[Osx-nutters] President Bush Vows Attacks "Across the World"

[Guy Hammond]

David Cake wrote:
>     Errr.... because the Baathists weren't really Islamic at all? The 
> Baath ideology is secular, socialist Arab nationalism. Most of Saddams 
> rhetoric was opposing religion in government (using that as an 
> argument to criticise Israeli Zionism, naturally). And Saddam wasn't 
> in the business of letting mulllahs have any say in government.
Don't forget the pan-Arabist element of Ba'athism. Nationalist socialism 
organized along racial lines... where have we seen that before? The idea 
that a single division, deployed early enough, could have prevented WW2 
is a powerful one.
>     If opposing radical Islam was the agenda, removing Saddams 
> Baathist government was clearly idiotic.
Clearly, given that the West had used him for years as a tool to contain 
Iran, and probably still would be if he hadn't blundered into Kuwait. 
Tho', since he had and was no longer a "friend", perhaps a case could be 
made that he would use radical Islam as a tool against the West. We know 
for a fact that Iraq was bankrolling "martyrs": 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2846365.stm


G