The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Iraq

On Thu, 5 Feb 1998, S. Barakat wrote:

> > how about this (conterversial) suggestion ; asassinate Saddam Hussein.
> > If it is acceptable to kill civilians because their country is a threat, I
> > can't see a problem with removing the man who carries the blame.
> isn't that what the
> bombing is trying to achieve? ok, i know the point is supposed to be to
> get iraq to comply with un resolutions etc, but at the end of the day
> saddam is the problem, right? as we're in the 90s and the US care about
> their image it wouldn't look too good to send the cia in, so why not bomb
> the place, boost the arms industry and give everyone the impression that
> we're fighting for peace and democracy at the same time!
> to be honest it is hard to make sense of the whole situation.  If the US
> had wanted to get rid of saddam they would have done so a long time ago.
> he's useful as a "demon", so why the whole strike thing now? can anyone
> offer any insights?
> samira 
The CIA could easily assassinate Saddam and make it look like one of his
own men did it. This person could be painted national hero and
liberator set up as a puppet leader. Anybody here remember Vietnam? It
went wrong there, so I figure either the US hasn't found the right person
to take over, or feels that the enemy they know is better than the one
they don't know. Perhaps they even think to assassinate Hussain is
going too far. You never know. However, it is clear that the US has no
advantage in keeping a 'demon' in the Mid-East. As mentioned in previous 
postings, oil prices would fall if Iraq were producing up to capacity.
That is definitely to US interest, as the largest consumer.

The Middle East isn't a region that Americans care much about because it
is far away, and their own current issues  with plurality mostly have to
do with Asian and Latin American immigrants. You have to understand this
is a nation that is huge, has no natural enemies, and whose people go into
culture shock if they enter the next state. Most of them cannot conceive
of the internationalism that is the reality of smaller countries like
those in the Middle East and Europe who are not boardered on 2 sides by
enormous oceans and do not grow more food than they can possibly eat. That
doesn't translate directly to provincialism, because it is such a big
place. It is strange, because everyone in the world thinks about America
a lot more than most Americans are thinking about them.

- Patricia
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
> To be removed/added, email, NOT the
> whole list. Archived at

This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email, NOT the
whole list. Archived at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]