The Democratic Domino Theory Revisited

[Sevastopol]

Here’s a few Neo-Con predictions I recall:

• That American troops would be welcomed as victors, their path rose-strewn

• That the war would be over in a matter of months, 6 perhaps

• That Iraq would emerge as a secular democracy

• That reconstruction would be financed by Iraq oil revenues

• The cost of the war would be less that $60 B

• The Arab-Islamic world would deliver up Osama Bin Laden and pals.

• That Iraq had WMD

• Was manufacturing

• Was stockpiling

• Would be discovered to be in a collusive relationship with Al - Q

• Was on the brink of distributing WMD to world-wide terror networks.

So on one hand there’s a little more the Neo-Cons got wrong than ‘has WMD’

On the other hand, it is probable that like the people on this board, they didn’t believe any of the above. They had a keen eye for what would sell. So in that sense, they weren’t wrong about a damn thing.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: That kind of thinking might have justified the Bay of Pigs invasion, Captain. Don’t go there! And what, by the way, was the second “Soviet satellite in the Western hemisphere”? You’re not thinking of Nicaragua, I hope. Nicaragua under the Sandinistas was not even a satellite of Cuba.

Nicaragua was the recipient of economic and military aid from the Soviet Union, and military advisors from Cuba. Here’s an article by Major J. W. Wilson at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College from 1984, about Soviet and Cuban involvement in Nicaragua under the contras.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/WJW.htm

Which, I repeat, could have been resolved through diplomacy, or, failing that, sanctions. And the invasion happened just days before the canal was scheduled to be turned over to Panama, pursuant to the Torrijos-Carter Treaty – meaning, U.S. troops weren’t going to be there much longer in any case.

It’s unlikely that Noriega would have voluntarily stepped down and agreed to a trial due to diplomacy, and sanctions are of limited use, often times hurting the general population much more than the government. Also, since Noreiga got much of his money from drug transshipment, sanctions would, especially in this case, be ineffective.

Errmmm . . . Iraq was also an ally, Captain. At least, we gave Hussein aid when he went to war with Iran. Furthermore, Hussein acted on the U.S. ambassador’s assurance (at least, he could reasonably interpret it as assurance) that we wouldn’t have a problem with his invading Kuwait – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war . . .Iran and SA. So much the better… . .What was he going to do with that oil but sell it on the world market? Besides, just because we need something another country has does not justify our taking military action to secure the supply.

We did give Hussein aid during his war with Iran, but he was never an ally. Most of his military aid was from the Soviets. At best, it was an “enemy of my enemy” situation. And, I agree with you, Glaspie’s statements were ambiguous, although she never said “It’s ok for you to invade Kuwait.”

I’ll point out, too, about the Gulf War, that it wasn’t an American action…it was a UN action. There was a broad international coalition that said that the invasion of Kuwait was unacceptable, and it was an international force that got Iraq out of Kuwait.

[elucidator]

You know, come to think of it, the major share of strategicly vital whale blubber is under Canadian control, and they have been kind of pissy lately…

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

You know, come to think of it, the major share of strategicly vital whale blubber is under Canadian control, and they have been kind of pissy lately…

But think of the benefit of spreading democracy south of that border!

[BrainGlutton]

@Captain Amazing

Nicaragua was the recipient of economic and military aid from the Soviet Union, and military advisors from Cuba. Here’s an article by Major J. W. Wilson at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College from 1984, about Soviet and Cuban involvement in Nicaragua under the contras.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/WJW.htm

Of course. But an ally is not necessarily a “satellite.” East Germany was a Soviet satellite; Nicaragua rowed its own boat.

@Captain Amazing

It’s unlikely that Noriega would have voluntarily stepped down and agreed to a trial due to diplomacy . . .

:rolleyes:

No, I don’t suppose he would have. But you don’t start a war to bring a drug dealer to justice. That’s like bombing a whole city block because a crack dealer lives in one of the apartments.

@Captain Amazing

I’ll point out, too, about the Gulf War, that it wasn’t an American action…it was a UN action. There was a broad international coalition that said that the invasion of Kuwait was unacceptable, and it was an international force that got Iraq out of Kuwait.

You forgot Poland.

[Ryan_Liam]

No, I don’t suppose he would have. But you don’t start a war to bring a drug dealer to justice. That’s like bombing a whole city block because a crack dealer lives in one of the apartments.

Who was supported by a few thousand troops across a country, its a big difference.

You forgot Poland.

The United States, especially Secretary of State James Baker, assembled a coalition of forces to join it in opposing Iraq, consisting of soldiers from 34 countries: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States itself.

No we didn’t.

[Captain_Amazing]

@BrainGlutton

Of course. But an ally is not necessarily a “satellite.” East Germany was a Soviet satellite; Nicaragua rowed its own boat.

Ally, satellite, same difference. They were pro-Soviet, and therefore the enemy.

:rolleyes:

No, I don’t suppose he would have. But you don’t start a war to bring a drug dealer to justice. That’s like bombing a whole city block because a crack dealer lives in one of the apartments.

If the crack dealer has the resources Noriega did, you do.

You forgot Poland.

Poland was one of the countries who sent troops, along with a bunch of other countries. Other than that, I don’t know what you’re referring to.

[elucidator]

Oh, dear. How to put this delicately.

You see, Ryan, what friend Brain Glutton was doing was what we here in the Colonies refer to as a “joke”. The line “You forgot Poland” was delivered by our Doofus in Chief as a droll rebuttal to Mr. Kerry. Ironcily, this occured just the day before Poland announced its intention to get the hell out of Baghdodge. BG was making a jape, a jest, and is almost certainly entirely aware of noble Poland’s firm committment to the previous coalition. The real one, not the more recent ersatz imitation.

[manhattan]

@edwino

I’m willing to give your man props if you promise not to rub my nose in a pseudo-triumphalism yet unsupported by facts.

I’ll go one better. I’ll agree with each of the principles in your post (though of course I reserve the right to disagree about some of the practical applications of them ), I’ll dispense with any triumphalism (that’s for elections, anyway ) AND I’ll say to get the rest of the way we need you guys. Even if one disagrees with the war, even if one thinks the US stumbled into things rather than marched there, we’re here. Democracy is breaking out like pimples on Barry Bonds’ back. There are open demonstrations in places that would have responded with massacres just a couple years ago. There’s even the start of democracy in Saudi Arabia. Now’s the time to change the world.

Bush and Rice did a pretty good job on their European trip. The left can do better. I promise you, and you can promise Europeans and others, that George Bush will not run for president again. It’s time to stop running against him. It’s time to get together and help this thing happen. Convince Canada to train more Iraqi cops – in Iraq, not Qatar. It’s not for President Bush, it’s for Iraq. Convince France to cough up some money to help reconstruct Iraq’s crippled oil infrastructure – those old Elf guys at TotalFina know more about them than anybody in the world. It’s not for President Bush, it’s for Iraq. Get the Europeans to agree that Iran cannot become nuclear while the Mullahs are in power. For Iran. I think pretty much everybody is on board pressuring Syria for a quick Lebanon withdrawal; if we missed anybody, find them and get them on the train. Point out that multi-party elections in Egypt are definitely a step up, but wouldn’t it be nice to actually allow the opposition parties to form before nominating a candidate?

Keep the pressure up for debt forgiveness and renegotiation with newly free governments – don’t allow the uber-capitalists like me cause a backslide like happened in Russia after their '98 default. Make the case that “moral hazard” is a bigger problem for lenders than borrowers and that if they lent to a tyrant like Saddam then tough titty. Begin the process of making China responsible for the behaviour of its problem child North Korea and make it clear that they’ll pay in prestige and trade if they can’t do something about the country and about the thousands of asylum-seekers now camped across the border.

If everybody gets together now then 40 years from now no one will remember or care who was for or against what at the outset any more than they know or care who was an isolationist before WWII. They’ll remember that the free world got together to deliver freedom to the places they neglected (or worse) during the cold war. This is an historic opportunity to complete the spread of freedom throughout the world.

[pantom]

Maybe. Long as we can go another hundred years before having to think again about the pimples on Barry Bonds’ back. Ewww.

[edwino]

manhattan

This is why we need a new political movement in this country. 25 years ago, the Democrats were the pie-in-the-sky idealists while the Republicans were the hard-nosed pragmatics. Remember, the neocons come from a liberal background. I’m all for a new political movement cleaving off and embracing the neocons from the Republican Party. These are basically radical liberals (or at least supporters of liberty) we are seeing ruling the roost in the Republican foreign policy. With a dose of pragmatism, these policies could go like wildfire. If spun the right way, by the right people, it would be no problem at all to convince much of Europe and Canada and the rest to gladly follow in the footsteps.

Here’s what we need:

1. A pledge to use foreign diplomacy with one uniting goal: to further democracy and liberty. If this replaced the UN, I wouldn’t mind. Trade and sanctions would be strictly enforced by signatories; free trade would be limited by free press, religious tolerance, free elections, and other basic human rights.
2. There should be a set plan for using military methods where necessary. The criteria should be written down: threat to neighbors, threat to population or genocidal tendencies, pursuit of terror, failure of diplomacy.
3. A commitment to human rights both inside and outside the country. No use not practicing what you preach.
4. A united system of foreign aid which supports countries, either through sanctioned NGOs or trade agreements, in a fashion where the aid doesn’t end up in Swiss bank accounts.
5. Provisions for election monitoring, civil police a la gendarmes, civil engineering services, peacekeeping forces, and invasion forces (if necessary).
   I’m sure the list can go on. But it is something this left-moderate would enthusiastically support.

[Nietzsche]

@manhattan

Get the Europeans to agree that Iran cannot become nuclear while the Mullahs are in power. For Iran.

Not sure I follow. How is this “for Iran?” If they cow to your threats, they won’t get bombed?
As for the rest of your suggestions for “The Left”, I’m a little confused. You are suggesting those who were opposed to such foolish policies abandon their objections and concerns and simply get on board because…? Misery loves company? I’m not sure why others should simply forget about their concerns, no matter how much “The Right” wants to ignore them. If you want to fantasize about democracy spreading like some benevolent philosophy across the dark land of despotism, that’s your business. But others who were, and still are, opposed to such policies see that “democracy” is bringing Islamist leaders to power, North Korea is responding to threats with more beligerence, and that the recent unrest in Lebanon is fuck all like the ones in Ukraine. So I would most humbly like to submit a suggestion of my own for the American right. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Not for “The Left,” for America.

[Kimstu]

furt: *An identifiable, goal of increased democratization in the Middle East. was clearly set, long before the war. *

It didn’t originate with the Bush Administration, either. As this policy analysis from early 2001 points out,

The most important factor in Clinton’s decision to promote political reform in the Middle East was the political situation in many Arab nations in the early 1990s. Arab regimes faced severe socio-economic problems, popular demands for political rights, and the increasing strength of Islamist opposition movements. Several governments were forced to begin painful economic restructuring programs. To gain support for these controversial programs and to quell popular unrest, many Arab leaders lifted restrictions on political activity and expanded participation in formal political processes. Countries including Algeria, Jordan and Yemen held multiparty elections, which increased opposition parties’ presence in parliament. In Morocco, Qatar and elsewhere, regimes accepted greater media openness. Throughout the region, non-governmental organizations monitored human rights violations, conducting public opinion research, and fighting corruption, activities which had been too risky to engage in previously. […]

On balance, however, the U.S. decided that a pre-emptive, tightly controlled process of political liberalization deserved U.S. support, particularly if it helped to decrease the appeal of Islamist groups. […]

This support manifested itself in several ways. In dialogue with friendly countries such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. raised sensitive matters such as human rights, press freedom and women’s rights. The U.S. justified its policies toward so-called rogue states such as Iraq and Libya by faulting these states for their human rights abuses and repressive governments. The Department of State’s annual human rights reports on Arab governments’ undemocratic practices became more critical.

The U.S. also began to incorporate democracy-related initiatives into many of its foreign assistance and public diplomacy programs in the Arab world. Overseen by the Department of State, USAID and the former USIA and implemented by U.S. non-profits and contractors, these democracy aid programs provided Arab governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations with technical assistance, training, equipment, strategic advice, and sometimes funding. They aimed to support political reforms already under way in the region by improving the quality of governance, making political institutions such as parliaments more accountable to their constituencies, and strengthening civil society organizations’ ability to contribute to local and national policy-making.

As the analysis points out, the start of democratization in many ME countries was forced on them by social and economic pressures back in the 1990’s, and was encouraged by Clinton administration policies. Many reforms slowed or stalled by the late 1990’s, and it’s true that Bush’s post-9/11 emphasis on pro-democracy rhetoric, as well as the Iraqi elections, helped get them moving again.

But to claim that Bush’s actions are the chief source of current pro-democracy developments, without analyzing all the other factors involved, is over-simplistic and unconvincing. The type of argument that I would consider convincing to support a claim that Bush’s war deserves most of the credit for ME democratization is one that takes into account all the other developments too, over time and in detail, and still plausibly makes a case that the Iraq war had a net greater positive impact. I don’t think you can credibly make such an argument.

[Kimstu]

Stratocaster: The goals that the adminstration specifically identified and predicted would begin to unfold. Democracy would start to take root in the ME, with people specifically citing the “Bush Doctrine” as the inspiration for their efforts.

As I’ve noted, it doesn’t make sense to describe current developments as democracy “starting to take root” in the ME. That’s just a vague waffle-statement that applies equally well to the democratizing changes back in the early 1990’s. (Nor has the administration “specifically predicted” particular political changes in the ME, other than the holding of elections in Iraq, which it’s currently occupying and controlling.)

Stratocaster: The Left would snort, “Merely coincidence!”

I don’t think anybody is suggesting that any of the current developments are “merely coincidental”. That doesn’t mean, though, that Bush’s war was the only significant factor in them, or even the most significant.

Stratocaster: As democracy took a firmer hold, this would lead to, “Actually, this outcome was an inevitability, completely unrelated to anything the Bush adminstration did. In fact, I believe I may have predicted this back in the Clinton administration. Yes, nothing surprising here at all.”

I don’t think anybody is arguing that ME democratizing changes are “inevitable” or “completely unrelated” to Bush’s actions, any more than they’re saying that they’re “merely coincidental”. It’s quite true, though, that some of these changes did originate back in the Clinton administration, and some even further back, during Bush I.

Stratocaster: And finally, “Now that I think about it, the invasion of Iraq probably set back the cause of democracy. If only Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, the tide would have turned months earlier. Damn Republicans!”

Well, we’ve got a long way to go before we can say “finally”. But there is certainly no doubt that the invasion of Iraq has increased hostility and distrust toward the US in the Muslim world, even though it’s also true that the Iraqi elections have inspired many democracy advocates. Whether the overall net effect will be to accelerate or retard the cause of democracy in general is hard to tell.

In short, what you’ve described isn’t actually any kind of “proof” that Bush chose “the right course of action”, as you call it, but simply a rhetorical strategy to assign Bush all the credit for positive developments. It’s clever PR, but that’s all it is.

[Stratocaster]

@Kimstu

Stratocaster: The goals that the adminstration specifically identified and predicted would begin to unfold. Democracy would start to take root in the ME, with people specifically citing the “Bush Doctrine” as the inspiration for their efforts.

As I’ve noted, it doesn’t make sense to describe current developments as democracy “starting to take root” in the ME. That’s just a vague waffle-statement that applies equally well to the democratizing changes back in the early 1990’s. (Nor has the administration “specifically predicted” particular political changes in the ME, other than the holding of elections in Iraq, which it’s currently occupying and controlling.)

It may well be analogous to democratizing changes from the early 90’s. That doesn’t make either activity something other than it is. And I may be reading different cites in this thread than you, but I’m seeing specific objectives as outcomes for removing the Iraqi dictatorship in favor of a democracy, and those outcomes are at least beginning to take root, IMO. Lots can happen before a robust democratic movement blossoms, of course.

Stratocaster: The Left would snort, “Merely coincidence!”

I don’t think anybody is suggesting that any of the current developments are “merely coincidental”.

No, you’re wrong. People in this very thread are indeed suggesting (more than suggesting) that it is mere coincidence. Brain Glutton, for example, dismisses it out of hand unless someone can document a causal relationship, as if we were plotting out chemical reactions.

Stratocaster: As democracy took a firmer hold, this would lead to, “Actually, this outcome was an inevitability, completely unrelated to anything the Bush adminstration did. In fact, I believe I may have predicted this back in the Clinton administration. Yes, nothing surprising here at all.”

I don’t think anybody is arguing that ME democratizing changes are “inevitable” or “completely unrelated” to Bush’s actions, any more than they’re saying that they’re “merely coincidental”. It’s quite true, though, that some of these changes did originate back in the Clinton administration, and some even further back, during Bush I.

No, you’re wrong–again, people are suggesting that these changes are unrelated to Bush’s actions, suggestions made in this very thread.

And I mentioned in my post that were weren’t quite in this phase yet, though it appears that people are indeed now trying to suggest some form of linear progression between the Clinton administration (headed by a president who offered much to admire, but who criticizes Bush’s policy in Iraq) and the democratization currently underway. Bush merely continues the inexorable progression toward ME democracy, standing on the shoulders of the giants before him.

The war is a horrible debacle for some, it would seem, an unmitigated disaster–except to the extent that it’s really a reaffirmation of the Clinton policy that got the wheels of ME democracy turning. OK. My buddy is looking more and more prescient!

Stratocaster: And finally, “Now that I think about it, the invasion of Iraq probably set back the cause of democracy. If only Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq, the tide would have turned months earlier. Damn Republicans!”

Well, we’ve got a long way to go before we can say “finally”. But there is certainly no doubt that the invasion of Iraq has increased hostility and distrust toward the US in the Muslim world, even though it’s also true that the Iraqi elections have inspired many democracy advocates. Whether the overall net effect will be to accelerate or retard the cause of democracy in general is hard to tell.

In short, what you’ve described isn’t actually any kind of “proof” that Bush chose “the right course of action”, as you call it, but simply a rhetorical strategy to assign Bush all the credit for positive developments. It’s clever PR, but that’s all it is.

Yep, yep, of course. Someone need only chime in now with how the Bush’s doctrine actually set back the cause of democracy and the cycle predicted will be more or less complete. Sorry, I am still amused!

[elucidator]

It’s all rather odd. Manny singing from the Fuzzy Thinking One Worlder Hymn Book, a bit like Ayn Rand singing “That Old Rugged Cross”, boxed set, $19.95, not available in stores.

He seems to suggest we just let bygones be bygones, give ol’ George a do-over, and we of the Loyal Opposition line up in support of the new! improved! global strategy. Under New Management! Well, no, not new leadership, the same old leadership, just with a newly loyal following: us.

Two problems with that. Big problems.

First off, these clowns were not simply stupid, they were adamantly stupid and unshakeably determined on a course of stupidity, you’re either stupid, or you’re against us, and if you’re against us, you’re against America.

But we weren’t stupid, Manny, we were right, and events have shown that to be so. So we are now expected to line ourselves up behind leadership that has offered us nothing but their contempt and slander? And as much as I admire how the dewey-eyed optimist garb looks on you (“Clear Eye for the Tighty-Righty Guy”?), it seems a rather recent development, a bit sudden. You seem to suggest we just let bygones be bygones, and put our trust in men who won’t offer us any trust in return.

We have quite enough on our plates as it is, we are obligated to clean up this galactic scale mishigas, we drove a car bomb into the Pottery Barn, we have a lot of cleaning up to do. Might be best just to keep focused on the matters at hand, rather than taking up any new crusades…perhaps that’s not the best word.

And we are not really in a position to nominate ourselves as a moral authority and beacon of virtue. A very large segment of the world, especially in the ME, looks upon us with a gimlet eye and sees a band of belligerent, self-righteous yahoos. They have a point. Perhaps a bit further down the road, when we have, with your enthusiastic cooperation, replaced this “leadership” with a different crew. Perhaps then we can make a claim to being Under New Management, and make tentative steps toward regaining the trust of He Who Sits in Darkness.

But shrug it off, call it a Mulligan, give that good ol’ boy another crack at it, he’s really starting to get the hang of this global leadership thing? No, can’t get there from here. Mr. Bush needs to apply himself where his talents are proportionate to the effort. There remains a considerable amount of brush to be cleared in and around Crawford, TX. The sooner he devotes his full attention, the better for all concerned.

[elucidator]

@Stratocaster

…Someone need only chime in now with how the Bush’s doctrine actually set back the cause of democracy and the cycle predicted will be more or less complete. Sorry, I am still amused!

Well, yes, at least in the numerical sense, since there is an untold number of Iraqis who are unqualified to participate in democratic processes, being…how shall I put this?..dead.

[pantom]

The Medium Lobster nails it:

News travels slowly in the Mideast, where messages are still passed from place to place by antique methods such as carrier pigeon and satellite television. As a result, most Arabs knew little of the existence or nature of the world beyond them, or of “the West” and its fabled “democracy.”…Sadly, being only aware of Iraqi democracy, the entire Middle East currently believes that democracy only functions with sporadic elections for anonymous Islamist candidates in the midst of a massive terrorist campaign. What is needed is a better role model: another, more violent invasion of a bigger, more responsive country ought to do the trick. The Medium Lobster is open to suggestions.

Like stratocaster, I can only be amused by this thread, but for the entirely different reason that it’s fun to watch the right’s delusion that the whole world revolves around the US, waiting breathlessly for what falls from the lips of Dubya, or something.
I mean, if this thing is so inspired by us and our marvelous President and his Excellent War, why are they calling it an “intifada for indepencence”? Like I said above, one source of their inspiration was The Ukraine. Another source was, horrors, horrors, the Palestinian uprising against Israel, apparently.
Wotta revolting development that is, eh? All in all, the evidence that this had anything to do with the US and our Iraq war is vanishingly thin.

[Sam_Stone]

elucidator said:

But we weren’t stupid, Manny, we were right, and events have shown that to be so. So we are now expected to line ourselves up behind leadership that has offered us nothing but their contempt and slander? And as much as I admire how the dewey-eyed optimist garb looks on you (“Clear Eye for the Tighty-Righty Guy”?), it seems a rather recent development, a bit sudden. You seem to suggest we just let bygones be bygones, and put our trust in men who won’t offer us any trust in return.

You were RIGHT? Let’s see…

• If you had had your way, Saddam would still be in power in the Middle East. He would still be thumbing his nose at the U.S., riling up other Arabs, propping up the notion that dictatorship was the path to a pan-Arab utopia, and funding Palestinian suicide bombers.

• If you had your way, almost certainly Libya would still be in the WMD game. We wouldn’t have known about AQ Khan and the nuclear materials he was selling.

• If you had your way, the left would be marching today to have sanctions on Saddam removed, strongly supported by France, Russia, China, and others who wanted to do business with Saddam.

• If you had your way, billions of dollars from the oil-for-food program would still be flowing to corrupt politicians, and the Iraqi people would still be oppressed and starving.

• If you had your way, the U.S. would have had to stand-down 70,000 troops amassed in Kuwait, in a humiliating defeat.

• If you had your way, the plight of the Iraqi people under sanction would be used to whip up even more anti-American rhetoric in the ME, and the lack of alternatives to dictatorship would still be pushing young people towards extremism and violence. Now at least they have an alternative.

• Finally, if you had had your way, the sanctions would eventually have crumbled, and Saddam would have been able to go back to building up both conventional and unconventional weapons at a frantic pace. Then we would have had to go to war with him anyway, except this time on much worse terms.

I can’t by any stretch of the imagination believe that the world as a whole or U.S. interests would be better off if you had had your way. Not even remotely.

[Ryan_Liam]

• Finally, if you had had your way, the sanctions would eventually have crumbled, and Saddam would have been able to go back to building up both conventional and unconventional weapons at a frantic pace. Then we would have had to go to war with him anyway, except this time on much worse terms.

I can’t by any stretch of the imagination believe that the world as a whole or U.S. interests would be better off if you had had your way. Not even remotely.

But don’t you get it Sam Stone, Saddam could of liberated those poor Wahabbist Saudis with his equally repulsive Baa’thist ideology of Pan Arabism! Just think! We’d have ‘Secular’ Saddam guardian of the gates of Mecca and Medina, and keeper of the Worlds oil supplies :rolleyes: