Saddam on Trial

[Bottle or the Gun]

Re: Re: Re: Saddam on Trial

This is absurd inuendo. The potential Iraq market represented a miniscule fraction of the US economy. The idea that we would cozy up to him simply because we wanted to sell more coca-cola simply doesn't fly.

Sometimes opening a market isn't about how it affects the US economy as a whole, but benefits a few that rake in the money. Large companies with influence will pressure governments to make their entry a little more easy. In South Korea in the 80's, when I was there, many US products were illegal to sell on the local market. Ketchup, Mayo and gigarettes for example. When US imports of Ketchup were finally allowed it caused a frenzy among the shoppers (the local products were awful) and they bought like crazy, but opening that market didn't do anything for the US economy, just the guys that made condiments.

More cola sales in Iraq won't do anything for my bank account, but a few million bottles a year sure does something for Coca Cola.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Saddam on Trial

Sometimes opening a market isn't about how it affects the US economy as a whole, but benefits a few that rake in the money.

That requires a rather specific line of reasoning and evidence - who benefited, how much, and how did they manage to influence policy. That there was benefit for some isn't enough, since the government does sometimes act against special interests, even well-connected ones (the cancelation of the crusader artillery system by the Bush administration is a recent example). In the case of Iraq, none of this information was provided. In its absence, I'm going to say that glee was posting out his backside. And in fact, glee changed his tune by talking about the US desire to counter Iran, a position that has some basis in reality.

 

[demon]

Karl:
"Waging war against Iran is not included in the charges, but I heard on the news today that Iran demands that it should be..."

To the list of crimes Saddam hasn't been charged with, you can add the enormous number of deaths under sanctions. There's no doubt that the numbers who died during the 13 years' economic siege of Iraq dwarfed the dictator's toll. The US/UK tell us that all the suffering under sanctions was Saddam's fault so why aren't these deaths on his rap sheet?
It's very interesting that no one in the Iraqi Governing Council or the transitional government feels it either necessary or worthwhile to enquire into who was responsible for such a large loss of life.