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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (338)	4/17/2003 6:23:56 PM
From: WhatsUpWithThat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

No reasonable person would applaud Saddam's rise to power, or his methods. But that just begs the oft-asked question, is America then planning on removing every tyrannical government around the world? Clearly that isn't the goal. Removal of Saddam to free Iraq from tyranny was at best a tertiary goal, though as tsig has said, in the last month it became the public focus rather than fear/discovery of WMD. It's definitely a 'saleable' goal, in the sense that any government tries to find the best way to gain support for its actions. Regards WUWT

To: Sully- who wrote (338)	4/17/2003 7:16:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

"Legitimate" governments in countries often come to power by assassination and revolt. Legitimate, under international law, usually just means the autocthonal government, as opposed to a seizure of power from an outside country. "Legitimate" has nothing to do with a "good" government, or a government that treats its citizens well. Legitimate simply means legal, or official, when it is used in connection with countries. (And legal just means de facto, imo, when applied to countries- so if you are in power, you are probably the legitimate government) Coups and revolts can hardly be considered illegitimate in the ME or anywhere else- and since the US was formed by a revolution, it's kind of hard to see how anyone living in the US could argue they make a government per se illegitimate. I think the war crimes angle and/or crimes against humanity was the strongest case to be made against Saddam, but we did not take the time to make such a case. Too bad, imo. Would have been a nice precedent- much better than the one we have now set in place.

To: Sully- who wrote (338)	4/17/2003 9:43:34 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Curiously, your article omits a key player in the Baath Party's rise to power: <<< "We came to power on a CIA train," admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. >>> casi.org.uk <<< In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. >>> casi.org.uk How west helped Saddam gain power and decimate the Iraqi elite By Mohamoud A Shaikh muslimedia.com Tom