Of course Stalin was an evil dictator. But Fisk is not discussing that. He is discussing Stalin, the military strategist, whose strategy, need I remind, that was highly useful to the United States at the time, and comparing it to that of Hussein.

A fair reading of the article will find no praise or blame of Stalin except perhaps as a military strategist.

Adesnik is making a fuss about what he assumes Fisk must mean, and does nothing but make a fool of himself.

Forgive me for saying this but, government systems hold onto power by providing some level of results to their people. I don’t want to minimize the ruthlessness of the Iraqi regime, but the truth is that somebody who stays in power that long must be doing something right.

Jefferson wrote that “governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed” and he wrote it during a time when there were NO REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACIES on the face of the earth. They were all as we would say dictatorships.

Re Max: Good socialism beats bad capitalism doesn’t it?

The parliamentarians in 1770s London might disagree: they’d fought a civil war, deposed one monarch and orchestrated the succession of the Hanoverians precisely to guarantee that ‘consent’.

There’s also the slight problem that the Iraqi army is totally outclassed by the US army; and there’s no industrial base to sustain a fight.

The Stalin comparision is helpful but one needs to look to what happened at the battle of Moscow- if I hear one more ignorant comment about Stalingrad I’m going to scream.

Basically at the Battle of Moscow there was some flight and panic in October-November 1941 but Stalin was resolute in staying and eventually restored order- but Stalin was a harder man then Saddam. And of course, the Russians won the battle of Moscow; but Saddam has no army of Siberians to come to HIS rescue.

His comparison is more valid though, when you consider the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. In Germany after the war they had de-Nazification programs, and it’s likely that something similar will be required in Iraq. Will the Administration stick around long enough to do it? Doubtful. But you can be sure that it won’t be done at all if the UN is involved.

They were both ruthless, murderous dictators who donned military attire.

Case closed!

Well maybe not.

Stalin’s USSR stole or developed most of its weapons technology. The US handed it to Saddam.

Stalin’s USSR was almost militarily and technologically equivalent to the US. Saddam’s Iraqi defensive war seems the most technologically lopsided war since Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935.

The USSR had an established hierarchy based on loyalty to the revolution. Saddam’s hierarchy is based on loyalty to Saddam’s family.

Dictators will all seem similar in their demeanor and practices on the surface – it comes with the territory afterall. Even those that seem benevolent or outwardly friendly will share such universal traits to varying degrees as: no elections (or mock elections), secret police, direct control of military and media, suppression (or physical eradication) of opposition, etc……..

We needn’t look far to find such “leaders”. They are everywhere – even among our “friends”.