Re: mystery solved

Your response leads in two directions, though (at least in regards to
Iraq) -- our actions would led to the sustenance of a secular murderous
dictator, or the creation of an Islamist murderous dictators (what are
the Christians fleeing *from*?). I can believe what you say about CIA
recommendations for funding, but I don't see how it would have kept Iraq
from being another Afghanistan.

I think S. Africa, like most former British colonies, are different
cases than the Middle East. British colonial rule was so successful the
people didn't need the Brits anymore to run a democracy smoothly.
 There's no history of that in the Middle East.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com wrote:

> Jim,
>
> Without considerable US funding and support at the beginning of his
> regime, most Arab experts believe it is doubtful that Hussein, given
> his disastrous and reckless policies at home and abroad, could have
> held onto power very long. And even the CIA admits that there was a
> likelihood in the early eighties of Hussein being seriously threatened
> by the fundamentalist Muslim majority in his country when he began the
> war with Iran. If we had not funded and supported him during that
> war, Hussein's secular government very likely would have lost its grip
> on Iraqi politics. That, in fact, is *why* the CIA recommended the
> funding in the first place, since we did not want a fundamentalist
> Islamic state (in Iran) controlling the balance of power in the
> region. (Now, of course, it looks like we may be in danger of having
> created another one -- already the Christians in Iraq are fleeing for
> their own safety as the Shiites and Sunis begin to exercise the power
> of their numbers.)
>
> As to how you undermine tyrannical and murderous dictators... First,
> you stop funding them, helping them, supporting them, selling them
> weapons, and even placing them in power (can you say South America?).
> Second, when it is in the clear national interest of the United
> States, history has shown that the most effective challenge to
> tyrannical rule comes from the careful introduction of internal
> economic, political and even cooperative insurgent pressure -- because
> when change is brought about that way, as terrible and murderous as it
> often is, there is already a program for the installation of some sort
> of reliable new power in place. As ugly as it was when it was
> happening, the death of Apartheid proved to be more historically
> permanent and significant that our little adventures in Afghanistan
> (which is already falling back into the hands of the murderous tribal
> warlords) or Iraq (where life for the locals will be little or no
> different ten years from now than it was ten years ago and where the
> weapons of mass destruction will be on sale on the black market faster
> than you can say "profit margin," if they're not already).
>
> But perhaps this asking to much historical patience and critical
> thinking for a President who doesn't believe in evolution anyway.
>
> All the best,
>
> --John

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Mon Apr 21 17:15:38 2003