oldreliable67 said:
TwoPops,
I'm not interested in debating this, but am quite interested in learning what makes you believe this to be true. Our opinions here in the US are of course, shaped by the MSM which has portrayed Saddam in only one light: bad -- despotic thug, etc. Is there something(s) that you can tell us that might make us think otherwise?
I hardly think that I’ll change the mind of many who already have the notion that Saddam was simply a despot. For the record, I’ll stipulate that Saddam was indeed a despicable despot. When it comes to despots though, the man actually did quite a bit for the Iraqi people. The record shows that no middle eastern leader undertook such progressive infrastructure modernization programs, provided education and health for the general populace, was entirely secular, anti-Communist, and a champion of women’s rights to participate in Iraqi society. His right hand man, Traiq Aziz was a Christian. This is unprecedented in the Middle East. Baghdad was known as the Paris of the Middle East for good reason.
Despite his despotism, the US did not hesitate to enlist him as ally in the region to check the spread of radical Islam from the Iranian Revolution as well as to undermine the Soviet influence in the region. In April, 1983 Rumsfeld was sent to Baghdad as an envoy by the Reagan Administration to begin establishing diplomatic ties with the country. Shortly after that visit, the skids were greased for economic and military assistance by removing Iraq from the State Departments list of terrorist countries. The Ayatolah Khomeini (of the Iranian Islamic Revolution fame) has an interesting history with Saddam as well. Remember that it was he, who returned from exile from Paris, via Iraq in 1979. I was in country in Iran in 1964 when the Shah exiled the Ayatollah who subsequently took up residence in Najaf, a city in the southern Shia area of Iraq. The Shah, another one of our good friends and a damned good despot in his own right made a fatal mistake, one which would come back to haunt him, when he allowed the exile in lieu of execution. In 1978, Saddam got annoyed at the growing influence of the Ayatollah on the Shia population, and after executing a few of the Ayatollah’s relatives, once again banished the Ayatollah to Paris. Few people understand that tidbit in terms of how the Ayatollah came to power with and intermediate residence in Iraq. The subsequent wars in the 80’s between Iran and Iraq were all about Saddam’s fears of having this religious zealot destabilize his country.
It should be of interest that Saddam is now being tried for a reprisal massacre perpetrated in 1982, and had already been cited in the early 80’s by the UN as having used gas against the Iranians in the first phase of the Iran-Iraq War. In 1988, when he gassed the Kurds, the US stood silent as the UN passed sanctions. The US Congress refused to pass sanctions, deferring to large financial interests of the US agribusiness. In the mid 1990’s, Dick Cheney, then CEO of Halliburton, appeared on Sixty Minutes advocating reestablishing ties with Saddam…in favor of bringing him in “under the tent” if I remember the words used by Cheney. I cannot understand why CBS has not rerun that interview. Mr. Cheney would have a lot of ‘splainin to do! Dan Rather didn’t need to stoop to slipshod journalism to attack the Bush Administration motives. Between the Halliburton conflict of interest and the PNAC doctrines, both on record, there is plenty of evidence that the neocons had an established financial interest morphed into geopolitical interest in Iraq.
So given Saddams track record on balance, and our support for his regime at a time when he arguably committed the most heinous of his crimes against humanity, exactly how is it that the US has any moral authority to depose this man as a despot? Other than an obvious agenda for geopolitical control of the area and its natural resources, it makes very little sense. If I were the CEO of a corporation and had to explain why I diverted resources from Afghanistan to pursue a pipe dream in Iraq, I would very well expect to be fired by the board. And there is absolutely no intelligent argument as to how attacking Iraq could ever be construed as a means of instilling democracy in the Middle East. Anyone who understands the country and the dynamics of the region knows that the only way that Iraq can exist as the country established in the 1920’s by Sir Winston Churchill and Lawrence of Arabia, surely realizes that Saddam’s authoritarian rule was the glue that made the country’s advancement toward modernization possible.
I submit that I’d put his record up against any of the despots we’ve supported in that region or for that matter in the world and simply say that as bad as he was, there are many who are worse and pose a credible present danger to the US. In particular, when it comes to US interests, Iran is by far the number one threat to the US in the region. Prior to the first Gulf War, the Israelis had killed more Americans than Saddam. Any for my gungho military friends on the thread, Iran is responsible for the killing of 269 Marines in Beirut, an atrocity that as of today has yet to see retaliation by the US.
The dynamics of Iraq is a very complex subject; one which I think should be approached pragmatically instead of with the rhetoric, jingoism, xenophobia and false sense of religious moral superiority that tends to dominate the debate. I could expand considerably on some of the things I have had to glance over in this post. I’ll offer up this link as a primer on the record of Saddam Hussein and hope that this can serve as a basis for further discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam...dation_of_power_and_the_modernization_of_Iraq
Respectfully,
TwoPops