Was the fall of Saddam "a good thing"?

Lueko Willms Lueko.Willms at t-online.de
Mon Sep 8 13:31:26 MDT 2003


in reply to: 
# Subject: Was the fall of Saddam "a good thing"?
# From: "Fred Feldman" <ffeldman at bellatlantic.net>
# Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 14:15:13 -0400

   
> The idea that the toppling of a dictator by U.S. imperialism is "a
> good thing" half-buys the neoconservative ideological apology for
> Washington's attempt to wage a worldwide offensive against the
> semicolonial world in the name of ending terrorism and spreading
> democracy. 

   Sure, Fred, I agree completely with you and the following
arguments. 
Just that I understood Bob Gould's sentence: 

> Gould's Book Arcade wrote:
>> Nevertheless, despite the reactionary means of its removal, 
>> the fall of the hated Hussein regime was a good thing, from 
>> the point of view of the majority of the Iraqi masses who 
>> loathed the regime.

   ... to mean that the majority of the Iraqi masses viewed the
destruction of the Hussein regime as a "good thing", which is a fact,
in my opinion. 

   Maybe I'm wrong and misread the senctence, but this fact, where
many Iraqis kind of greeted the invaders with sentences like "thanks
for removing Saddam Hussein, now that you have done your job, you can
leave again" is one of the products of the rule of Saddam Hussein,
whose main crime consisted in sabotaging the defense of the Iraqi
national sovereignty. 


Yours, 
Lüko Willms 
Frankfurt/Main 
/ Lueko.Willms at T-Online.de 




~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list