(no subject)

Ken Hanly khanly at mb.sympatico.ca
Fri Sep 14 14:52:40 PDT 2001


Isnt there a problem in contrasting Iraq with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in terms of the former not having US support? I recall that Iraq even under Hussein and even when he was gassing Kurds had US support. It was only when he didnt behave as the US wished that he lost support. Was he kinder and gentler when he had US support? By the by if one compares the situation of women in Saudi Arabia with those in Iraq, surely Iraq is far and away the more progressive and less autocratic state.

Third world dictators blame external forces, for their excesses, corruption, and ineptitude? Have you examples? I was unaware that dictators usually admitted to excesses, corruption, and ineptitude? But perhaps you can cite an example of dictators X or Y saying: We have a lot of corruption, and ineptitude, and it is all the fault of the US. What did you have in mind?

The closest I can come to making any sense of this is blaming corruption on adopting western values--ie.when someone is found to embezzle government funds for personal gain. This might be seen as caused by adopting the view that it is indvidual selff-interest and material gain that are important, etc. rather than loyalty to group goals. I don't know how ineptitude would fit in.

Cheers, Ken Hanly

----- Original Message ----- From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>

.
> At best we can speculate. And in the vein of such speculation, there is a
> reason to believe that the US support might have some softening effect on
> the harshness of local autocracy, as a comparison of Saudi Arabia or
Kuwait
> (both client states of the US) and Iraq seem to suggest. Or we can
> speculate otherwise by contrasting, say, Cuba and Central America. One is
> free to pick the speculative poison to one's mind.
>
.
> >
> In that vein, it is one thing to accuse the US administration of political
> myopia, opportunism, or lack of imagination - which is essentially true,
> and quite a different thing to hold it responsible for all imaginable evil
> in the world - which is sheer lunacy. That lunacy, however, seem to be
> valid currency among many third world dictators and propagandists who
blame
> the external force for their own exceses, corruption, or ineptitude. This
> might be fine, since every power figure does that to some extent. What I
> find foolish, to say the least, is that self-proclaimed "progressives"
with
> big pretenses to critical thinking, take this tripe for its face value and
> repeat ad nauseam as their political 'programme.'
>
> wojtek
>
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list