> I don't really care whether or not theocratic fascists are inflamed. They've
> inflamed me. I'm not confident about what I think will happen post-war on
> Saddam, however, without Saddam and the economic sanctions and with the oil,
> Iraqis could be better off and hence more moderate. Saddam could no longer
> economically support the extreme elements of Hamas. (To take one example Abu
> Nidal, the Palestinian thug who spent a career killing more moderate
> Palestinians, lived under Saddam's protection until his death).
It is very hard for me to take this very seriously. Saddam Hussein sends money to the families of suicide bombers, an insurance policy on his part as he seeks to harvest any support for his regime he can and to portray himself as the sole Arab leader doing something about Palestine. It is transparently opportunistic to all except those whose houses were flattened by Israel. As for him supporting Hamas directly, I'd like to know where this allegation comes from; as far as I know Hamas is primarily bankrolled by your allies in Saudi Arabia.
Outside of the eerie world of American 'leftwing' politics, the US's far greater support for the far more destructive Israeli regime would be the first consideration, and Saddam present-bribes (ammounting to what, one thousandth of the US payment to the Israeli homicide bombers?) would be seen for what they are. The activities of a vulture picking at a corpse of our making.
The easy equations that appear in your post also arouse a lot of suspicion in my mind. Why would Iraqis be more moderate if they are better off? You are better off than they are, yet you don't appear to me at all moderate: here you are suggesting war for your beliefs. Fundamentalist liberalism is an ugly spectacle, but so common as not to merit the tag of hypocrisy. And why should it be good to see Iraqis become more 'moderate' anyway? What does this word mean? We Latin Americans cannot hear it without a particular resonance, particularly when it comes from up north. It reeks of white man's burden; indeed this whole justification for war quickly turns into the call for a liberalist crusade, one which would teach the brutes the virtues of democracy.
At least I agree with you in one respect. The argument that war against Iraq is inadvisable because it would cause the Egyptian junta or the Jordanian monarch to be overthrown (not sure how these are "theocratic" fascists though) only has merit within the strategic outlook of a Henry Kissinger. It strikes me as an argument of last resort, where an exasperated internationalist tells the warmonger: if you will not listen to reason, at least follow your self- interest! Well, if war in Iraq could bring about revolution in Egypt, so much the better. A slaughter would be offset by a wedding. But I would not be holding high hopes about the character of such a revolution, specially not after the display of fanatical and murderous liberalism you advocate. It seems likely that by comparison to that, Wahhabi Islam would seem merciful and kind.
Thiago Oppermann
------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: www-mail.usyd.edu.au