The Life and Times of Saddam Hussein
Tariq Aqil July 11, 2000
#17 Posted by taqil17 on July 12, 2000 11:48:29 pm
Hi Wasiq Nawaz!!Thanks for the scathing critism.this article about saddam hussein is not meant to be a piece of brilliant creative work.it is only a biographical sketch of a ver imprtant and controversial leaders ofmodern times and it has its value for students of history international relations and political science.i am sorry that this article has annoyed you so much i hope you will read it as a lesson in history nd not as a work of popular fiction.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#18 Posted by fuzair on July 12, 2000 11:48:29 pm
Re: Ms. Shah #13
Actually, I was thinking about it but, at the moment, I don`t have the time to sit down and compose a draft, edit it, have some one read it and comment on it, and do a rewrite (or two, depending upon how many times I can get people whose opinions I respect to read it for me). I promise that, in the not too distant future, I shall submit a piece to Chowk and, if the editors approve it, all the Chowkwallahs will have a chance to return the favor to me!
TTFN
Actually, I was thinking about it but, at the moment, I don`t have the time to sit down and compose a draft, edit it, have some one read it and comment on it, and do a rewrite (or two, depending upon how many times I can get people whose opinions I respect to read it for me). I promise that, in the not too distant future, I shall submit a piece to Chowk and, if the editors approve it, all the Chowkwallahs will have a chance to return the favor to me!
TTFN
#19 Posted by Urstruly on July 13, 2000 9:56:00 am
Dear Tariq!
I agree with you that history still has to pass a judgement on this character that we love to hate.
I think it is a blunder that we try to understand the personalities and actions of the Third World leaders according to the Western standards. All that we know about Saddam (including your article)is based on the information from Western media. This media is at its best to create real or imaginary enemies (personalities) and blowing their size out of proportions. It (media) projects itself as the most independent media but when it comes to national and economic interests it is as biased as any news media in the Third World. So it can NOT be trusted.
We must also take into account the Iraqi political as well as cultural atmosphere while we try to understand Saddam-especially the tribal nature of Iraqi social setup. We can better understand him if we study the information from with in Iraq as well as outside. A good start can be the mainstream English newspapers of the Arab world which often show soft corner for Saddam. Some of the ``independent`` (Arab)news media ( i.e set up outside Arab world) openly project Saddam as an icon of resistence against neo-colonialism.
Although it is a well written article yet it would have been of great value to the students of history if you had included the ``alternative`` point of view too.
I agree with you that history still has to pass a judgement on this character that we love to hate.
I think it is a blunder that we try to understand the personalities and actions of the Third World leaders according to the Western standards. All that we know about Saddam (including your article)is based on the information from Western media. This media is at its best to create real or imaginary enemies (personalities) and blowing their size out of proportions. It (media) projects itself as the most independent media but when it comes to national and economic interests it is as biased as any news media in the Third World. So it can NOT be trusted.
We must also take into account the Iraqi political as well as cultural atmosphere while we try to understand Saddam-especially the tribal nature of Iraqi social setup. We can better understand him if we study the information from with in Iraq as well as outside. A good start can be the mainstream English newspapers of the Arab world which often show soft corner for Saddam. Some of the ``independent`` (Arab)news media ( i.e set up outside Arab world) openly project Saddam as an icon of resistence against neo-colonialism.
Although it is a well written article yet it would have been of great value to the students of history if you had included the ``alternative`` point of view too.
#20 Posted by fairdinkum on July 13, 2000 9:56:00 am
Some more sins of omission:
“In 1975, when the Kurdish revolt, then led by Massoud Barzani`s father and supported by Iran, the United States, and Israel, suddenly collapsed after the Shah of Iran reached a surprise agreement with the Iraqi leader, and the United States cut off aid to the Kurdish rebels. (``Our movement and people are being destroyed in an unbelievable way,`` Mustafa Barzani wrote to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, pleading for help. Kissinger did not deign to reply. Explaining in secret testimony why the United States abandoned the Kurds, Kissinger offered this pithy profile in cynicism: ``Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.``) In 1975 the Iraqi army came and rounded up everyone in the widows` village, taking them to a compound in the southern desert. On the walls of the huts, which were unfit for human habitation, was scrawled ``Dar al-Fana`` -- ``House of Annihilation.`` Many people died. Eventually the survivors were allowed to return to the north, and ended up in Qushtapa. But in 1983, after Iraq began to lose the war with revolutionary Iran, the army returned. One night soldiers surrounded the village, seizing every grown male, including the blind and the crippled. The women and children cried and tried to follow their husbands, sons, and fathers, but Iraqi forces fired on them, forcing them back.” [After Saddam Hussein by Laurie Mylroie]
On September 17, 1980 Saddam declared the Iraqi/Iranian borders agreement (Algiers Agreement) null and void, claiming the whole of Shatt-el-Arab back to Iraq. His forces invaded Iran 5 days later on September 22, 1980, and the resulting Iraq-Iran war lasted for eight years. An estimated 1 million lives were lost. Through out the war, US in particular and West in general supported Saddam Hussein’s regime against Iran. Pumping many millions of dollars in military aid. Iraq basically fought a proxy war on behalf of US, and the West, to avenge their humiliation in Iran after the fall of Shah. All news of human rights violations within Iraq mysteriously disappeared from supposedly FREE western media. When Iran presented conclusive evidence to suggest that Iraq had indeed used chemical weapons during the war, I presume that CIA and other western intelligence agencies were not aware of Saddam’s capability to make weapons of mass destruction? They actually continued to supply Iraq with military aid even after Iran presented evidence before the world community that Iraq was using chemical weapons.
And now let’s go back a bit:
During the First World War, Turkey became a German ally and its empire collapsed when British forces invaded Mesopotamia in 1917 and occupied Baghdad.
The country became a British Mandate - due, in no small part, to the British interest in Iraqi oil fields, and because they wanted to build a transcontinental railroad from Europe, across Turkey, and down through Iraq to Kuwait on the Persian Gulf. This railroad would allow a direct trade route with India without having to skirt Africa. - and an armistice was signed with Turkey in 1918. Local unrest (Thawrah), however, resulted in an Iraqi uprising in 1920, and after costly attempts to quell this, the British government decided to draw up a new plan for the state of Iraq.
The British government had laid out the institutional framework for Iraqi government and politics; the Iraqi political system suffered from a severe legitimacy crisis; Britain imposed a Hashimite monarchy, defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little correspondence to natural frontiers or traditional tribal and ethnic settlements, and influenced the writing of a constitution and the structure of parliament. The British also supported narrowly based groups--such as the tribal shaykhs--over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup.
“In 1975, when the Kurdish revolt, then led by Massoud Barzani`s father and supported by Iran, the United States, and Israel, suddenly collapsed after the Shah of Iran reached a surprise agreement with the Iraqi leader, and the United States cut off aid to the Kurdish rebels. (``Our movement and people are being destroyed in an unbelievable way,`` Mustafa Barzani wrote to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, pleading for help. Kissinger did not deign to reply. Explaining in secret testimony why the United States abandoned the Kurds, Kissinger offered this pithy profile in cynicism: ``Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.``) In 1975 the Iraqi army came and rounded up everyone in the widows` village, taking them to a compound in the southern desert. On the walls of the huts, which were unfit for human habitation, was scrawled ``Dar al-Fana`` -- ``House of Annihilation.`` Many people died. Eventually the survivors were allowed to return to the north, and ended up in Qushtapa. But in 1983, after Iraq began to lose the war with revolutionary Iran, the army returned. One night soldiers surrounded the village, seizing every grown male, including the blind and the crippled. The women and children cried and tried to follow their husbands, sons, and fathers, but Iraqi forces fired on them, forcing them back.” [After Saddam Hussein by Laurie Mylroie]
On September 17, 1980 Saddam declared the Iraqi/Iranian borders agreement (Algiers Agreement) null and void, claiming the whole of Shatt-el-Arab back to Iraq. His forces invaded Iran 5 days later on September 22, 1980, and the resulting Iraq-Iran war lasted for eight years. An estimated 1 million lives were lost. Through out the war, US in particular and West in general supported Saddam Hussein’s regime against Iran. Pumping many millions of dollars in military aid. Iraq basically fought a proxy war on behalf of US, and the West, to avenge their humiliation in Iran after the fall of Shah. All news of human rights violations within Iraq mysteriously disappeared from supposedly FREE western media. When Iran presented conclusive evidence to suggest that Iraq had indeed used chemical weapons during the war, I presume that CIA and other western intelligence agencies were not aware of Saddam’s capability to make weapons of mass destruction? They actually continued to supply Iraq with military aid even after Iran presented evidence before the world community that Iraq was using chemical weapons.
And now let’s go back a bit:
During the First World War, Turkey became a German ally and its empire collapsed when British forces invaded Mesopotamia in 1917 and occupied Baghdad.
The country became a British Mandate - due, in no small part, to the British interest in Iraqi oil fields, and because they wanted to build a transcontinental railroad from Europe, across Turkey, and down through Iraq to Kuwait on the Persian Gulf. This railroad would allow a direct trade route with India without having to skirt Africa. - and an armistice was signed with Turkey in 1918. Local unrest (Thawrah), however, resulted in an Iraqi uprising in 1920, and after costly attempts to quell this, the British government decided to draw up a new plan for the state of Iraq.
The British government had laid out the institutional framework for Iraqi government and politics; the Iraqi political system suffered from a severe legitimacy crisis; Britain imposed a Hashimite monarchy, defined the territorial limits of Iraq with little correspondence to natural frontiers or traditional tribal and ethnic settlements, and influenced the writing of a constitution and the structure of parliament. The British also supported narrowly based groups--such as the tribal shaykhs--over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement, and resorted to military force when British interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashid Ali Al-Gaylani coup.
#21 Posted by Kant_Patel on July 13, 2000 4:51:11 pm
Re: Saima Shah, #13
Re: Fuzair
``How about some contributions for Chowk?``
Dear Saima,
Do I need to notice some inkling of arrogance in your post!
Do we need to ask a drama, or, art, or, music, etc. critic when he/she is going to produce (better) whatever is being reviewed? If I misunderstood your musing, then, please excuse me and disregard this post.
Kant...
Re: Fuzair
``How about some contributions for Chowk?``
Dear Saima,
Do I need to notice some inkling of arrogance in your post!
Do we need to ask a drama, or, art, or, music, etc. critic when he/she is going to produce (better) whatever is being reviewed? If I misunderstood your musing, then, please excuse me and disregard this post.
Kant...
#22 Posted by anamika on July 13, 2000 4:51:11 pm
# 19 Fairdinkum
George Bush was the CIA director at the time. He incited the kurds at first against Saddam and abandoned them later to be slaughtered.
Saddam is a brutal man and a purveyor of bedouin tribal politics. To wit he had his own son-in-law murdered in the palace.
The West had to impose their will on Iraq and show who the boss was. The saudis are but a glorified protectorate of the US. The kurds are a convenient stick to beat the iraqis with. The turks hunt them down at will and the West turns a blind eye. They are, understandably, looking to retain their political (and, ultimately economic) hegemony over the rest of the world.
Saddam is evil. More evil than he is George Bush. It is George Bush that is yet to be judged by history.
George Bush was the CIA director at the time. He incited the kurds at first against Saddam and abandoned them later to be slaughtered.
Saddam is a brutal man and a purveyor of bedouin tribal politics. To wit he had his own son-in-law murdered in the palace.
The West had to impose their will on Iraq and show who the boss was. The saudis are but a glorified protectorate of the US. The kurds are a convenient stick to beat the iraqis with. The turks hunt them down at will and the West turns a blind eye. They are, understandably, looking to retain their political (and, ultimately economic) hegemony over the rest of the world.
Saddam is evil. More evil than he is George Bush. It is George Bush that is yet to be judged by history.
#23 Posted by Rdesikan on July 13, 2000 5:21:39 pm
Re Anamika#22
We`ll wait till we get fake teeth for history to evaluate George Bush. In reality, nobody gives a hoot about that corner of the world and in fact, that will be a mere footnote in his evaluation. In the meanwhile, he was evaluated in one way or the other when he lost to Clinton.
The bottom line is for the foreseeable future, the world is going to be unipolar. And the world votes with its pocketbook. If given the equal chance to emigrate to any of the following countries--Saudi Arabia, the United States, Cuba, North Korea or the Sudan, which would you pick?
Re Saddam killing one son in law, the number was actually two. He got the relatives of the two men to clobber the two to death after they were induced to return from Jordan with promises of amnesty.
We`ll wait till we get fake teeth for history to evaluate George Bush. In reality, nobody gives a hoot about that corner of the world and in fact, that will be a mere footnote in his evaluation. In the meanwhile, he was evaluated in one way or the other when he lost to Clinton.
The bottom line is for the foreseeable future, the world is going to be unipolar. And the world votes with its pocketbook. If given the equal chance to emigrate to any of the following countries--Saudi Arabia, the United States, Cuba, North Korea or the Sudan, which would you pick?
Re Saddam killing one son in law, the number was actually two. He got the relatives of the two men to clobber the two to death after they were induced to return from Jordan with promises of amnesty.
#24 Posted by fuzair on July 13, 2000 5:51:05 pm
Re: Fairdinkum #20
I am very surpriseed that you have also fallen victim to the canard that Saddam Hussein fought the West`s proxy war against Iran. In 1975 the Shah forced Iraq to sign a treaty that gave Iran half of the Shatt-el-Arab and thus control over Iraq`s only access to the sea. The Shah, with US assistance, had armed the Iraqi Kurds in their war against the Iraqi government, a war which they were winning, in his successful attempt to force Iraq to accept Iranian regional hegemony.
Hussein erroneously concluded that the Iranian revolution and the subsequent purges of the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces would have weakened Iran to the point that even the Iraqi Army could defeat them. Hence his renunciation of the treaty and declaration of war. As history showed, he miscalculated the weakness of the enemy. We Pakistanis used to boast (erroneously as it turned out) that one Pakistani jawan was worth three Indians but its pretty clear that one Iranian was worth at least three Iraqis during the 1980s.
I am not sure how you can call the Iran-Iraq war a proxy war fought for the US. Hussein would have launched the war even if the US had been against it. As it turned out, the situation was not a proxy war but a case of `the enemy of my enemy is my friend.` Of course the US and every one else downplayed Iraqs disgusting human rights record in this same time period. It was not in its interest to show that Hussein was worse than Khomeini.
* * * * *
On a different but related note, here is an amusing anecdote about the general incompetence of Iraqis. A friend of mine was a cadet at PMA during the mid-1980s, at the same time as Pakistan was extending some military assistance to Iraq. In this case, about 80 Iraqi officers had been sent to Pakistan for advanced infantry training at the Infantry School at Quetta . The problem arose when the Pakistanis realized that these officers were absolutely incompetent at everything, had no command or knowledge of even the most basic military infantry tactics and were generally at the same level of expertise as Pakistani second-year NCC types. Now keep in mind that these were commissioned officers with a minimum of two years of frontline combat experience.
The Pakistani brass was in a quandry: what to do with these clowns? They couldn`t be put in any regular course and, given the foreign exchange Iraq was paying, they couldn`t be sent back in disgrace either. GHQ decided to put them in a special training program at PMA to teach them the basics of soldiering.
Unfortunately, GHQ assigned the regular PMA instructors to drill them. My friend was in his third term at PMA and spent a lot of time with these officers. In addition, senior cadets were assigned extra duties to whip these bravos into shape. The results were complaints galore! The order had to be sent down to go easy on these Iraqi `officers:` no night exercises, no forced marches, long rest breaks in the afternoon, no run over two miles (I think), no hazing, etc. etc..
Anyway, at the time of the Gulf War, when every one was talking about Iraq inflicting thousands of casualties on the Allied forces, my friend`s prediction was that the Iraqis would collapse completely and surrender en masse after they had been softened up by the air force. He figured that the average Iraqi officer was good for about a 1/2 hour artillery stomp before he pissed his pants and ran. However, charitably, he did say that he couldn`t be sure about the quality of the ORs since he had no first-hand experience there.
I am very surpriseed that you have also fallen victim to the canard that Saddam Hussein fought the West`s proxy war against Iran. In 1975 the Shah forced Iraq to sign a treaty that gave Iran half of the Shatt-el-Arab and thus control over Iraq`s only access to the sea. The Shah, with US assistance, had armed the Iraqi Kurds in their war against the Iraqi government, a war which they were winning, in his successful attempt to force Iraq to accept Iranian regional hegemony.
Hussein erroneously concluded that the Iranian revolution and the subsequent purges of the Imperial Iranian Armed Forces would have weakened Iran to the point that even the Iraqi Army could defeat them. Hence his renunciation of the treaty and declaration of war. As history showed, he miscalculated the weakness of the enemy. We Pakistanis used to boast (erroneously as it turned out) that one Pakistani jawan was worth three Indians but its pretty clear that one Iranian was worth at least three Iraqis during the 1980s.
I am not sure how you can call the Iran-Iraq war a proxy war fought for the US. Hussein would have launched the war even if the US had been against it. As it turned out, the situation was not a proxy war but a case of `the enemy of my enemy is my friend.` Of course the US and every one else downplayed Iraqs disgusting human rights record in this same time period. It was not in its interest to show that Hussein was worse than Khomeini.
* * * * *
On a different but related note, here is an amusing anecdote about the general incompetence of Iraqis. A friend of mine was a cadet at PMA during the mid-1980s, at the same time as Pakistan was extending some military assistance to Iraq. In this case, about 80 Iraqi officers had been sent to Pakistan for advanced infantry training at the Infantry School at Quetta . The problem arose when the Pakistanis realized that these officers were absolutely incompetent at everything, had no command or knowledge of even the most basic military infantry tactics and were generally at the same level of expertise as Pakistani second-year NCC types. Now keep in mind that these were commissioned officers with a minimum of two years of frontline combat experience.
The Pakistani brass was in a quandry: what to do with these clowns? They couldn`t be put in any regular course and, given the foreign exchange Iraq was paying, they couldn`t be sent back in disgrace either. GHQ decided to put them in a special training program at PMA to teach them the basics of soldiering.
Unfortunately, GHQ assigned the regular PMA instructors to drill them. My friend was in his third term at PMA and spent a lot of time with these officers. In addition, senior cadets were assigned extra duties to whip these bravos into shape. The results were complaints galore! The order had to be sent down to go easy on these Iraqi `officers:` no night exercises, no forced marches, long rest breaks in the afternoon, no run over two miles (I think), no hazing, etc. etc..
Anyway, at the time of the Gulf War, when every one was talking about Iraq inflicting thousands of casualties on the Allied forces, my friend`s prediction was that the Iraqis would collapse completely and surrender en masse after they had been softened up by the air force. He figured that the average Iraqi officer was good for about a 1/2 hour artillery stomp before he pissed his pants and ran. However, charitably, he did say that he couldn`t be sure about the quality of the ORs since he had no first-hand experience there.
#25 Posted by fairdinkum on July 14, 2000 1:45:29 am
Re: Fuzair #24
Hello Fuzair,
Fist of all; let me join you in disapproving this piece. And I’ll come back to our discussion on Iran-Iraq war later (in my next post).
Tariq,
I am sorry, but I have to give your essay a thumbs-down. And its got nothing to do with your political point of view about Saddam/ Iraq /West. The essay simply lacks imagination, and thought. Your argument about Saddam being controversial is understandable. However, the entire piece lists his draconian approach, his atrocities, and his murderous nature - and yet it ends, quite abruptly I might add, with the following conclusion:
“So far Saddam Hussein has given his people only blood, toil, tears, defeat and humiliations. History has yet to pass judgement on this man Savior or despot, hero or villain, Devil or Angel.”
The above two sentences are self-contradictory (unless you have a hope that from here on in, he is going to be a good boy and do the right thing!), and the last sentence is antithetical to the purpose of the entire essay. This leaves you open to severe criticism, and the reader with an empty feeling. Respondents are not basing their discussions on your piece, but rather, they are talking around it - trying to make some sense out of it.
Urstruly, I don’t see you complaining about the quality assurance on chowk in relation to this eassay?
Hello Fuzair,
Fist of all; let me join you in disapproving this piece. And I’ll come back to our discussion on Iran-Iraq war later (in my next post).
Tariq,
I am sorry, but I have to give your essay a thumbs-down. And its got nothing to do with your political point of view about Saddam/ Iraq /West. The essay simply lacks imagination, and thought. Your argument about Saddam being controversial is understandable. However, the entire piece lists his draconian approach, his atrocities, and his murderous nature - and yet it ends, quite abruptly I might add, with the following conclusion:
“So far Saddam Hussein has given his people only blood, toil, tears, defeat and humiliations. History has yet to pass judgement on this man Savior or despot, hero or villain, Devil or Angel.”
The above two sentences are self-contradictory (unless you have a hope that from here on in, he is going to be a good boy and do the right thing!), and the last sentence is antithetical to the purpose of the entire essay. This leaves you open to severe criticism, and the reader with an empty feeling. Respondents are not basing their discussions on your piece, but rather, they are talking around it - trying to make some sense out of it.
Urstruly, I don’t see you complaining about the quality assurance on chowk in relation to this eassay?
#26 Posted by Urstruly on July 14, 2000 9:42:52 am
Fairdinkum # 25
You didnt read the last paragraph of my post. I think am the President and founding member of the Society of Perpetual Whiners.
Regards
You didnt read the last paragraph of my post. I think am the President and founding member of the Society of Perpetual Whiners.
Regards
#27 Posted by sigalph235 on July 15, 2000 2:39:32 am
Re anamika #22
Next time you succumb to the temptation of bad mouthing George Bush out of misplaced sympathy for worldwide rogues, reflect a moment. Think about the millions in Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and the rest of the former Communist bloc where President Bush, along with President Reagan and Baroness Thatcher, is held to be an Emancipator who let them out of slavery. Think also of the hundreds of thousands of citizens of a small defenceless Arab country who would have been Saddam`s slaves to this day had Bush not said that `this invasion will not stand`.
George Bush is not a prefect man. But I would trust my life and family to him anyday over Saddam Hussein.
Next time you succumb to the temptation of bad mouthing George Bush out of misplaced sympathy for worldwide rogues, reflect a moment. Think about the millions in Latvia, Slovakia, Poland and the rest of the former Communist bloc where President Bush, along with President Reagan and Baroness Thatcher, is held to be an Emancipator who let them out of slavery. Think also of the hundreds of thousands of citizens of a small defenceless Arab country who would have been Saddam`s slaves to this day had Bush not said that `this invasion will not stand`.
George Bush is not a prefect man. But I would trust my life and family to him anyday over Saddam Hussein.
#28 Posted by Urstruly on July 15, 2000 9:41:11 am
RE: ALL
Throughout the discussion we chose to ignor the Iraqi people. Iraqi`s are subject to a slow and painful genocide at the hand of neo-colonialists. We are brainwashed by Western media day and night and it tries its best to diverst our attention from the most painful issue that is the pain and suffering of Iraqis at the hands of neo-colonialists. I would like to request everyone to spare some time and visit the following site to better aware yourselves about the plight of Iraqi people.
http://www.iacenter.org/index.htm
Your awareness to the real issue may help save some lives in Iraq.
PS. Dont worry this site is not setup by a whining Islamic group. It`s a white man`s site which details his crusade against the neo-colonialism. Please join hands.
Throughout the discussion we chose to ignor the Iraqi people. Iraqi`s are subject to a slow and painful genocide at the hand of neo-colonialists. We are brainwashed by Western media day and night and it tries its best to diverst our attention from the most painful issue that is the pain and suffering of Iraqis at the hands of neo-colonialists. I would like to request everyone to spare some time and visit the following site to better aware yourselves about the plight of Iraqi people.
http://www.iacenter.org/index.htm
Your awareness to the real issue may help save some lives in Iraq.
PS. Dont worry this site is not setup by a whining Islamic group. It`s a white man`s site which details his crusade against the neo-colonialism. Please join hands.
#29 Posted by anamika on July 15, 2000 11:18:27 am
#16 Rdesikan
``If given the equal chance to emigrate to any of
the following countries--Saudi Arabia, the United States, Cuba, North Korea or the
Sudan, which would you pick? ``
Between India and the US, what did you pick? What is the point of a comparison like this unless you meant something profound? There are Indians in Saudi Arabia - so what?
#27 Siggalph
George Bush also is responsible for the murder of 3000 INNOCENT Panamanians in his crusade against Noriega (another dictator chum of his that he decided should be contained). He is a murderer and the only reason he has not been charged with crimes against humanity is that America is the fox that gaurds the hen house. Your paean for him is wasted.
``If given the equal chance to emigrate to any of
the following countries--Saudi Arabia, the United States, Cuba, North Korea or the
Sudan, which would you pick? ``
Between India and the US, what did you pick? What is the point of a comparison like this unless you meant something profound? There are Indians in Saudi Arabia - so what?
#27 Siggalph
George Bush also is responsible for the murder of 3000 INNOCENT Panamanians in his crusade against Noriega (another dictator chum of his that he decided should be contained). He is a murderer and the only reason he has not been charged with crimes against humanity is that America is the fox that gaurds the hen house. Your paean for him is wasted.
#30 Posted by sigalph235 on July 15, 2000 12:33:34 pm
anamika said about George Bush `He is a murderer`. Right. And the Pope is a Baptist.
#31 Posted by ferozk on July 15, 2000 12:55:39 pm
Re: Sigalph235
You were right about George B, Sr. However, I would have to disagree with the way GWB handled the war. First he personified the struggle as evil v. good (always a bad idea in Realpolitik)and then he did a coitus interuptus by not finishing what he started.
The present problem is because he halted the 4 American Division just 15 klicks from Baghdad, but that is another debate... Oliver Stone would love this guy, because it seems that the Yankee from Maine wanted Saddam in power just to give employment opportunties to his donors in the defence industry. Someone has to sell the Mavericks 84s to the Pentagon!
I have been doing some research on the American defense industrial complex and it seems that it was really helped by the First World and then the Second World War followed by Korea and Vietnam and the last 50 years of American growth were directly proportional to its defence spendings and it only declined when Lyndon was trying to fight Vietnam without mobilizing the American economy on a war basis. American civil economy, in the last 50 years, has benefited from the spin off R&D in defence matter; internet being a good example.
Ciao!
You were right about George B, Sr. However, I would have to disagree with the way GWB handled the war. First he personified the struggle as evil v. good (always a bad idea in Realpolitik)and then he did a coitus interuptus by not finishing what he started.
The present problem is because he halted the 4 American Division just 15 klicks from Baghdad, but that is another debate... Oliver Stone would love this guy, because it seems that the Yankee from Maine wanted Saddam in power just to give employment opportunties to his donors in the defence industry. Someone has to sell the Mavericks 84s to the Pentagon!
I have been doing some research on the American defense industrial complex and it seems that it was really helped by the First World and then the Second World War followed by Korea and Vietnam and the last 50 years of American growth were directly proportional to its defence spendings and it only declined when Lyndon was trying to fight Vietnam without mobilizing the American economy on a war basis. American civil economy, in the last 50 years, has benefited from the spin off R&D in defence matter; internet being a good example.
Ciao!
#32 Posted by taqil17 on July 16, 2000 10:54:01 am
hello Kafir Khan!! please do not accuse without reason.citicism for the sake of criticism is counter productive.The article ends abruptly because it was meant to end like that.there are no secrets behind the sudden ending.the final chapter in the story of Saddam Hussein is yet to be written and till than he will remain an enigma and a mystery.we cant predict his final fate or his destiny.Dont you think the author of this piece has tried to be as ojective and factual as it is humanly possible?? and please dont levy charges of COPYING!thats something I have never done in my whole life and i dont intend to start at this late stage of life!!if i did that my work could not find place in so many prestigious newspapers and magazines of the world.Do criticize but please do so objectively and with an open mind.best regards I hope you will continue to read my articles inspite of your negative opinion about my efforts!!
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- History and Origins of MQM Part II Ali Chishti
- Historian Amaresh Misra on South Asia AliHasan Cemendtaur
- Roshni Aditya Mukherjee
- Freud and Jung and Their Secret Affairs Khalid Sohail
- Pakistan's Nuclear Test - Ten Years Later Pervez Hoodbhoy
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- VRV: I hate C&P stuff... Pleas For Sanity as
- VRV: HP, U must be... Pleas For Sanity as
- qyousuf: Hi, You wrote a... I Am A Pakistani
- HP: "forget about what the... Pleas For Sanity as
- Dash_Dot: Re: # 80 hamimdm2... Pleas For Sanity as
- hamidm2: Re: # 79 hp mian, ....... Pleas For Sanity as
- HP: VRV aka HPSauce, Is Rabert... Pleas For Sanity as
- HPsauce: US sets stage for... Pleas For Sanity as
