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: Ish who wrote (124309)	2/3/2004 5:41:51 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Even if he were Lucifer himself, we didn't know it yet, which amounts to the same thing. Anyway, gotta go, take care!

To: Ish who wrote (124309)	2/3/2004 6:02:24 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<in 1980 Saddam was one of the nicer guys in the ME> OK, that makes it clearer. Your definition of "nice guy" depends entirely on whether someone is willing to be useful to the U.S. government. "Nice guys" can do torture, mass murder, founding a totalitarian state (all of which Saddam had a long track record of doing, by the time of his smiling Rumsfeld photo-op). He only fell out of the category of "nice guy" (or "fairly nice guy") when he invaded Kuwait (without permission from Washington). Everything is forgiven, all sins are overlooked, until then. Saddam's war of aggression against Iran was "nice", but his war of aggression against Kuwait was "not nice", because Kuwait was part of the American Empire, and Iran wasn't. As Arundhati Roy says: Most nations have adequately hideous family secrets. So it isn't often necessary for the media to lie. It's all in the editing--what's emphasized and what's ignored. Say, for example, India was chosen as the target for a righteous war. The fact that about 80,000 people have been killed in Kashmir since 1989, most of them Muslim, most of them by Indian security forces (making the average death toll about 6,000 a year); the fact that in February and March of 2002 more than 2,000 Muslims were murdered on the streets of Gujarat, that women were gang-raped and children were burned alive and 150,000 driven from their homes while the police and administration watched and sometimes actively participated; the fact that no one has been punished for these crimes and the government that oversaw them was re-elected...all of this would make perfect headlines in international newspapers in the run-up to war. Message 19725231 It's all in the editing...

To: Ish who wrote (124309)	2/7/2004 1:27:38 AM
From: Bilow	Respond to of 281500

Hi Ish; Re: "What I was saying that in 1980 Saddam was one of the nicer guys in the ME. No saint to be sure but not the monster he became." The photo was from December 20, 1983. At that time, Saddam had already: (a) Started a bloody war with Iran in September 1980. (b) Been on the US list of countries supporting terrorism until February 1982. (c) Used chemical weapons against Iran in summer 1983. (d) Used chemical weapons against Kurds in November 1983. (e) Ran Iraq as a dictatorship since 1972 / 1979. (f) Responsible for suppressing dissent in Iraq since 1968. Are you really sure that Saddam was "one of the nicer guys in the ME"? My own opinion is that you don't know crap about Saddam, but instinctively want to believe that our country's leaders are saints. They're not saints (or devils), they're humans, and humans make mistakes. Hey, "my country right or wrong" means that sometimes, every once in a while, my country is wrong. What's superior about my country is that it allows dissent like this. That makes my country one of a relatively small number of countries, but despite its great freedoms, my country made a series of big mistakes in Iraq. -- Carl P.S. The following useful website has links to the original, now declassified US government documents verifying the above: gwu.edu A biography of Saddam: jafi.org.il