> Sure - that is. But was it in the movie? I didn't think so. I thought the
> film made the point that the US helped Saddam against his own people after
> the war, thus mounting what is an obvious and very savage criticism of
> humanitarian intervention. Think of the scene where Marky Mark (I forget
his
> real name, thus expose myself as a pop culture junkie)
Mark Wahlberg, brother of former New Kids on the Block member Donnie Wahlberg.
> is fed oil whilst his Iraqi captor narrates how he was trained by the CIA
and how his daughter > got blown up by a US bomb. "Freedom, my main man? You
think this is about
> freedom? This is what it's about!" and he forces the oil down his throat.
> Chomsky could agree. More subtly, the soldiers only save the Shiites by
> taking them to freedom in Iran (!!!) and behaving unlike soldiers.
The post of mine you reply to below conceded this very point. (Imagine that... someone conceding a point in a debate.)
> Oh yes it does - had there been a successful internal revolution twelve
> years ago, maybe we'd have a million less corpses on our hands.
Yes, but perhaps such a revolution would've led to a brutal civil war that would make Saddam and sanctions look comparatively appealing. I suppose that might now be a live (but slim) possibility, though.
-- Luke