X-Message-Number: 21378
From: 
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 08:23:32 EST
Subject: Saddam's good side

--part1_137.1c37ba5d.2b9debd4_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


I think Saddam may be a good dictator, let me explain:

If you look at middle east history in the 20th century and before, you'll see 
that these countries have a very primitive social system. Add to that modern 
rifles and other weapons and it is not hard to conclude that the only stable 
political system is a military, bloody dictature. Iraq is a case in point, 
there are others: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Syria and so on. So, Saddam is 
something as a rat lab in this arena: a dictator toy model.

What is interesting is that, as all dictators, he is mainly interested in 
military power and strong weapons. What we see with UN inspectors is for the 
first time such a dictator destroying his military power. So a strong 
pressure may constrain a bloody dictator to take a good behavior.

Assume, as asked by France and other, inspectors are given 4 - 6 months to 
complete their job, there would be no more military hazard from Iraq. Would 
that solve all problems? I think no because there is the oil question. We 
need more and more oil and nearly all producer capacities are at maximum 
output. Either we must exploit new resources at high cost or use the last 
cheap oil in Iraq.

Doing that with Saddam in power is giving him a flood of dollars and so a way 
to build back his weapon collection and beyond. So he can't remain in power, 
even with a good UN job. It seems there are two solutions: Persuade him to 
quit or make a war, it seems this is the thinking level of the Bush's 
administration. Any other solution?

I think so. If a run of the mill dictator can be persuaded to destroy his 
military power, why not use the same pressure tool to impose democracy? End 
of the Baas party, multipartism, end of the political police and so on. It 
could be controlled by the UN. A new constitution could be imposed with 
impossibility to an elected president to make more than two terms...  After 
some years of strong control the new democracy could run on its own power and 
Saddam would quit as a new president would be elected. There would be no war.

This would be a strong signal in all dictatures of the world: A bloody tyrant 
could not, as Pinochet in Chile, rule his country until retirement and keep 
military power until death.

Well, there will be a war, many casualties, a call to Jihad, more insecurity, 
less liberties in democratic countries, more police, more economical 
recession because of the cost of these unproductive forces, more controls and 
so more administrative constrains implemented by more unproductive state 
workers,...

Sad we miss the Saddam's good side.
Yvan Bozzonetti.

--part1_137.1c37ba5d.2b9debd4_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21378