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]
>If I compare what is written about the same SH and the >same government, I conclude that they must be talking >about 2 different countries. In 1981, Iraq and it's >government were praised for the alphabetisation of its >population (UNESCO also acknowledged this), the efforts >in the field of public health, investments of oil >revenues in its own economy and infrastructure, woman >rights etc.. We humans love to put things, and people, into neat little boxes of classification -- but of course, that means inaccuracy. In considering Saddam, although I have often ebough heard that is "evil", I think it's best to consider this in relative terms. "Evil", is always relative. We now think slavery is evil, but that was always so. Standards of maorality change. I find it helpful for me to think of Saddam as, while perhaps evil by current standards, to be more accurately thought of as "medieval". Compare him the medieval kings of Europe, or the old Shahs of Persia, or Vlad the Impaler. In centuries past it was assumed that the king would be the king and, at that time by the idea of "divine right", entitled to virtually anything to keep in power. Treason defined as disloyalty not to the nation, but to the king -- the king WAS the nation. Even the best of those kings had their torture chambers and would regularly behead political opponents, or large masses of rebels, without thinking twice about it. The great religious founders regularly tortured people. Luther roasted a "blasphemer" over a slow fire, who finally died after half an hour. At the same time, many of those rulers worked hard to improve the country and the lot of the people, and were quite as generous to his supporters as ruthless to his enemies. The first rule was to survive, at any cost, to any other person. I have heard that during the time of one of the greatest Persian rulers -- was it Suliman -- it was common practice when a son inherited the throne for him to kill all his brothers to eliminate rivals. I think Saddam would fit in quite comfortably with those times and kings -- and be thought of as one of the better of them in terms of being good to the people -- although by modern standards of course he is evil and monsterous. But then we have those like Bush, who are also throwbacks to an earlier age -- perhaps the period of colonialism or the guilded age -- and who could have managed fairly well in the medieval period themselves. If we look into the philosophies the US hawks follow, like the cults of Leo Strauss, we find clear reference to recapturing older ideas like "might makes right". In the 21st century many of us find both ages shocking and primitive, and the more primitive throwbacks as well. I think, however, that we can better understand events by seeing them in light of those past cultures: Saddam, I suspect, is neither a "madman" nor "evil", but brutally primitive: think of him as a medieval king in the same circumstances and his actions become almost transparant. ________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today! _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk