They didn't want to do anything against Saddam? Tell me, do you know the history of Saddam's use of WMDs against his own people? If so, please explain them to me, I have obviously misunderstood.
Very true...but we should also not gloss over and downplay his cruelty --for the same reasons you noted above That said..Cohen hit it dead on! What friggin' difference does it make what Saddam's standards were, or how the Arab world (and non-Arab media) addressed it. This is not acceptable by OUR standards under ANY circumstance (including war) -- and defending that behavior destroys our credibility - with huge consequences for our chances of success. Can't we agree that this behavior was abhorrent without suggesting it's representative of most of the women and men in the military, and without compromising our support for military action??
I'm saying MacBeth is trying to portray America as being worse than Sadaam, taking in to account our actions since the Gulf War and Sadaam's since he came into power far after that.
I'm trying to what? I pointed out the ridiculous nature of our defense: that we're better than evil people, and then you ask me if we're worse than Saddam, I say depends on what criteria. WHere did I try and portray anything?
Is the US as bad Sadam? I's say not, but it is closer than some might think. Sadam killed and gassed hundreds of thousands of Kurds and fellow Iraqis. The US killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis including innocent children with our bombing of the health infrastructure and sanctions. This was allegedly because we didn't want him to have wmd, like we do.
Apparently on some sort of subconscious level in the Arab world, there is an urge among those with a strong individual "Arab Identity" to find what could be called the "Secular Arab Savior" who could unite Arabia, Persia, and Mesopotamia and bring back a time when the Middle East was the apex of culture and power in the civilized world and the peoples of Europe were hiding in caves and figuring out fire. This is also filtered through the view of the harsh world of the desert, where the culture has developed an intense attachment to hospitality and the respect that it denotes. In such a world failure to share what you have to someone in need means they won't find it, unless they need sand.; The unforgiving nature of the desert can also be seen through the strong extended tribal loyalties. People in the "land of plenty" can survive in a hermetic life, the desert doesn't forgive individual failures. This desire was also expressed by Sadam, through the construction of his many palaces using the ostentatious trappings of the great Babylonian ruler Nebuchadnezzar, through his fatalistic desire to stand up to the Americans, and was even evidenced through his actions towards Kuwait. I have seen it articulated on several occasions that at times in the past, Arabs longing for this Uber-Arab leader have caught illusory glimpses of this leader in Sadam, and many at various points have rested their faith with him. (Much as the US thought they saw their savior vs. Iran in the 80's, and were equally fooled.) In any case, because of this great longing for the great leader, on an irrational level many Arabs almost willfully ignored Sadam's many faults, and saw what they wanted to see. By the same token, in the US the Iraqi's see the reflection of the Empires of the 18th & 19th centuries, who most definitely did not have the least bit of respect for Arabs in general. One would imagine that by seeing what they want there people can avoid feeling the pain of what those of this particular school of thought would view as their own shame.
Otto: A few points on an interesting take; I suspect any culture wants it's own renaissance. I am unsure that you can attribute that desire to any geo-cultural epicenter, nor do I think that hospitality is uniquely explained by the desert. I agree it's a reason, as Lawrence noted, but in general hospitality is endemic to the world outside the industrialized West in a way we cannot fathom. As for Saddam, while his attempts at echoes do bring El Duce to mind, I always saw him as much more pragmatist than idealist, and am pretty convinced that he styled himself after none other than Al Capone, on a larger scale. He studied Capone's life when younger, and his moves and career mirror Scarface in so many ways. Finally, while any culture would look to a great leader, I imagine that the desire for him to be secular is probalby least prevelent in the Middle East, where it is regarded as a Westernized corruption. The irony about Saddam's fate was that he originally gained the deep anger and mistrust of surrounding Arab states for being a debauched puppet for the U.S. His appeals to the past were in part what has long been called 'the Oriental love of majesty', and in part ot make up for the vacuum his lack of Islamic devotion left in the eyes of his people.
To some degree I agree, but I would suggest that it's not specifically a function of the industrialized world, but rather a function of the world we've created from the natural resources and relative saftey of the US in North America. Of the prominant cultures of the past, the Greeks & Romans, in particular, had status as a land of plenty and desplayed many of the antisocial traits I see as American, whereas the. I also attribute specific relevance to what I consider to be a natural socialist character in peoples of the Scandanavian countries, and many other like cases to the fact that in cultures that develop beyond basic subsistance, natural resources are directly relevant to how socal cohesiveness develops. On the other hand I think that people in the developed world have a pastoral view of the virtues of simple cultures & peoples that completely disguises the realities of the cruelties that need fosters. Particularly, I look on the modern view of the Native Americans, as well as the Aztecs and Incans as "noble savages" who's garden of eden bliss was shattered by the cruel, uncaring hand of the world of technology. It's another compllling fantasy, this time fostered by luddite leanings, that is untrue. By the way, I do admit a personal obsession with Laurance via David Lean, and prefer it's romantic world to the world of reality in much the way that I attempt to describe Arab's flights of fancy. I've seen the movie so many times I can quote it line from line from beginning to end -- all 4 hours. I dunno... to me the mustache says "Man of Steel": Another wonderful example of a brual pragmatist who co-opted the styles of a bunch of people longing for an ideal that only existed in their minds. BTW, when I speak of "secular arab nationalism" I speak specifically in reference to the British attempt to offset fears of a "Pan-islamic revolt". The tactic worked too well for them and was later picked up by the Soviets as a rallying cry from the 40's through the end of the Soviet Afghanistan experience. I heard a wonderfuly enlightening genlteman on PRI today (pushing a book) who was both Jewish and a CIA agent in Pakistan starting at the end of the 60's. He related how the mujadadeen identified the Palestanians with Yasser Arafat who, at the time, was very friendly with the Soviet Union (aka "the enemy"). He related how several times (perhaps in jest) various mujahadeen sugested that after they got rid of the Soviets in Afghanistan, these fighters would be glad to return the favor and help the Jewish guy take care of his "Palestanian Problem".
That AGAIN? Weren't they UN SANCTIONS? So let's see, you want NO WAR, NO SANCTIONS ... uh, exactly how do you plan to deal with rogue nations and despots? You are aware that they exist, aren't you? BTW, in Northern Iraq, where the UN ... not saddam ... implemented the oil-for-food program, mortality rates fell below pre-Gulf War levels (http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/iraq.html) . * You claim to not be Anti-American. If you're not, then you must just be a self-loather.
