Harry,
There are some folks who feel that our support for Saddam was a bit more
than "Go to it, buster!"
viz:
http://citizensnotspectators.org/archives/000070.html
Bill
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 15:59:33 -0800 "Harry Pollard"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Keith,
>
> Much speculation, as always good. Just a point that I've
> mentioned before.
>
> You said:
>
> "One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent
> change of heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring
> democracy to the Middle East and that this was what his invasion
> of Iraq was all about. This, despite the US being close allies of
> dictatorships in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam
> Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging him to wage years of
> warfare on Iran."
>
> The war was with communism. At one point, 49 of the 51 African
> nations were dictatorships - military, or otherwise. Did we end
> our "friendships with Africa because of that? Dictatorship is the
> government of choice in much of the world - if choice is the
> right word.
>
> Our support for Saddam was of the nature of "Go to it, buster!"
> We didn't send him arms (the 2,400 tanks and 400 aircraft that
> invaded Iran were Russian - the French supplied some Mirages
> later.)
>
> Iraq owes us $4 billion but I don't know what for - could be food
> and suchlike. At least four times much is owed to France and
> Russia. Probably for refitting the armies and air force for the
> final invasion of Iran which ended the war, after a carnage that
> resembled the First World War.
>
> Sadam's weapons were Russian and French - not American.
>
> After Iran had made Carter and the US look foolish, we didn't
> like it much, so probably were very happy with Saddam's intention
> to invade.
>
> So, where were American weapons of war? Probably in Iran.
> Certainly their Air Force was composed of F14's, F15's, and some
> other American planes. (A couple of American shiploads did slip
> through the blockade with spare parts for the planes, but the
> slipping didn't last long when France sent Saddam 30 Mirages
> armed with Exojets.)
>
> That's all!
>
> Harry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith
> Hudson
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 7:14 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Futurework] Bush's preliminary step to withdrawal?
>
> One can't help feeling intensely suspicious of the apparent
> change of heart of Bush when he announces that he wants to bring
> democracy to the Middle East and that this was what his invasion
> of Iraq was all about. This, despite the US being close allies of
> dictatorships in Saudi Arabia for 50 years and even with Saddam
> Hussein himself for 15 when encouraging him to wage years of
> warfare on Iran. No longer, it would seem, did Bush invade Iraq
> because of international terrorism, nor because of Weapons of
> Mass destruction. (The Special Task Force of 2,000 American
> troops which have apparently been searching for WMDs for months
> have not turned up anything yet. WMDs were never there in the
> first place, as the UN Inspectors believed, and as further recent
> evidence suggests -- see the article below.)
>
> The US death toll reported in today's Independent article below
> (142) has already been augmented this morning by another four
> soldiers killed in a downed helicopter and possibly two more in
> other incidents on the roads.
> For electoral reasons a year from now, Bush may now already be
> deciding to leave well before next summer. One or two
> particularly dramatic terrorist attacks could cause the American
> electorate to swing ferociously against Bush at almost any time
> from now onwards.
>
> Of course, some believe, including the present writer, that Bush
> invaded Iraq in order to ensure that US and UK oil corporations
> would be able to develop the immense northern oilfields from
> which Saddam had mischievously excluded them. But, in the biggest
> mistake that Bush (or, probably, Cheney) made, these corporations
> refuse to be involved until there's a legitimate Iraqi government
> in place and not the American-imposed Coalition Provisional
> Authority.
>
> Two or three more speeches along the lines that Bush has just
> made would allow him to segue right out of Iraq -- throwing it a
> constitution and holding an election along the way which will
> ensure a Shia majority. If he makes sure that the Shias have
> sufficient well-armed forces at their disposal, this ought to
> ensure that the previous oppressors, the Sunnis, will be
> subjugated (or chased into Syria) and, if and when Saddam emerges
> from hiding, he will be quickly caught and executed.
>
> This scenario may seem unlikely -- even absurd at the moment --
> but I don't see any other way out of Bush's predicament and
> possible humiliating defeat next November. He's not gained what
> went to Iraq for -- WMDs or oil -- so he might as well leave now
> as craftily as he can. He's been able to con most of the American
> electorate so far, so he ought to be able to swing this new
> strategy across them as a piece of international statesmanship in
> the name of bringing democracy to one more country.
>
> Just one postscript for non-UK readers: there are likely to be
> large demonstrations against Bush when he arrives. The usual
> state procession down the Mall has already been cancelled and
> it's exceedingly unlikely that Bush will be able to show his face
> in public in the usual way.
>
> Keith Hudson
>
> <<<<
> BUSH CALLS IRAQ MISSION 'WATERSHED FOR GLOBAL DEMOCRACY'
>
> Rupert Cornwell
>
> Washington -- Less than two weeks before what may be a stormy
> state visit to London, President George Bush yesterday cast
> himself as a new Ronald Reagan, vowing to bring freedom and
> democracy to the Middle East and beyond
> -- just as Mr Reagan did with the Soviet Union, in his "evil
> empire"
> address to the British Parliament 21 years ago.
>
> Speaking on the day he signed into law the Bill authorising $87
> billion of extra funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr Bush set
> out his vision of a modernised and democratic Iraq serving as
> example throughout the region.
>
> Separately, administration officials confirmed that they had
> received a behind-the-scenes proposal, supposedly from Saddam
> Hussein, offering a deal last March to stave off the looming war.
> But the contact was rebuffed by the CIA.
>
> Though experts said the move may have been of little
> significance, critics presented the episode as further proof that
> Mr Bush would let nothing interfere with his determination to go
> to war.
>
> In his speech yesterday Mr Bush once again made no reference to
> mounting US casualties in Iraq, including two more fatal attacks
> yesterday, bringing to
> 142 the death toll since he declared the end of major combat
> operations.
> Nor did he refer to the strains on the military, and yesterday's
> Pentagon announcement that 132,000 troops and reservists will be
> sent to relieve units who have been in the region for a year.
> Instead he stressed that failure in Iraq would embolden
> terrorists around the world, but "the establishment of a free
> Iraq will be a watershed event in the global democratic
> revolution."
>
> That, clearly, is the message he will deliver during his address
> to an audience of dignitaries in London on 19 November, the
> centrepiece of his state visit. And his references to the
> dismissive reaction to Mr Reagan's speech in Westminster Hall
> left no doubt that he is expecting more of the same for himself.
> "It seems hard to be a sophisticated European and also an admirer
> of Ronald Reagan," Mr Bush yesterday quoted from a newspaper
> editorial of the time, recalling how some observers had
> pronounced the "evil empire" speech to be "simplistic and naive,
> and even dangerous". In fact the current unpopularity of Mr Bush
> and his administration -- widely perceived in Europe as
> high-handed, arrogant and ignorant -- eclipses that of Mr Reagan
> in 1982, at the height of the Cold War. But Mr Bush stressed he
> would not be deterred.
>
> Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the
> lack of freedom in the Middle East had done nothing to make the
> world safer, the President told the National Endowment for
> Democracy here. "It would be reckless to accept the status quo,"
> he declared, defending his doctrine of preemptive action as "a
> forward strategy of freedom". He attacked the "outposts of
> oppression" in Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Burma, but praised
> Morocco and other Arab states such as Yemen, Bahrain and Jordan,
> who are gingerly taking steps towards democracy. He called on
> Egypt and Saudi Arabia to move faster along the path of reform,
> and delivered familiar tirades against leaders in Iran and
> Palestine who were blocking their peoples' aspirations to
> freedom.
>
> The Independent -- 7 November 2003
> >>>>
>
>
> Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>,
> <www.handlo.com>, <www.property-portraits.co.uk>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
> _______________________________________________
> Futurework mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
