Our policy towards Saddam Hussein has been seriously warped by business interests within our political system. We are prepared to go to war against this former client state, not because of the menace he poses geopolitically, but for the menace he poses to the sponsors of our political leaders. Simply put: when Saddam did the bidding of our business interests and confined his atrocities to "islamic radicals" and even to potentially troublesome "ethnic minorities" within his own country, we lifted nary a finger in protest and winked slyly as US made arms and money flowed easily into his country to aid in his hideous regime. The very same thing happened over 50 years ago with Hitler; as long as he confined his atrocities to communists, labor unionists, and a few "ethnic minorities" business interests were satisfied about the "stability" he represented, poured money into his regime, and curbed the commercial media. Of course, the lapdog media later blamed the rise of Hitler on "appeasement" and rising isolationism and even pacifism. I wonder how many pacifists invested heavily in Nazi Germany? As long as business interests run our foreign policy, we will continue to aid in the rise of "figures of stability" like Saddam and Hitler who promise easy access to captive labor and unfettered access to natural resources and pose a threat to humanity. How many future Saddams are presently being counted as "allies" in our severely dysfunctional foreign policy?

---

Converted with HTML Markup 2.2 by Scott J. Kleper
http://www.printerport.com/klephacks/markup.html
ftp://htc.rit.edu/pub/HTML-Markup-current.hqx

---