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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (138452)	6/30/2004 3:20:16 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Rory O'connor at Mediachannel.org sums up the Iraqi dictator's relations with the United States since 1959 in his recent article, "Who's Keeping Saddam's Secret Safe." Here is an excerpt: "It began as far back as 1959, when the CIA put young Saddam on its payroll as part of a plot to assassinate then-Iraqi Prime Minister General Abd al-Karim Qasim. Although the coup failed, Saddam survived and later succeeded in seizing control of Iraq. As its ruler, he did business with a succession of United States presidents, from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush." In his recent article, "Who will testify at Saddam's trial?" Joe Conason of the New York Observer muses on whether or not Saddam will remind the world who aided and abetted his regime. Conason writes: "Following in the style of Slobodan Milosevic, he may well wish to spend his final days on the public stage bringing shame to those who brought him down. Unfortunately, it isn't hard to imagine how he might accomplish that if he can call witnesses and subpoena documents. Charged with the use of poison gas against Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam could summon a long list of Reagan and Bush administration officials who ignored or excused those atrocities when they were occurring. An obvious prospective witness is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who acted as a special envoy to Baghdad during the early 1980's. On a courtroom easel, Saddam might display the famous December 1983 photograph of him shaking hands with Mr. Rumsfeld, who acknowledges that the United States knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. If his forces were using Tabun, mustard gas and other forbidden poisons, he might ask, why did Washington restore diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November 1984?" It'll be interesting to see what unintended consequences will emerge as a result of all of the strange bedfellows we're making now in the "War on Terror." Spurned by traditional allies, the Bush Administration turned to countries like Pakistan to support his war effort. I'm sure Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has been able to hold his tenuous position in that country with the help of money Bush sent to that country in return for their support in Iraq. Musharraf came to power in 1999 in a coup and with American backing is cracking down on internal Islamist groups labeled as extremists. Now I'm not making a value judgement on anything going on in Pakistan. Just noting that our decision to support Musharraf is changing the power dynamic in that country. Whether or not that is good for the country, the region, or America's interests is yet to be seen. (Here is a BBC story to help you understand the situation in Pakistan.) With the Hussein trial set to begin in the summer of 2004, I hope he does highlight America's involvement in his reign of terror. It is high time for the average voter to demand more truth and less duplicty out of elected leaders. At the same time, Americans need to realize that our actions abroad have repercussions. It is very easy for people to support (or not voice their oppossition to) a preemptive strike against a country if they are not forced to consider the ramifications. Saddam's trial presents an opportunity for this to happen but only if, as Conason points out, Saddam decides to bring down with him everyone who supported him. ............. Saddam played pretty well with the West, over many many years, and many administrations. Perhaps you are having problems with the word "played"- I'm not using it in the "play nice" sense- I'm using it in the "you've been played" sense. How you can defy the longevity of his dealings with us, I do not know, but apparently you can. Yes, the US took advantage of Saddam, and vice versa- and how you could overlook that, I do not know- and if you are not overlooking that, I don't know how you can say that he was not astute. Was he astute in every department? I said he was not.