Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Thomas M. who wrote (9116)	11/21/2001 2:11:36 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

cbc.ca By the 1970s, Iraq had been under military rule for twenty years. By then, whoever the official leader, the man behind the throne was without doubt Saddam Hussein. In 1979 he put an end to the charade and took sole power himself, purging his few remaining rivals. i.e. Saddam put himself in power whereas you asserted the US put him in power. A major American motivation for aid to Iraq during this period was the Iran-Iraq War stared by Saddam in 1980. For a period in the 1980's the US aided Iraq sufficiently to prevent Iran from winning the war - considering at the time that Iran was the greater danger. This does not equate to your assertion the US "propped him up for decades." Re. the failed post-Gulf War rebellion against Saddam: wsws.org It was quickly crushed after the US did everything they possibly could—short of actively intervening—to ensure its failure. An adviser to Bush was quoted, explaining that the "US could not allow the overthrow of Saddam Hussein without knowing that his replacement would support American policy". I'm sorry but simply seeing this assertion made in an anti-American "World Socialist Web Site" is not real convincing. What is true is that we would have had to actively intervene (and didn't) to prevent the rebellion from failing. But failing to intervene to make a rebellion succeed does not equate to helping Saddam crush a rebellion. Maybe we should have intervened - but I don't believe for a minute that you or any other Chomskyite would have approved. If I'm wrong, then I'm sure you will be in favor of our going after Saddam after Osama, right? Like I said simply quoting some Chomskyite writer making the same false assertion doesn't constitute proof of anything. Except that the party line is being followed, I guess. The use of unattributed and dubious "quotes" as proofs is also unconvincing: "As one CIA official put it, Saddam may be a 'son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch'." Somebody said this about somebody - maybe Roosevelt said it about Bautista or maybe Johnson said it about some Vietnamese leader, I don't know. But it's real useful for conspiratists - just put in a name, attribute it to some unnamed official, and voila - proof that the US is behind whatever you want to blame on it.

To: Thomas M. who wrote (9116)	11/21/2001 2:14:11 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Saddam Hussein is a murderous gangster, just as he was before August 2, when he was an amiable friend and favored trading partner. His invasion of Kuwait is another crime, comparable to others, not as terrible as some; for example, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, which reached near genocidal levels thanks to diplomatic and material support from the U.S. and Britain, the two righteous avengers of the Gulf. Noam Chomsky, `The Use (and Abuse) of the United Nations', p.309 Chomsky is so "anti-Saddam" that he cannot bear to reach the end of the sentence without reminding us that US is complicit in even worse crimes. Just as he did after the 9/11 attacks. The only thing Chomsky is more "anti" than anyone on this thread is the United States of America.