-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 10:11, Sunder wrote:

That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, "we" put, or at least helped, that monster into power.

No we did not. in 1958 pro soviet socialists gained ascendency in Iraq, but a power struggle proceeded between the communist and baathist wings of the socialist movement. In 1963, the baathists launched a coup, intended to be launched simultaneously in all arab countries, to establish a united supranational arab state based on the arab race and socialism. The coup succeeded in Syria, succeeded only temporarily in Iraq. Allegedly this coup was supported by the CIA, but there is no evidence for this, nor does it seem very believable that the CIA would wish to see the arabs united under a pan arab socialist regime. Shortly thereafter there was a counter coup against the baathists in iraq, which established a conventional military regime, whch was eventually overthrown by Baathists in 1967. If the CIA gave support to either coup, which one do you think it more likely to support?

No different an action than we the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important nations under the guise of "protecting democracy."

The trouble with your account of events is that the baathists were then as they are today socialist, pan arabist, anti american and anti colonialist, hence improbable as beneficiaries of CIA benevolence.

So, while he was our puppet, he was the good guy, and no matter how many he murdered, he was a benevolent leader.

Saddam was no more "our puppet" than Stalin or Pol Pot was, nor was he ever deemed a good guy, any more than they were. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vBqQagnGXwPK05ONAmls2anbapINr8iAonZNkXey 4iqeeJi9vST/28skvcS3MLX6xe/UAtn9L94MWRoIS