Friday, July 16, 2004

The World Is Better Off Without Saddam So All MUST Be OK...    A lot of people will argue that it doesn't really matter if the war was based on faulty intelligence (or perhaps outright lies) because the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. Even if this were true, that does not justify an administration misleading the American people to justify starting a war. Is there anyone alive who thinks we felt we needed to remove Saddam because of  his horrible treatment of his own people? When he gassed the Kurds, did we care then? Most of the same people ran the government then as do now! We didn't mind when he gassed the Iranians right? We normalized relations with the bastard and enabled US companies to SELL him the chemicals for weapons! That was Donald Rumsfeld who helped with that! We also gave weapons to Iran to use against Saddam at the same time!    So let's get off that moral bullshit high horse that we wanted to remove Saddam because he's bad. We not only knew he was bad but we helped him in his badness. Is it only wrong to use chemical weapons when it's on your own people? Why is it okay that our leaders lied to us to go to war? Would we be there if it weren't for the oil? NO! Our own intelligence community knew that Powell's speech was wildly inaccurate and misleading. Did we try to stop genocide in Rwanda? How about East Timor? NO! Why not? Those genocides were less bad somehow? No oil. LYING TO GO TO WAR IS BAD. HOW CAN PEOPLE NOT SEE THAT? OUR GOVERNMENT IS FULL OF PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING MONEY OFF THIS WAR. THEY LIED TO GET TO MAKE THIS MONEY AND NONE OF THEIR FAMILIES ARE PAYING WITH THEIR LIVES BECAUSE OF IT.    Somehow it is less bad to people that WE have had a hand in the deaths of some 10,000 Iraqis that it would be if Saddam did it. Why is it less bad when WE torture innocent people than when Saddam does it? WHY?...and about that other thing...that the world is better off without Saddam. If he were vaporized and a democracy took over and everyone lived happily ever after then yes. But at what cost does it become NOT worth it to have Saddam gone? Are the Iraqi people better off now than they were before? Are they safer? Do they have more jobs or more food or more electricity? It seems like they have less of all these things.     Is the rest of the world safer? Now there's a whole new generations of ready-to-be-terrorists in training. They hate us for what they deem our arrogance and think we hate Islam and Muslims and want to kill them. How are we better off there? The rest of the world doesn't like us much either. Great. Saddam hadn't attempted to do anything outside of his own borders in ten years and none of his neighbors thought the war was necessary. Are they better off now?...now that Iraq is swimming with terrorism and fundamentalism (and if there really WERE any WMD's does anyone think the terrorists can't get at them now????). WHO is better off now?    Osama will have more recruits to his cause. So I guess he's better off. Oh...and Bush has milked the whole thing for all he's been able to. Without the "war on terror" he was a joke. This all made him seem credible to some people. Of course his cabinet of military industry and oil folks have benefitted too. They've profited handsomely and kept the specifics of their no-bid contracts to themselves. They've gotten the contracts to rebuild the Iraq they destroyed. Does anyone wonder who will make a windfall when the oil starts really flowing? How can anyone not have a problem with all this? Someone please enlighten me here? 8:36:23 PM    comment []