>As for the Hitchens/Nolan concept of what's to come, all I can say is, "If
>only." If there were a genuine desire to democratize Iraq, or to allow the
>Iraqis to rule themselves free of a fascist thug, then I'd have no problem
>with knocking Saddam out (and really don't anyway). He's got to go and will
>go. How and under what conditions remain to be seen.
I'm no fan of Saddam. He was a monster when he was doing the CIA's work, and he's a monster now that they're trying to whack him. But all you people who say he has to go - on what grounds do you not direct the same sentiments against the U.S. government? Has there been any force over the last 50 years that's killed and oppressed more people around the world? By what logic can you justify the U.S. as the agent of Saddam's removal? Next to three million dead Indochinese, hundreds of thousands of Central Americans, and over a million Iraqis, SH is an amateur. Which isn't to say that the U.S. is the only source of repressive violence in the world, or that American culture is the spawn of the devil, or any of the usual caricatures that patriots throw back at leftists making the critique. But how do you exempt the U.S. government itself from your logic, much less make it into a potential liberating angel?
Doug