Actually some claim that Saddam, even though a dictator, is a good ruler and that's why we're targeting him.
Message 18548817
michaelparenti.org
But instead of acting as a compradore collaborator to Western investors in the style of Nicaragua's Somoza, Chile's Pinochet, Peru's Fujimora, and numerous others, Saddam and his cohorts nationalized the Iraqi oil industry in 1972, ejected the Western profiteers, and pursued policies of public development and economic nationalism. By 1990, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East (which may not be saying all that much), and it was evident that the US had failed to rollback the gains of the 1958 revolution.
....
Soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, US leaders decided that Third World development no longer needed to be tolerated. Just as Yugoslavia served as a "bad" example in Europe, so Iraq served as a bad example to other nations in the Middle East. The last thing the plutocrats in Washington want in that region is independent, self-defining developing nations that wish to control their own land, labor, and natural resources.
US economic and military power has been repeatedly used to suppress competing systems. Self-defining countries like Cuba, Iraq, and Yugoslavia are targeted.
BTW, everything quoted in the Parenti piece above is a lie.
Re. indicting Saddam for war crimes, if he is captured, he will be. As for trying him in absentia, I don't know if we can legally, at least by ourselves. And I don't know if you've noticed but we have a little problem getting people to support our policy of getting tough on Saddam. If we were to try something like this, the same "peace advocates" now criticizing America, would denounce it as an illegal ploy. And that includes a lot of the people who post here. |
