- 31 Dec 2022 20:33
#15260657
Saddam, the Cuban regime and the Iranian regime, all went of their way to insult the United States. All three sought and received legitimacy from being the enemies of the United States.
However Saddam's regime was very, very different from the Iranian. Saddam's regime was based on the Sunni Arab and Sunni Turkoman minorities, making up may be 18 to 20 percent of the population. Even within the Sunni Arab community Saddam was widely hated, relying on narrower clan and family communities for the core security of his regime. The Sunni Arabs tended to grudgingly support Saddam's fascist terror regime after 1991, because they feared majority rule, in the same way that most Afrikaans feared majority rule in Apartheid South Africa. The removal of Saddam was absolutely right. if we are going to flush free speech down the toilet and make "Holocaust denial" or questioning a crime, then shouldn't we make denying Saddam's evil a crime as well, as its much more recent and therefore much more important.
The Iranian regime has far greater support and perceived legitimacy amongst Iranians than Saddam did in Iraq. Even if it doesn't have majority support, a very substantial minority are willing to risk their lives to defend the regime. Invading Iran would be a very different kettle of fish. It should be noted that the two biggest Iraqi opposition groups, SCIRI and DAWA were based in Iran. Iran gave tacit support to the American invasion of 2003,even if they opposed the US taking up permanent residency in Iraq.
So the question is, what is the situation in Cuba. If its more like Saddam's Iraq or like Poland under Communism, the US should really get on and invade and Britain France and Germany should at least send token forces to take part.
XogGyux wrote:I already told you I have no issues with the normalization of the relationship with Cuba. But you seem to think this is a US problem, and it isen't. Cuba is the abnormal country in this situation.
Saddam, the Cuban regime and the Iranian regime, all went of their way to insult the United States. All three sought and received legitimacy from being the enemies of the United States.
However Saddam's regime was very, very different from the Iranian. Saddam's regime was based on the Sunni Arab and Sunni Turkoman minorities, making up may be 18 to 20 percent of the population. Even within the Sunni Arab community Saddam was widely hated, relying on narrower clan and family communities for the core security of his regime. The Sunni Arabs tended to grudgingly support Saddam's fascist terror regime after 1991, because they feared majority rule, in the same way that most Afrikaans feared majority rule in Apartheid South Africa. The removal of Saddam was absolutely right. if we are going to flush free speech down the toilet and make "Holocaust denial" or questioning a crime, then shouldn't we make denying Saddam's evil a crime as well, as its much more recent and therefore much more important.
The Iranian regime has far greater support and perceived legitimacy amongst Iranians than Saddam did in Iraq. Even if it doesn't have majority support, a very substantial minority are willing to risk their lives to defend the regime. Invading Iran would be a very different kettle of fish. It should be noted that the two biggest Iraqi opposition groups, SCIRI and DAWA were based in Iran. Iran gave tacit support to the American invasion of 2003,even if they opposed the US taking up permanent residency in Iraq.
So the question is, what is the situation in Cuba. If its more like Saddam's Iraq or like Poland under Communism, the US should really get on and invade and Britain France and Germany should at least send token forces to take part.
Progressives lie scattered on Woke's highway, Diverse ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.