Quote:
Originally posted by CamChicks
How do we know the people Saddam was busy killing aren't the same kind of people we're busy killing now? He fought a brutal fight against fundamentalists who wanted Iraq to be a theocracy all throughout his presidency. As we continue to do, and as the new Iraqi govt will continue to do. I can't guess which regime will have the lowest incidence of innocent collateral damage. So far, we've been killing random civilians at a much fater rate.
Objectively, in the big historical perspective, it's hard to deny that it would have been better for wider secular western interests if Saddam remained in our service.
Saddam was our only real arab friend in the region (pre-gulfwar). The Saudis pretend to be our friend, but ideologically they are not. Saddam was a true secularist. He loved the USA and western popular culture. He wanted Iraq to be secular. He forced Iraqis to read and get educated.
But after the cold war, Bush Sr dismissed the value of Saddam. He betrayed him for finanical and political gain. (Saddam informed us of his intention to settle disputes with Kuwait with militiary force, and our goverment told him we had no opinion about it... then Bush Sr used him as a scapegoat..) Now Saddam had enemys on all sides, and it was the beginning of the end for him.
|
Your brain turns me on....
Others should read twice that post...
Look at Saudi Arabia now: it is boiling and soon will pour over. In other words, the umpopular tyrannic ( yes, they also are ) royal family will be removed by a revolution just like the Shah was in Iran, and this despite the will of the US.
To KRL, I am Canadian .