[extropy-chat] Re: US not right to invade say Iraqis

[Jeff Davis]

--- John K Clark <jonkc at att.net> wrote:
 
> Without Desert Storm Saddam Hussein today would have
his hand on the throttle of the world economy, he
would rule the top 3 oil exporting countries on Earth,
Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait and he would own 50% of
the oil on this planet. Saddam would be richer than
God and after having first hand experience with the
spineless nature of western democracies I have no
doubt he would open his checkbook and pursue exotic
and horrible weapons with a vengeance.

           *****************************

And this is bad and scary because...?

           *****************************

Saddam was thoroughly demonized in the lead up to Gulf
War I.   The final chapter of that demonization
process was the "babies dumped from incubators"
focus-group-derived fiction, courtesy of Hill &
Knowlton, then the world's largest PR firm.  Another
Bush war sold with a lie. 

Before then Saddam was just another of the world's
many tin pot dictators.  No big deal.  We knew nothing
of his crimes and were not the least bit interested. 
In a sense -- the "real world" sense where perception
is (indistinguishable from) reality --his crimes did
not exist.  

So, let's consider the hypothetical situation John
implies above, an alternate reality, one based on an
alternate context where President Saddam Hussein of
Iraq had not been demonized.  The narrative could have
gone something like this: 

Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, finally lost
patience with Kuwait's ruling family, the Al Sabah's. 
During the Iran-Iraq war, the Al Sabah's relied on
Saddam to protect them from attack.  And indeed,
Iraq's powerful military did just that, protecting
Kuwait from the march of Iranian fundamentalism led by
the Ayatollah Khomeini. Yet, after a long and bloody
conflict which cost the lives of millions of Iraqis
and Iranians, Kuwait, which provided not a single
soldier nor sacrificed a single life, refused to
contribute to the financial burden of its defense, and
then, astonishingly, compounded this insult by slant
drilling beneath the Iraq-Kuwait border into Iraq's
oil reserves.  

An aggrieved President Saddam Hussein consulted with
the US on the matter and was assured by Ambassador
April Glaspie that:

 
***http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html***

"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts,
such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State
James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the
instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that
the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

On the basis of these assurances Saddam Hussein
instructed his military forces to restore Kuwait to
Iraqi sovereignty and protection.  This was swiftly
accomplished on August 2, 1990 with minimal property
damage or loss of life.  Kuwaiti oil production
continues without interruption.  Oil prices in the
world market remain stable at $15 a barrel.     

The Al Sabah family fled Kuwait for a lavish exile in
London, St. Tropez, and the capitals of Europe, funded
by billions in Kuwaiti oil revenue stashed in foreign
accounts and investments.

In an atmosphere of national euphoria President Saddam
Hussein has declared August 2nd a day of national
remembrance, declaring, "The dignity of the Iraqi
nation has been made whole.  The province of Kuwait,
its people, territory, and resources have at last been
restored to their rightful place in the patrimony of
the arab nation and the great nation of Iraq." 

         ***************************************

So what really is true?  

We hear nothing of the rape rooms and torture chambers
of the Shah of Iran, who was installed by the CIA
after the destruction of the first and only moderate
secular Iranian democracy, the first secular democracy
in the Mideast.   

       ********************************************

John wrote:

> ...I have no doubt he would open his checkbook and
pursue exotic and horrible weapons with a vengeance.

Yet had he been seen as a strong and respected Arab
leader, how would this have been a problem?  After
all, the US has exotic and horrible weapons, and has
used them,...was the first to use them.  Yet we are
not monsters (YMMV).  We value our nuclear arsenal --
or used to -- for its deterrent, war-preventing,
stabilizing effect.  Why would not Saddam's possession
of such weapons provide the same stabilizing
influence?  The moment he gained a nuclear capability,
nuclear weapons would have been aimed at him. 
Naturally.  And he would have known that, of course.  
 

Answer: Because then Iraq's credible deterrence would
have prevented the US hegemon, committed to "full
spectrum dominance", from the "freedom" to coerce or
invade Iraq any ol' time it wanted to.  (Which, by the
way, is what the NPT is ***really*** about.)     

           ********************************

It's gettin' late.  I'm not sure I've accomplished
anything here.  Saddam was a bad actor.  Very bad. 
His removal from power is an unalloyed good thing. 
But the other stuff attendant to his removal...bad. 
Very bad.  And it's not over yet.  Could get better. 
Could get worse.  We shall see.

In sum, better that Saddam had been left with Kuwait,
and then taken out by a special ops op, a smart bomb,
or eventually, by father time(the Franco option).    

Or, while we're pondering woulda coulda shoulda,
consider if the US had just not come to his rescue in
'82, when Iran was poised to impose its own dose of
regime change on Saddam.  Imagine twenty-three years
ago we could have had near exactly what we're about to
end up with now, and saved ourselves a whole heap o'
trouble.

Talk of alternate universes.

Screw the spell check.  You figure it out.

Best, Jeff Davis

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who
said it--no matter if I have said it--unless it agrees
with your own reason and your common sense."
                         Buddha 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com