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: Maurice Winn who wrote (155705)	1/9/2005 11:21:27 AM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Saddam, the head of Iraqi government, is being prosecuted and held for actions of his administration. As a parallel, should Bush be prosecuted for Abu Ghraib? >American soldiers are prosecuted for tormenting prisoners of war. Saddam's gangs used the finest in English medieval torture and were NOT prosecuted. Even a mercy killing was prosecuted by the USA [the young Iraqi who had been working on a rubbish truck attacked by USA troops by mistake]>.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155705)	1/9/2005 11:33:04 AM
From: arun gera	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

> I don't see why his gang should enjoy the oil profits any more than anyone else and he was a LOT less ethical than the USA Empire> You claim to stand for property rights. Let us suppose the house of a guy down the street goes up in property value, and you have heard that he beats his beautiful wife. Is it OK for you to take your toughs and sieze his house, beat up his children who resist (better still offer candy to one and beat up the other who resists), and marry his beautiful wife? Or the other alternative, let the local government take over his house, put the kids in foster homes, and put the wife on welfare. -Arun

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (155705)	1/9/2005 12:17:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Nadine, why would it matter if Saddam didn't have sanctions against him and the no-fly zones were canceled and he was back as King Kong of Iraq, just like the bosses of Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, half of Africa, Libya, Vietnam, Cuba and so on? Saddam had a history of 1) Aggression towards other countries, attacking Iran and conquering Kuwait 2) Very bad calculations of risk (the Iran thing, for example) 3) The capacity and desire to conquer and control most of the oil of the Persian Gulf. 4) Steady assumption of Islamic rhetoric and working partnerships with terrorist groups. Call it Hizbollah envy. The aggression and risk-taking combined with one man rule made Saddam particularly chancy to leave alone, as opposed to say, the House of Saud. Those guys aren't much nicer than Saddam but they're a lot more cautious. Having it all stuck in the middle of the Persian Gulf - that was the unique combo about Saddam. Saddam didn't have a choice in the sanctions. He was getting them good and hard whether he liked it or not, no matter what he did. He knew that. That is simply wrong. Saddam was working hard to get them lifted, paying millions in bribes to France and Russia and China - and it was working, slowly but surely.