BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:19 PM

The thing about Saddam in an open trial is that he knows an awful lot about stuff that would be very embarrassing to important people in the US administration (and in other countries).

So I'd predict either some kind of Soviet-style show trial, or a deal in which he keeps schtum about some stuff, in return for not being executed. Or perhaps he gets suicided while awaiting trial.

It was very well done on the part of the soldiers on the ground -- the clues on the ground would have been easy to overlook.

Well, I'm glad they didn't go in guns blazing and give him what coudl have been presented as a hero's death. That showed a kind of professionalism which is not always evident in situations like that. But I would have thought that it wasn't a question of looking for clues - their informants seem to have been pretty specific in fingering Saddam.

Interesting to speculate whether this was just a question of reward money, or whether there's more to it than that. Perhaps some resistance leader who wanted Saddam out of the way, either to make it easier to get a more effective war going, or conceivably in thenhope of being able to cut some kind of deal, and maybe emerge in time as the Strong Man who holds Iraq together with the tacit or explicit backing of the USA. Like Saddam when the CIA backed the coup that brought him to power.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:20 PM

Doesn't the Army work for their Commander-in-Chief?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:34 PM

. . . who in turn works for the American people.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:45 PM

Quoting Bush: "America is more secure as the result of his capture," he added later.

In what way is that true?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 01:54 PM

Ebbie:

It directly relieves a source of trepidation among the Iraqis and makes it more likely they will be able to evolve into a self-governing nation, or so I believe; and in consequence it reduces the hot spots from which future attacks could arrive unexpectedly. That's the theory, anyway.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:00 PM

Saddam Hussein had a tight control over the Iraqi people. He kept that control by the exercise of terror through the auspice of his 'security' forces. Essentially, the application of terror. With him captured, the people can begin to envision a future without him: a future without knocks on the door at 3:00 am. Now, whether they can envision a future without an army of occupation is another matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:05 PM

Though equally possible the other way round. Here's an interesting article from an anti-Saddam Iraqi who opposes the occupation: Resistance to occupation will grow --

"...Saddam's surrender is likely to embolden the political forces in Iraq which, until now, feared that a call for the immediate end to the occupation might help Saddam return to power... Now that Saddam is no longer a bogeyman to scare the people with, trade union and other mass opposition is likely to increase, complementing and coalescing with the armed opposition."

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Gareth
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:11 PM

An interesting view point Kevin, but hardley objective.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Amos
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:31 PM

There is no such thing as objective speculation about the consequences of an event, in any case.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 02:32 PM

"The point was that it was someone who knew Saddam well who was questioning Saddam's stated intentions. This man had exhorted others to fight to the last - but did not not do what he said he would do.

Does this make him a coward?"

No, not necessarily...it just makes him an absolutely typical wartime politician and resistance leader. They always say: "fight to the last". And really, what else would they say? To do otherwise would be ridiculous, under the circumstances. What did Winston Churchill say: "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets"...etc, etc, etc. What did Hitler and Stalin say? Same sort of thing exactly. It's standard wartime rhetoric for those in a desperate circumstance, who wish to shore up morale among the fighting troops.

Given the fact that Saddam was lying prone in a coffin-like, dark little crawl space, I hardly think it was necessary for the American troops to open fire on him when they found him...or very feasible for him to do anything but surrender or shoot himself. His natural desire for survival clearly was stronger than his desire for instant martyrdom...and that would be typical of most people, whether or not they were "cowards" in someone else's opinion.

His capture is good news for almost everyone except the remnants of the Baath Party and the various ordinary Arabs and Palestinians who looked to him as a sort of folk hero for resisting the USA (and, by implication, Israel).

Oh, and it's rather bad news for the Democrats, of course! I bet they're glad it didn't happen 2 weeks before the forthcoming 2004 election. The Republicans will probably schedule his show trail (or its conclusion) for around about then, if they can arrange it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:00 PM

I have never understood why a killer resists his own annihilation. Surely if you are willing to kill others, you accept the concept of being killed?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 03:26 PM

" . . . he knows an awful lot about stuff that would be very embarrassing to important people in the US administration (and in other countries). "

If you know that, he should have the right to remain silent and you should testify about it.

Besides, why should he testify that "I gassed civilians in my own country because powerful and unethical people in the American government gave me the capacity to do so"? To what issue would that be material?

-guest

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:24 PM

Smear the dear!, our guest will cheer
And reign he will, with clouds of fear
He can not take an open mind
And his mistake, an average bind

Turning questions into doubt
Climb the best ones just to shout
But louder dost the truth not make
And meaner rust a no good flake

This stupid war, amidst the shouting
An oil d'up whore, distaction touting
For while we fret in disarray
Our freedom's lost another say

With Christians shouting "Eye for eye!"
A business outing abhores our 'why'?
As 'no bid' contracts bleed the wounds
For inside dealers reap the boon'ds

Alack alas, and meanwhile states
Are locked out fast, the federal gates
Domestic products, you and I
Work to buy, consume and die...

So pointless bickers, serve us not
When honor dickers, souls do rot
Turn our visions more to caring
And fall not for a coward's daring

Dipomacy would serve us rights
And bring back day from hellish knights
When war is groundless, billions cringe
Who might have found US freedoms fringe

Sad it is, our lost intentions
Without show biz, we've no inventions
Like peace for all, and equal standing
Were dreams too tall for corporate banding
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 04:48 PM

Thomas the Rhymer: I have a question I've wanted to ask for a while now: Have you ever read the book "Mila 18" by Leon Uris? If you have, you will know why I'm asking. Brucie (not Bruce).

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Louie the Lurcher
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

I have not read it, and I am curious now. If I do read it, will I be able to churn out poetry as good as Thomas's on a regular basis?

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 05:28 PM

Hi 'Not Bruce'... Nope, and uhhh... since I'm not going to be reading another book by Leon for some long time to come, would you mind letting me in on the 'big secret'? Thanks a bunch! ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Dec 03 - 10:49 PM

There was a character named Nathan in the book. He often put historical events into rhyme.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:20 AM

What did Winston Churchill say: "We will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them in the streets"...etc, etc, etc. What did Hitler and Stalin say? Same sort of thing exactly. It's standard wartime rhetoric for those in a desperate circumstance, who wish to shore up morale among the fighting troops.

Saddam was a leader who became a leader, not because of his policies or his politics but because he was an assasin. He kept power by being more ruthless than his rivals and building up an image of invincibility in which being seen in public carrying guns and being ready to use them was just part of......Comparisons with the rhetoric of other leaders should be viewed in this light as must the practical actions of others.

Just yesterday in Iraq there were those who sadly were prepared to sacrifice their own lives in suicide attacks against the West - whilst Saddam with his $175.000 travel expenses - stolen from his own people is talking to the West - just to save his own skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 02:56 AM

MGOH,

"Well, I'm glad they didn't go in guns blazing and give him what coudl have been presented as a hero's death. That showed a kind of professionalism which is not always evident in situations like that. But I would have thought that it wasn't a question of looking for clues - their informants seem to have been pretty specific in fingering Saddam."

All reports to date regarding the pinpointing of likely locations and in this particular sweep, there were two sites, are that it involved some painstaking work on the part of US Army intelligence analysts picking out fragments of information from around 25 people. I do not believe that his hiding place was deliberately given away by any one person or persons.

On what takes over regarding the government of Iraq, why do you automatically assume it will be one person? Either another Saddam or Tito like figure.

With explicit backing of the US? "Like Saddam when the CIA backed the coup that brought him to power."

I think you will find Kevin that the coup that the CIA backed was the one that brought the Ba'athists to power in Iraq - not Saddam Hussein. That coup he organised himself within the Ba'athist Party some years later - he needed no help from outside to accomplish that.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 06:10 AM

"An interesting view point Kevin, but hardly objective."

Well, I'm with Amos in thinking that "objective" isn't a relevant word in this context - I gave the link to the article because I thin it is interesting. It also feels plausible, but we'll have to wait and see.

................

And Teribus, I know the reports have played up the idea that finding Saddam was all down to clever detective work by the troops on the ground. I'm sceptical about that actually being the case, that's all, and that isn't in any way to disparage the people who were doing it. The most remarkable thing is that they didn't chuck a grenade down the hole, and that to me is a strong hint that they knew he was down there.

I'm not making assumptions about a Strong Man taking over, just that that is very much a possibility in the light of what has happened in the past, and there are undoubtedly people who would like it to happen (including those who might see themselves as that Strong Man).

As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about -but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam.

The point is, we're just speculating on the outside. Whatever the truth is, it is always a fair estimate that there are some important things being concealed from us by our rulers. That's just how it is, and always has been.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:16 AM

Kevin,

"As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about -but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam."

Let's split that into two parts as you yourself have done:

"As for the question whether there was any CIA involvement in the second coup, that's not the kind of thing we can possibly know about"

If that was the case Kevin and you must have known about it at the time of writing. Why did you state as an example - "Like Saddam when the CIA backed the coup that brought him to power"

The coup (bloodless) that Kevin was referring to was in 1968, Saddam seized control of the Ba'ath Party in 1979. They say a week is a long time in politics - in which case eleven years must be considered a bloody eternity.

Now the second part, the wriggle:

"but there definitely was in the first coup, which was an essential stage in the rise of Saddam."

And every other bugger in the Iraqi Ba'ath Party - Saddam no more, or less, than anybody else.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:29 AM

As I have pointed out on another thread, the Bush folks are quite happy to have the live version of Saddam so they can maipulate trial dates, testamony, etc, to benefit their '04 campaign stategy. That's why they shaved him. A dirty, unshaven and pathetic looking Saddam has no "Boogieman" value to speak of...

As fir the "professionalism" it would seem to be situational. Look how they handled Saddam's sons....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:34 AM

ttr:

Opps... Sorry my friend... Great piece of writing...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:22 AM

I have zero problem with a twitching Saddam or Osama, especially since I keep a copy of the Sept 15th copy of Time/Life special, which had the photos of the innocent Americans jumping from the World Trade Towers, including a man and woman holding hands (lovers, married, or just friends giving each-other courage for the last few moments of life).

--Claymore

And just what does the tragedy of 9/11 have to do with Saddam?

(Here's a little hint for you - the answer is nothing)

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:40 AM

Meanswhile - News just in.


By Dan THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer

DALLAS, Texas - In a surprise move, the National Aeronautic and Space
Administration (NASA) announced a sudden push from the White House to be
the first nation to land a team on Mars.

Originally not scheduled until the year 2020, NASA spokeswoman Jari James
said a senior official from the White House contacted NASA this morning,
and discussed the feasibility of funding $13.4 billion in a drive to be
able to place a team of people on the surface of the planet Mars by the
end of this decade. NASA officials were stunned when the White House did
not blink at the proposed figure, indeed, said quite simply "Money is not
a problem."

It has been a dream for many Americans to put men into space, but with
the current economic climate it was thought that all future space
explorations were put on a back burner. But with a single phone call,
hope has blossomed for millions of people around the world, to see
mankind step upon another planet in the solar system.

The White House had a press conference after the announcement was made,
and reporters asked why the sudden interest in space? "Was it because of
a new space race starting with the China?" a reporter from Newsweek
asked. "No," said the spokesperson from the White House, "it's because
of the situation in Iraq. Now that we have Saddam Hussein in custody, we
need a place to try him fairly."

More news to follow...



NB: This is a joke. It was written by Dan Thompson. Email him at:
[e-mail] and please credit him with the piece if
you forward it.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:02 AM

Without the first coup there would have been no second coup and no Saddam. And there doesn't seem to have been any evidence that the USA - or for that matter the USSR - were in any way concerned about Saddam taking power and purging any genuinely Socialist elements in the Ba'ath Party. He certainly had a great deal of help later - more epecially in support of his aggression against his neighbours in Iran.

The point is that he was a clear example of the horrible things that are invitred by a policy of "my enemy's enemy is my friend". Osam Bin Laden and co are another example. Hitler's rise owed a lot to that kind of thinking for that matter. And it would be only too easy for it to happen again, and it is only too likely that there are people working to achieve that kind of outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:04 AM

Incidentally I don't think anyone has congratulated Mr Red on rather a good bit of word play title of the thread he started. More especially " Iraqnophobia".

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:07 AM

But Bobert, from your earlier statements weren't they going to save announcing his capture until just before the up-coming elections?

The "they" I am referring to of course are those cunning, manipulative, opportunist, evil Republicans - Ha! Ha! bloody Ha!

Now that recent events have come to light, ol Bobert's had to cross that one of his list of failed predictions - mind you Bobert it would be absolutely great if they turned up with Osama bin Laden just before those elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:11 AM

Yes, that was an inspired bit of humour, if ever I've heard one.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 11:22 AM

Kevin regarding your post of 16 Dec 03 - 11:02 AM

Your first paragraph relating to aid received by Saddam in support of his aggression against his neighbours in Iran.

Making that point is all well and good provided that it is put in context and inferences made encompass all those who provided aid to Iraq. One minor correction however Kevin, aid was given by a host of countries not to support Saddam's aggression against Iran, but to support the defence of Iraq, if you doubt that explain the timing of that aid.

Your second paragraph refers to times past, but completely ignores the realities of the "Cold War" and bi-polar geo-politics at play in with regard to the middle-east in particular.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Gareth
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:27 PM

Or as Kissinger (SP?) was reputed to have said over the Iraq/Iran war, "it's a pity that both sides don't loose".

Kevin, I don't follow your logic on CIA support for SH in the past.

And again I fail to understand the stated logic of a vocal minority of 'Catters in that as SH was America's creation America had no right to remove SH - I think Clinton had something to say on that.

He's gone, and with luck should face a reasonably fair trial.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Peace
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 12:42 PM

The US supported Iraq as a buffer/balance against Iran. That was in a time when the USSR was hoping for land access to the Indian Ocean. Need to land troops somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 01:14 PM

Yo, T-Bird,

It's hard to keep up with Bush's PR tricksters these days. Shoot he's spendin' a lot of tax payers dough on 'em and they certainly have the advantage because of the secret nature in which this administration operates... But it was a stroke of genius on their part. Knock Dean off the cover of Time magazine and parade a string of witnesses to testafy about Saddam's crimes in trials that probably will be going on about the same time as the '04 election... One thing fir sure... He's got one heck of a PR team...

My hat's off to them even if they do represent an evil, anti-human, anti-earth gang of liars, theives and crooks...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 04:40 PM

Little Hawk - there ain't nothing wrong with tinted glasses - mine are red (both of them) and it makes people smile and want to try them on. It brings people together. Of course the metaphorical kind are kinda hard to make work in the same way but YOU GOTTA TRY.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 04:48 PM

Gareth, the point I was making in relation to the CIA involvenent in the past - which is a term I use loosely here, as shorthand for the US Government - was that, in the light of past history, it would be as well to keep in mind the possibility that, in time, a new Strong Man will emerge in Iraq, with this being favoured by the US Government, as a way of keeping the lid on things.

Moreover the person who would end up on top is more likely than not to be involved in the organisation of oppositionto to the occupation. That's how these kind of things work in empires trying to withdraw from direct rule. For anyone like that, Saddam's elimination would be necessary, so perhaps it was someone like that who fingered him.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 05:05 PM

McGrath I very much agree with your analysis of the "state of play" in Iraq....I also think that the capture of Saddam could make things even more difficult for the coalition. Although the Shi'ites seem to be sitting on the fence at the moment,the reason they were oppressed by Saddam,was the power wielded by their clergy....and with Saddam out of the way ,who knows what will happen..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 07:46 PM

Without the first coup there would have been no second coup and no Saddam.

This is disingenuous at best, McG. The point that Teribus makes is that any of several candidates could have made capital out of this. If you had said that "the first 1917 revolution gave Kerensky the opportunity to establish his powerbase" you would have been wrong. Nevertheless, the first 1917 revolution did create the climate in which Lenin could succeed. If you want to suggest that Saddam's 1979 coup was directly attributable to America, offer concrete evidence. Otherwise you're merely muckraking without substantiation.

"Hitler's rise owed a lot to that kind of thinking for that matter. And it would be only too easy for it to happen again, and it is only too likely that there are people working to achieve that kind of outcome. "

This also is arguable. It is possible to lay direct blame for Hitler upon the unreasonable terms of the Versaille Treaty. Any number of individuals could have made capital out of this, Hitler was the one that was the most succesful. It could have been any of many.

Moreover, if the rise of Hitler was inevitably determined by history & human nature, then the US cannot be blamed for the future of Iraq. Which is it, Kevin? I won't dispute that there is something nasty in store, but I'll wait until it happens before I start trying to identify the culprits!

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 08:53 PM

Well, one thing fir sure is that the US isn't going to get the government they want in Iraq....

Think Ayatollah Ali Sistani here...

Think Bush needs to do more drug testing of his advisors...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: DougR
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 09:56 PM

Bobert: would you clarify something for me? What do you REALLY think of Bush's team of advisors?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:20 PM

Bush doesn't have a team of advisers -- he has owners.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 16 Dec 03 - 10:39 PM

Well, Dougie, Bush's advisors are probablt the biggest concern to the panet, as we know it. Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Rihard Pearle are all way, way, way outside of the mainstream. These three guys are absolute flaming radicals. So conservsative that they almost touch the flaming radical on the left. They see the US as a world super power that needs to take on every danged situation (that involves resources) in the world. As a conservative, Doug, you should have some reseravtions about their activist foriegn policy. If Bill Clinton had taken it upon himself to guess who might be oput to get us and "whack' 'em you would have been up in arms....

Then you have these other folks who are equally dangerous. Donnie Rumsfeld is just a big stupid bully. He hates Colin Powell and has had Georgie demote Powell to porch Negro. He has said the most embarassing things about, awww, just pick a topic. Take the vases that we walking out of the museums in Irag. Henny Penny, you seen one danged vase and you've seen them all... That'sd like saying, after seeing the Mona Lisa, "Ahhh, ye seen one danged oil painting and you've seen them all!" Stupid remarl made by a guy who only thinks in terms of military solutions to every danged problem in the universe.

Then there's the terribly inept Condi Rice who satrted the "Mushrrom" lie and probably more lies that one can actually pin on her...

Yeah, Doug, these are the folks that your guy has surrounded himself with and now you've got 9/11 and a lot more crap on your hands that wouldn't have happened if daddy's Supreme Court hadn't decided to stop the vote counting...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:18 PM

"If you want to suggest that Saddam's 1979 coup was directly attributable to America, offer concrete evidence. Otherwise you're merely muckraking without substantiation."

Apparently the Radical Right Wing Revisionist history is that it didn't happen. They ignore the arms for hostages deal under Reagan and Bush and that America did supply WMD's to Iraq as a deterrent to Iran. It's now in the the history books. Any substantiation for a statement amoung the Radical Right Wing like this would only be accepted if it came from the Heritage Foundation or the Washington Times.

Denial,denial. Or as they used to say as a euphemism for lying under Reagan, "plausible deniability".

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 05:43 PM

Well, Frank, as an interesting side bar to Saddam being captured an possibly tried is that the real story might find its way from under the carpet.

"Mr. Hussein. Did you gas anyone and if so where'd you get the gas?"

See where I'm going with this one?

Could get very interesting. Yep, very interesting...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:02 PM

"...the first 1917 revolution gave Kerensky the opportunity to establish his powerbase"

Actually I'd thought of saying something close to that, but significantly different, and pointing out that people who backed Lenin arguably carried some responsibility for Stalin's rise to power from his base in Lenin's party.

There were all kinds of reasons for Hitler getting control, but one of them undoubtedly was people thinking in terms of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" - and not looking too closely at who some of his enemies actually were. And that was certainly the case with Saddam and Bin Laden more recently, and explains the backing they had from people who would rather that this was forgotten. (Of course this is a way of thinking that occurs among left-wingers every bit as much as on the right.)

And I said nothing about anything being inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Dec 03 - 06:36 PM

Saw a Tv doc in Aus here recently - an ex-cia guy said that under Bush's dad, the current bunch of "advisors in power" were referred to as "the crazies".

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 02:29 AM

Frank - "America did supply WMD's to Iraq as a deterrent to Iran" - evidence please, the aid given was all fairly well documented.

Subject: RE: BS: Iraqnophobia - Sadman captured?
From: DougR
Date: 18 Dec 03 - 11:54 AM

Robin: I'm sure you took into account that said ex-CIA person might have had his own axe to grind when you viewed that documentary, right?

DougR