On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Sunder wrote: > That all depends on your definition of sovereign. After all, "we" put, or > at least helped, that monster into power. No different an action than we > the many times before putting tyrants into control of small, but important > nations under the guise of "protecting democracy."
<huge snip> Whether we put the mofo into power or not is not relevent: the "nation" is a sovereign, regardless of the current figurehead who purports to represent it. Note: I don't *think* that anyone here is arging that Saddam was a nice guy - we're all just arguing at cross purposes. Camp A (me) seems to be arguing from a meta [societal] position, while Camp J is arguing from a personal-dislike position. Neither camp is likely to deter the other, since our frames of reference can never intersect :-( -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm