So was Saddam the dictator, the aggressor against Kuwait, the murderer of Kurds and Shia, preferable to a fundamentalist Iraq under Iran? And if the answer to that question was yes, why get rid of Saddam (the secular monster) and risk modern Iraq falling into the hands of the same Iranian fundamentlists (as appears to be happening)?
If you can support a dictator in Pakistan whilst taking down one in Iraq, what does that say about the reasons behind Gulf War II? Was it more about oil and family revenge than strategic operations in a war against terror? I submit that Bush Jnr wanted to take out Saddam a long time before he came into power.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Yost" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 10:41 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Strident Voice of Defeat
>>Saddam was a creation not of the left, but of the right. He was armed and financed to fight the Iranian Fundamentalists...That was a good thing at the time, wasn't it? Otherwise Iran might have conquered Iraq back then and have had the combined oil revenue and population of Iran/Iraq since the 1980s. What would it be like if Iran had conquered Iraq in the '80s? (A sci-fi exercise comparable to _The Man in the High Castle_.)------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
