Subject: More on Saddam Hussein
To George W. Bush, 4-4-06:
Since there were no weapons of mass destruction found, you’re saying that the justification for invading was to free the Iraqi people of Saddam Hussein. However, a person does not blow up a civilian restaurant (in an attempt to kill Saddam Hussein) and try to tell “intelligent” people that you’re doing it to save the civilians. The real reason why a person would blow up a civilian restaurant with flimsy intelligence that Saddam Hussein is in there, is because they “wanted” to kill Saddam Hussein. Therefore, your desire to kill Saddam Hussein was more important to you than innocent lives. So when you say that you didn’t want war, you were lying; because, wanting to kill someone is war. The only reason Saddam Hussein is alive now is because standard military protocol is that if they can take a person alive they do it. That’s the only reason he’s alive. So, you are not only willing to kill somebody who made an assassination attempt against your father, but you are willing to kill as many innocent people as necessary to do it, just like Saddam did in his Dujail killings.
Saddam Hussein killed about 140 civilians in his 1982 enemy’s stronghold of Dujail in “defense” to an assassination attempt. I’m definitely not saying that was right, but a plea of “defense” is more justifiable than your “non defense” Iraqi invasion. It sounds like to me, many of the Dujail slaughters where similar to the civilian slaughters in the 2000 movie Rules of Engagement, which we in actuality justify for America soldiers, especially if it was to defend the President. – Hey, you should be able to easily agree?
In 1998, Bill Clinton killed way over 140 Iraqi citizens just because Saddam Hussein defied his aggression. Saddam Hussein didn’t try to assassinate President Clinton, he just defied him, and so Clinton felt it necessary to kill the civilians for “defensive” reasons. But, are you putting Bill Clinton on trial? It wasn’t that long ago when we used to slaughter American Indians just because they were still on our land. Sure, we still honor those Presidents. At least 618,000 Americans killed each other during the Civil War. So, explain to me how Saddam Hussein is all that “different”?
If I was Saddam Hussein’s lawyer, I would just show how we Americans have done the same things; then, present a partiality defense.
Saddam Hussein killing his enemies and their civilians is no different than you killing your enemies and their civilians. I realize that is difficult to comprehend. I’m reminded of that fact every time I turn on the news and hear all the whining. I feel like I’m looking at a bunch of toddlers that have no adult supervision. The person who is “different” is me: I’m the one who believes we are never justified in killing an innocent person. However, unlike other stereotypical pacifists, I do believe that violence can definitely be the answer… but only directly against someone who… plans to hurt / kill an innocent person. My stuff is “perfect” in logic, not based on self-centered bias emotions.
Mr. Critical, I have a theory that intelligence will “eventually” prevail.
Generic:
If someone busted into your house, killed your loved ones, then stood there and said, “I’m here to help you,” would they really have the “moral” right to defend themselves from you wanting to kill them? The American soldier in Iraq thinks not. And, remember, this is the guy that made you walk five miles for groceries for twelve years (sanctions), where before it was only a few blocks. I hate to say it, but logically, in rational fairness, an American soldier (or any American) in Iraq actually is committing sin when he defends himself from someone trying to kill him. But then, it is a “good deed” for an American soldier to be in Iraq helping to fix the country. Say, if I was an American missionary in Iraq today, I would be doing a “good deed,” but I would “realize” if someone killed me, I would have no justifiable complain in the eyes of God, since Americans are the ones who have ruined their country, and murdered many people there. But, I’m a hell of a lot smarter than everybody else, so I’m the only one who’s going to realize that. Someone recently suggested that everyone else is not so dumb, but the reason for their beliefs is because they “don’t care,” because they are self centered / evil / hell bound. I realize this possibility. I’m just giving them the benefit of the doubt. Technically, it’s a strong combination of the two (evil and stupid). Basically, when someone thinks a self centered / bias thought, that’s evil. But, when a person verbalizes that thought (especially to the mass media), that’s stupid.
I’m guessing that Iraqi insurgency attacks against Americans will eventually slow in the many, many years to come; but, until then I can logically see how they feel they need to let us Americans know that American’s invasion (and former sanctions) methods were “unacceptable”; because… we simple don’t know that. Again, I don’t think any of this would be going on if Saddam Hussein would have given us control of the country; which, we kind of had, because, before the invasion, our inspectors could go anywhere in the country, and look inside any file. We only needed to treat Saddam Hussein like a human being, that’s all. But where’s the fun in that? I can remember when I was twelve years old: the beliefs and emotions that you all have today.
Now, I realize being Mr. Critical, when my statements pass people up, they’re not going to get it, and end up not knowing / learning anything new, and will remain in their state of dumbness; but, I enjoy presenting it anyway.
I don’t know if everyone can remember, but in the late 70s and early 80s Iran was one of our principal enemies. During the 1980s, Saddam Hussein actually worked for the United States militarily, with the United States’ authoritative approval and backing. That’s what the Iran-Iraq war was all about. Therefore, any “war crimes” Saddam Hussein needed to accomplish were patronized by the United States, to satisfy our spite for Iran. It wasn’t until afterwards and when he invaded Kuwait that the United States broke alliance with Saddam Hussein. Today, Saddam Hussein’s “war crimes,” which were once condoned by the United States, are now condemned to satisfy our updated bias desires. We definitely do bias and evil things; but, the question is what are we more of: evil or dumb? Or, are we a true magnitude of both? Usually when I prove someone dumb, they’re show me how “smart” they really are by doing something “evil” to me. Why is that: are they still dumb or just evil? I don’t know – you tell me. Maybe someday I’ll make a bar chart trying to show the degrees of dumb and evil we all are per each situation. Or, maybe I’ll leave that as a complex accounting job for God.
From what I’ve been reading about lately, the U.S. military is now trying out the lie method. I don’t see how that is going to make the Iraqi people like us any better. But, then I’m the one who everybody thinks is dumb; so, maybe it’s a good idea, duh? And your latest “trick” – I don’t know, all you need is one Iraqi smart enough to see through it; then things will just get worse. Honesty is usually the best policy; but, I understand the society which has taught your advisors. Put Saddam Hussein back in power, then you won’t have to try to fool anybody: they’ll know that’s legitimate.
Me saying that Saddam Hussein should be given back his power in Iraq, with our military supporting him, is passing you all up, isn’t it?
Mr. Critical, lovin’ it when I find ethical fault in… you.
PS: Let me know your thoughts: To comply with the Golden Rule, I definitely welcome constructive criticism.
-- Home (Index) --