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: jlallen who wrote (154765)	12/24/2004 11:33:57 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

I am "seriously suggesting" that if Saddam was as unredeemably brutal as he was made out to be in '90s, Hill & Knoughtan and the WH wouldn't have had to make up stories about him to get Congressional or public support for Gulf War I. And, while I am definitely NOT seriously suggesting that he be cannonized as a "saint" or even someone we ought to have been supporting in the 80s in any way, no, I don't think Saddam "raped Kuwait and brutalized its people" any more than most countries at war "brutalize" their enemies. Saddam's treatment of the Iraqi Marsh Arabs was worse than his treatment of the Kuwaitis. I would also suggest that Iraq was set up from the beginning by the British back in the 20s in a way that ensured that there would be brutalities by any governing body or individual.