage, Blair did not bother to work out the consequences and he was prepared to resort to any necessary deception to play his part, once he had been 'selected' by Bush for the role of major ally. Having Britain 'standing shoulder to shoulder' was a significant coup for Bush and helped him politically. There is an alternative explanation, which is that Blair was warned by the Foreign Office, that the Bush neoconservative regime could get out of control and that he was about the only person that might reign them in and get the UN involved,so avoiding the undermining of the Westerna Alliance, that had stood in good stead since the war. As I said, one can take their choice and it is even possible to connect the two views and yet others. However, as I said, Blair's histrionic personality is where I pitch my tent. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

lawson560, I agree some of what you say about the neoconservatives and the motives for the Iraq war but it would be better said in a less intemperate manner. Don't take this the wrong way, as I too get angry at the lies and misinformation that emenates from The White House and 10,Downing Street, but outbursts of rage only give the supporters of the Bush Doctrine ammunition to fire back as to our incivility rather than contest the actual case being made Message was edited by: brolly2_1

Brolly, Thanks for the response. I read the article by the socialist and you are right. I disagree. Many of us on the Pro-US/UK side have admitted the past consequences of cold war era policy. Isn't it time that you admitted that the US has done some good in the world and that everything the US does is not motivated by greed? Like you I distrust political leaders. That is why we try to have a system with as many checks and balances as possible including the right to bear arms and remove our own government by force if needed. Concerning Somalia, if the US was really fueled by business interests in an effort to gain some "oil" from Somalia, why didn't the US just send in the armor that it needed to wipe out the warlords instead of losing so many men? Also, is there a country in the world that does not have oil or some other resource that the US could help and not be accused of the usual "blood for oil" slogan?

wyseowl, [“I'm not sure you are correct. Like many people I thought Saddam had WMD, indeed I have read recently that the fool told King Abdullah and President Mubarak that he did have them, so either he was lying to seem the 'big man', or he did actually have them which begs the question of what happened to them. When the UN went back I don't really think one could argue that Saddam did anything but give them the 'run around', which could be explain in two ways: either he had WDN and was concealing them, or he no longer had anything and wished to conceal that fact, particularly from the Iranians. Either way he miscalculated as he quite often did.”] If anyone had a good idea of Iraq’s WMD capability, it was Israel. Do you seriously believe that Israel would have allowed Saddam to develop an effective nuclear capability without striking at the location/s. They did not hesitate in the 1980’s to take pre-emptive action and certainly would have done so if it existed after the UN Inspectors left in 1998. The evidence that there were no WMD after the early 1990’s continues to pile up with each day that no discovery is made. I think that the argument that they were hidden or buried is pretty weak. David Kay, the Pentagon’s own man, who headed the Iraqi Survey Team after Blix, said in an interview that I watched on TV recently, that US and UK intelligence actually had enough knowledge before the war that Saddam presented no threat in respect of WMD. He implied that the case for the invasion was not based on WMD. You can argue this point till the cows come home but it will not change my mind or the minds of a lot of people outside as well as inside the US that the war was fought for other reasons. Blix did not give me the impression that Saddam was giving him the run around, to the extent that you seem to be implying. Blix actually said that co-operation was quite reasonable if not exactly whole hearted. You continue to try to make some sort of case for WMD, which is increasingly threadbare. [“A British Prime Minister does carry weight in Washington, I think that is undeniable, simply because Britain is still a hugely powerful and a respected country, and also because there are bonds of 'kith & kin' which are different to the relationship between Paris & Washington or Berlin & Washington. Blair undoubtedly had some influence in Washington, and it was Blair who persuaded Washington to go the UN route. This was probably a miscalculation on his part and as a result his influence has been diminished.”] You make no comment on the point you made concerning Tony Blair’s preoccupation with his image and upon which I remarked. I don’t doubt that Blair had some influence in Washington, although many people in the UK doubted it was anywhere near sufficient to offset that of the neocons around Bush. Colin Powell himself was rather beleaguered among that lot and has considerably diminished his reputation by lending himself to a cause he was not really committed to. His appearance at the UN when he presented the ‘evidence’ for the WMD threat will continue to haunt him as long as he is in politics. [“While this will not be a popular thing to say, President Bush has embarked on a high stakes poker game in the Middle East. There are some quite ghastly regimes there, some more benign than others such as Jordan etc, but I would love to overthrow many of them. I think we have to face the fact that propping up some of them over the last 40-50 years has availed us nothing and merely gained us Al Queda ! May be the Bush idea of democracy in the Middle East - allowing the winds of change to blow - is right, but can it be any worse than what is there now ? And at the end of the day why should the people of the region live under the jack boots of so many tyrants ? Yes, we do have interests there which is the oil, but the people of the region also have an interest in selling us the stuff too. Takes two to tango.”] I mentioned in another posting that Middle East democracies that have any genuine substance to them may not be that friendly or tolerant of a nuclear armed Israel and that US semi-client regimes that have Peace Treaties with Israel are essentially authoritarian states .i.e. Jordan and Egypt. I entirely disagree with your view that the neocons wish to bring democracy to the Middle East. I think they want to create more client states including Iran and Syria, with puppets like Ahmad Chalabi with regimes that masquerade as ‘democracies’. Nowhere do you mention the dictatorship of Pakistan. The number of terrorists cells that seem to be active in that country and the Madrassas where thousands of Muslim fundamentalists are being turned out, seems to have escaped your attention and apparently that of Mr Bush. How can you talk about Bush wishing to create democracy in the Middle East when Saudi Arabia is one of the most authoritarian states and from which most of the 9/11 perpetrators came from and yet Iraq was chosen for the invasion. The whole argument that you advance which is basically that of the neoconservatives, is totally lopsided. This more than anything else points to the fact that it creating genuine democracy among the Arabs and other Muslims is not the underlying motive. [“Liberty and democracy aren't just fruits to be enjoyed by us and us alone. I do not accept the idea that representative democracy in the western sense is incompatible with Islam. Nor do I think, as I have read in other places, that Arabs are use to tyrants, and it is the natural order of things in that part of the world. It isn't and such an idea is insulting and frankly racist. I would not have got enmeshed in Iraq quite as we have, but I hope what is underway succeeds and so should everyone else. A free and liberal Iraq is a worthy goal, and let us not forget that the people of Iraq lived in a ‘prison with a mass grave beneath their feet’. The tragedy is that when they were liberated from that tyrant the tanks that rolled into Baghdad weren’t Arab tanks.”] Here you go again! No one is saying that the Arabs personality or character cannot abide democracy. This is a false argument and does not deal with what is really going on. The US administration does not want ‘ a free and liberal’ Iraq unless it is shaped in its own image. The attempts to pre-empt the democratic mandate of the Iraqi people by the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer’s guidance have been referred to many times on OpenDemocracy and in the media. The opening up of Iraqi industry to foreign investors, who were to be allowed to own up to 100% of the firms they invested in and to be able to repatriate up to 100% of the profit earned, was given expression in the notorious Order No. 39. I suggest that you read it. True it allowed for a democratically elected Government to amend the order but why the haste to get the investment underway, when no democratic mandate was likely to be in existence until next year at the earliest. The truth of the matter is that Bremer and the Bush administration hoped that so much Iraqi industry would have been privatised by that time, that it would be a fait accompli and very difficult to dismantle. We have an example of how rapid privatisation in Russia gifted the assets of major industries to the ‘oligarchs’, which were the people at the top of the old system that had the means of raising money from the Banks to buy up the vouchers from the public at next to nothing prices. All the Iraqi expatriate politicians including Ahamd Chalabi and his family, with their friends in high US places, positioned themselves to make a bean feast of Iraqi assets. [“There is also a slightly wider point. Europe was not united either one way or the other, and I do think it is damned impertinent of the French and Germans to think they are Europe. They aren't. Europe is more than just them, as is the EU although they seem to think the thing is their exclusive property. More European leaders were in favour than against the war and it is easy to miss that point. Also what undermines the alliance, by which I hope you mean NATO, isn't the actions of the US & UK. European defence and security is based on NATO and I am deeply suspicious of anything which seeks directly or indirectly to undermine that cornerstone. The French policy seems to be to peel Europe off from NATO by creating the 'European Defence Arm' which is the biggest load of nonsense going. Moral of the story: when the Europeans were left to find a solution to a problem themselves in their own backyard we saw genocide again, something I never thought would be seen again in Europe.”] I think you have no idea of the sentiment of the European people with regard to the war, as distinct from some of their leaders. Opinion polls throughout ‘old’ and ‘new’ Europe before the war, showed the public enormous opposition. In Spain the nearly 90% were not in favour and Aznar’s support was totally unrepresentative of his people. Likewise in Italy, the popular disagreement with Berlesconi’s support of Bush reached over 80%. Figures for Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary were not dissimilar. To use your own words, you have ‘missed the point’. Many of us in Europe want to ‘peel off’ from NATO as long as there are neoconservatives running the US Government, as we think they are a danger to world peace. With Bush and his neocon supporters breaking Treaties relating to disarmament and spending vast sums to develop new nuclear weapons and space war technology, we can see the start of an arms race with China, Russia , India and probably Pakistan participating. We know where this will lead in the long run if not sooner and do not want to be locked in by the likes of people like Tony Blair, to the US and to become targets because of it. Britain is already marking itself out by allowing the US to use it Fylingdales early warning system in the new US plans. I can tell you that the British people heard nothing about this in the New Labour Party’s election manifesto in 2001 and Blair has no mandate from the electorate to act in such a way. I think you have no idea of what a majority of Europeans are thinking.