About democracy in Iraq: I really don't believe for a split second that democracy is what this is about UNLESS we're talking about democracy as a synonym for "western friendly". This definition is in fact the one used by the media and the politicans around here. Free elections are just make-up, what really matters is the country's allegiance in an "us against them" world.
About Soviet support to Iraq vs US support to Iran: These two chubbies made a tradition out of supporting different and opposing camps in various conflicts. It even happened that they swapped camps in the middle of the conflict, so that the Soviets supported a US equipped army and the US supported a Soviet equipped army. The Iranian shah was supported by the west, and I don't find it a bit supprising that Iraq ended up with Soviet weapons.
If I'm not terribly mistaken, Saddam got to power around the same time the Iranian priests made their way to the driver's seat throwing the shah out the window. These priests cannot be accused of being feverishly supportive towards the west. Who would benefit from having an anti-Iranian-priests force in the area? I add 2 and 2, and get the answer Saddam was a very convenient puppet in a political game.
About escalation or not: Libya is officially mourning Saddam's death. If someone plants the notion that the trial and execution was a stage play set up by the west, then what? I don't think we can safely say it will be such a domestic question if this divides other countries into a stronger "us against them". The countries don't even have to be arab or moslem. What about N. Korea? China? I have no idea, but I can't spot the glue here that will bond all countries closer together.
__________________
Je Suis Charlie
|