Mid-East reactions to Bush's war
 

Here is what the middle eastern nations are saying about us. Nice,
huh?

In the Middle Eastern press, as news of Saddam's capture sinks in,
analysts have been sifting through the implications of the milestone
event with a combined sense of relief and caution. In some of the more
thoughtful commentaries published so far, rhetoric has given way to
calls for reasonable, swift actions that will capitalize on what the
region's media -- and the world -- agree is a historic moment.

"The initial reactions to Saddam's capture are already giving way to
concern over his chances of receiving a fair trial," Lebanon's Daily
Star editorialized. "It is . . . crucial that the deposed strongman be
judged openly and equitably, that no ammunition be delivered to those
who will undoubtedly emerge to decry the proceedings as a show trial."

In addition, the Lebanese daily advised, if the United States is
serious, as President Bush has trumpeted, about establishing democracy
in Iraq, then "Iraqis [will] have a major part to play in the creation
of a decent government for their country, and their enthusiasm can
only be dampened if the changes they are asked to make seem like
window dressing for the continued rule of a heavy-handed foreign
invader." The paper stopped short of crying, "Yankees, go home!" But
in acknowledging that the "structure and scheduling" of forthcoming,
necessary, "free and fair elections . . . are [still] being fiercely
debated in Iraq," it reminded the country's American administrators,
"Free peoples are not free because they vote; they vote because they
are free."

Similarly, a lead editorial in Egypt's Al-Gomhuria said, "It behooves
the U.S. to make use of this upbeat mood [following Saddam's capture]
to convince the mistrustful Iraqis that its questionable war and the
grim events that followed have all been to their benefit. . . .
Washington must quicken steps to make the Iraqis the masters of their
own destiny." Now is the time, the paper said, for Bush's team to "be
on its guard against bungling or wasting the chance to make real
progress in Iraq."

The Jordan Times also reminded Washington that "[w]hen the excitement
ends, Iraqis will once gain start wondering when their lives will
return to normal and when the foreign occupation forces will leave
their land. Unless they have a promise to cling to, the Iraqi quagmire
will continue to drag Iraq and the rest of the region into further
despair, instability and misery." No one can really "afford to be
intoxicated by the victory that the arrest of Saddam represents," the
Jordanian paper cautioned. "The Americans erred greatly in entering
Iraq without having a clear plan of action. They now have a chance to
right some of their wrongs and move steadily toward helping build a
safe and modern Iraq."

In Damascus, The Syria Times, still fuming over "the signing by Bush
of the so-called Accountability Act, which provides for the imposition
of economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria," seemed to play down
Saddam's capture. Instead, it focused attention on Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad's state visit to Greece.


In the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (his
titles are "President" and "His Highness") offered a perfunctory
statement in carefully worded diplomatese: "I hope that the recent
developments in Iraq will contribute to the restoration of stability
and peace in that country, and will prove to be a stepping-stone that
will permit the Iraqi people to unify their ranks and to strengthen
their national reconciliation . . . [as they work] hand-in-hand for a
bright future."

A news-analysis piece in Ha'aretz, Israel's more progressive daily, in
addition to recalling Saddam's "depraved cruelty," chided the former
dictator for the "sheer arrogance" of the behavior that led to his
capture. "He never prepared an escape route for himself, because he
didn't believe the Americans would dare invade. Should they invade, he
was convinced they would be vanquished. Nothing is worse than a stupid
megalomaniac."

On a lighter note, Ha'aretz writer Rogel Alper offered an unexpected
news "analysis" based on the photos sent around the world of the
captured ex-dictator, whose face and mouth were being checked by a
latex-gloved U.S. military doctor. "[W]e now know the real reason for
the conflict between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Now, it's all
clear," Alper wrote. "Bush believed, even before the 9/11 attacks . .
.., that Saddam Hussein had to undergo thorough and meticulous dental
treatment. The war on tooth decay is at the very top of Bush's agenda
.. . . . With great vigor, and by basing his argument on his
interpretation of certain chapters of the New Testament, he arrived at
the conclusion that the lack of any tradition of modern dentistry in
the Muslim world is the root of all evil, the rotten infrastructure
from which the 'axis of evil' has been spawned." Saddam, Alper
predicted, "will be put to death with a fatal shot of Novocain."

* * * *

Mid-East reactions to Bush's war
 

Yes, the U.S. has done this country the biggest favor of their lives. It is
too bad that the burden here lies on the U.S. taxpayers. There is no excuse
why more countries didn't contribute.
The U.S. has every right to decide who will now profit from the rebuilding
of Iraq.
I believe the U.S. looks much better now, the have been able to remove a lot
of doubt and now that the Bush objection is coming closer, the global
perception is turning around. The minority globally who disagreed with Bush
all along, are now beginning to turn around. Some plants just take a lot
longer to sprout.





"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Here is what the middle eastern nations are saying about us. Nice,
huh?

In the Middle Eastern press, as news of Saddam's capture sinks in,
analysts have been sifting through the implications of the milestone
event with a combined sense of relief and caution. In some of the more
thoughtful commentaries published so far, rhetoric has given way to
calls for reasonable, swift actions that will capitalize on what the
region's media -- and the world -- agree is a historic moment.

"The initial reactions to Saddam's capture are already giving way to
concern over his chances of receiving a fair trial," Lebanon's Daily
Star editorialized. "It is . . . crucial that the deposed strongman be
judged openly and equitably, that no ammunition be delivered to those
who will undoubtedly emerge to decry the proceedings as a show trial."

In addition, the Lebanese daily advised, if the United States is
serious, as President Bush has trumpeted, about establishing democracy
in Iraq, then "Iraqis [will] have a major part to play in the creation
of a decent government for their country, and their enthusiasm can
only be dampened if the changes they are asked to make seem like
window dressing for the continued rule of a heavy-handed foreign
invader." The paper stopped short of crying, "Yankees, go home!" But
in acknowledging that the "structure and scheduling" of forthcoming,
necessary, "free and fair elections . . . are [still] being fiercely
debated in Iraq," it reminded the country's American administrators,
"Free peoples are not free because they vote; they vote because they
are free."

Similarly, a lead editorial in Egypt's Al-Gomhuria said, "It behooves
the U.S. to make use of this upbeat mood [following Saddam's capture]
to convince the mistrustful Iraqis that its questionable war and the
grim events that followed have all been to their benefit. . . .
Washington must quicken steps to make the Iraqis the masters of their
own destiny." Now is the time, the paper said, for Bush's team to "be
on its guard against bungling or wasting the chance to make real
progress in Iraq."

The Jordan Times also reminded Washington that "[w]hen the excitement
ends, Iraqis will once gain start wondering when their lives will
return to normal and when the foreign occupation forces will leave
their land. Unless they have a promise to cling to, the Iraqi quagmire
will continue to drag Iraq and the rest of the region into further
despair, instability and misery." No one can really "afford to be
intoxicated by the victory that the arrest of Saddam represents," the
Jordanian paper cautioned. "The Americans erred greatly in entering
Iraq without having a clear plan of action. They now have a chance to
right some of their wrongs and move steadily toward helping build a
safe and modern Iraq."

In Damascus, The Syria Times, still fuming over "the signing by Bush
of the so-called Accountability Act, which provides for the imposition
of economic and diplomatic sanctions on Syria," seemed to play down
Saddam's capture. Instead, it focused attention on Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad's state visit to Greece.


In the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan (his
titles are "President" and "His Highness") offered a perfunctory
statement in carefully worded diplomatese: "I hope that the recent
developments in Iraq will contribute to the restoration of stability
and peace in that country, and will prove to be a stepping-stone that
will permit the Iraqi people to unify their ranks and to strengthen
their national reconciliation . . . [as they work] hand-in-hand for a
bright future."

A news-analysis piece in Ha'aretz, Israel's more progressive daily, in
addition to recalling Saddam's "depraved cruelty," chided the former
dictator for the "sheer arrogance" of the behavior that led to his
capture. "He never prepared an escape route for himself, because he
didn't believe the Americans would dare invade. Should they invade, he
was convinced they would be vanquished. Nothing is worse than a stupid
megalomaniac."

On a lighter note, Ha'aretz writer Rogel Alper offered an unexpected
news "analysis" based on the photos sent around the world of the
captured ex-dictator, whose face and mouth were being checked by a
latex-gloved U.S. military doctor. "[W]e now know the real reason for
the conflict between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Now, it's all
clear," Alper wrote. "Bush believed, even before the 9/11 attacks . .
., that Saddam Hussein had to undergo thorough and meticulous dental
treatment. The war on tooth decay is at the very top of Bush's agenda
. . . . With great vigor, and by basing his argument on his
interpretation of certain chapters of the New Testament, he arrived at
the conclusion that the lack of any tradition of modern dentistry in
the Muslim world is the root of all evil, the rotten infrastructure
from which the 'axis of evil' has been spawned." Saddam, Alper
predicted, "will be put to death with a fatal shot of Novocain."

* * * *

Mid-East reactions to Bush's war
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

On a lighter note, Ha'aretz writer Rogel Alper offered an unexpected
news "analysis" based on the photos sent around the world of the
captured ex-dictator, whose face and mouth were being checked by a
latex-gloved U.S. military doctor. "[W]e now know the real reason for
the conflict between Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush. Now, it's all
clear," Alper wrote. "Bush believed, even before the 9/11 attacks . .
., that Saddam Hussein had to undergo thorough and meticulous dental
treatment. The war on tooth decay is at the very top of Bush's agenda
. . . . With great vigor, and by basing his argument on his
interpretation of certain chapters of the New Testament, he arrived at
the conclusion that the lack of any tradition of modern dentistry in
the Muslim world is the root of all evil, the rotten infrastructure
from which the 'axis of evil' has been spawned." Saddam, Alper
predicted, "will be put to death with a fatal shot of Novocain."

I *knew* there were several reasons why *I* supported the war. Rotten teeth
*are* the root of all evil!

BTW--nobody uses Novocaine any more.