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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (37641)	8/13/2002 4:39:36 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Could you offer a link on that Amnesty report, KLP? My own quick views on this issue and I reserve the right to change them ever so slightly after reading the report, assuming it's fairly recent, is that, on human rights grounds, Saddam has run something worse than a repressive regime. If the Bush folk were talking about "regime change" because of Saddam's human rights record, I would certainly not raise questions about the evidence, assuming they drew on the publicly available stuff. However, no US administration has cared enough about that to do other than sort of bring it up at the end of paragraphs. A kind of "oh by the way, he also represses the Iraqis." The big issues for American foreign policy have been, at least since 9-11, his possible links to Al Qaeda, his use of wmd on his own populations as part of the argument that he will use them on others, and his threat to Israel. Someone should ask me then what difference it makes what the motive is, just get rid of him and his ugly compatriots. Generally, I agree with those sorts of arguments but in this case I cannot. Because the motive is what will influence how active a role the US plays in stage managing the outcomes. If we only wish Saddam off stage center for whatever reason, I doubt that will improve the human rights situation of the Iraqis. And, given our history in these sorts of situations; and, given, even more to the point, the immediate history that's being made in Afghanistan, the most likely thing we will do is leave. As soon as possible. And hope there's no blowback. For everyone left behind, they can fend for themselves. Unless our interests came into play. Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal has a fascinating article on divisions among the Iraqi opposition groups and how those divisions might effect their ability to play a role. I cannot post it because they charge for use of their site, unlike the NYTimes. But if anyone pays the monthly fee, $2.95 monthly for subscribers to the hard copy, it's well worth taking a moment to read it.