So the US wanted to win hearts and minds of the Islams, Arabs, Iraqis etc.
So Bush says hanging Saddam is a major step towards democracy.
But exactly what is the message that is being transmitted ? That if a guy kills another guy it is OK to kill that guy. The DEATH PENALTY means kill he who kills. What result does this bring ? That if I want to kill someone that I think or feel has killed someone else that it is OK to kill. So how can you say it is wrong that Sunnis decide to kill some people ? What moral authority do you have when you say violence and killing is OK ? It will just bring more violence, you win the hearts and minds of people by convincing them of peace…
What exactly is the War on Terror ? You have a few thousand guys around the world that think that by bombing or killing themselves they go to heaven or whatever. What can an army do against this ? Nothing at all. The army is just a sitting duck, it is not even a war, it is pure insanity. You win this war by not even reporting the bombing or the deeds the terrorists do. You take all focus away from them, YOU TRY TO COMPLETELY IGNORE THEM! But what does the US do ? It starts 2 major wars and feeds the insanity more and more…
When Saddam did his deeds, the US was his friend (against Iran ?), they said nothing when he killed people, and actually they IGNORED his deeds, and didn’t put any focus on them. But they remembered them 15 years later because they needed to rob Iraqi OIL, what moral authority does the US have ?
The US always needs some Mega-Enemy. So the 20 dudes who threw down the twin towers were enough to create a new “War on Terror” and continue to feed the huge military-industrial machine the US needs to create FAKE JOBS.
The fact is that US capitalism can never create all the millions of jobs necessary to keep its economic motor running. So it feeds all these government jobs based on the military and hence needs some huge justification. Hence the great war on terror, the great emphasis on the terrorists, etc. After all how many Islam attacks have there been in the west ? maybe 10 or 20, I only remember New York, London and Madrid. Hardly enough to justify all the hysteria.
So the US has a hidden communist system, government fed and paid for, that has an external military shell. The US military is an excuse for its need to create communism internally even though it really hates to. But the US has no choice, it must embrace a huge socialistic system that is hidden behind its military might.
Bush says “we will fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here”. I find this total nonsense. First who is the “Enemy” ? It is actually an ideology, a perverted religion that thinks that the US represents Satan and must be punished. Now those who believe this crap could be anyone (mostly Islam - Arabs but not necessarily) from anywhere between Marocco to Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. So there is no geographical area or country that represents this ideology. The bombings in London were made by people who lived in the suburbs of London, so are you going to fight a war in London ?
An army against a “philosophy” is pure nonsense. The ideas travel across the world, you could have some oddball Fundamentalist right in Texas who thinks that he should blow himself up and kill others because women don’t wear Burqas and the US is the great Satan. How can a war in Iraq avoid this ?
This is mostly a war of ideas, of concepts. An army fighting an imaginary war in Iraq is just a sitting duck.
The idea is that if you “win” Iraq, it becomes stabilized, a democracy (whatever that can mean in such a tribal society like Iraq) and moderate pro-western democracy type regimes would slowly become the norm in the middle east. It is a long stretch and anyways it always sounds like some kind of afterthought, some kind of excuse that is made up for the war. Something like, in the beginning it was because of the weapons of mass destruction, then since that didn’t work, it was because of democracy, then since that doesn’t sound convincing it was because we fight them there to not fight them in the US etc.
Truth is the war is not going anywhere and it won’t change anything for the better.
There are companies, organizations and monopolies that can be considered self-referential. These are like biological organisms that exist solely to reproduce themselves, so what they actually produce and give back to society is very little or close to nothing. An interesting aspect of these is that if all of the people working for them just stayed at home and didn’t do anything at all, there would probably be a huge worldwide boost in GDP. If you also consider the consumption of energy resources they provoke their net value to society is actually negative. I mean it is like they absorb 10 (in terms of energy and environmental damage also) and give back maybe only 2. The net result is negative 8.
Another interesting thing of these self fulfilling monopolies or self-referential monopolies is that the activities they have, the jobs they do are cut out to reproduce the structure and for no other reason. It is not that there is some kind of problem - job that must be solved and a company - organization is created to solve it, but the other way around, a job is invented to perfectly fit the organization. The internal structure and arbitrary activities it does are totally useless, but internally they are assigned value.
So these companies - organizations can be governmental, and/or capitalistic and/or worldwide; I am thinking maybe BANKS, INSURANCES, maybe governmental monopolies in Europe and Japan.
Well the US military machine is one of these. It must create a job to fit the structure, so it must constantly have wars to fit (and justify) the structure. But it may be self - defeating in the end, because the number of enemies it constantly creates may exceed its capability to neutralize all of them. How do you think the people of Somalia feel about the civilian deaths the US recently provoked with its raids ?
Everything looks like a nail for a hammer. In the case of the “War on Terrorism”, an ideology - philosophy - religion looks like an Army for the US military. But they are shooting against an idea. The only way to win that war is to discuss the ideology - philosophy with the radical Islamists.
Unless of course the real reasons are others, like a self - referential monopoly, like the need for middle east oil etc. Who knows the truth ?
While they bomb Somalia someone shot at the US embassy in Greece. How large is the war theater ? All of Africa, Iran, Syria, Iraq and what else ? How many troops are REALLY NEEDED, 5 million ?
Logically it is. The decision to hang Saddam was a democratic decision determined by the majority of the Iraqi population. What we consider good or bad about the situation is another matter and irrelevant to this point.
Wrong. Most idealogies (especially Islamic) are spread through violence and domination. Every mass religious conversion and political revolution in history came about through such methods. This tide can be reversed through the same methods as well.
Hanging Saddam was deemed necessary by Bush, so, considering that Bush is really the President of Iraq right now, his will was done.
But the reason Bush deemed Saddam’s hanging necessary is because it completes the objective of his red herring reason number three for invading Iraq, a red herring reason that functions as a smokescreen for the real and sole reason we invaded Iraq: to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights.
Bush’s primary reason, “because Iraq had WMDs”, was not proven the lie it was until after the invasion began, so then it was too late to stop the invasion, and Bush quickly switched to “Saddam was supporting terrorists” red herring reason number two as his new number one reason.
But that too was quickly proven a lie, as Saddam simply had no terrorist training camps in Iraq and indeed Saddam was opposed to the competition a terrorist enclave in Iraq would be against his own authority. So, when it was easily revealed that there were no ties between Saddam and terrorists, Bush switch to red herring number three, that Saddam was an “evil dictator who must be stopped”, and that became Bush’s new primary red herring given for invading Iraq.
Since Saddam did apparently do some murderous things, (like dictators in Africa and other parts of Asia who are not being invaded by America!), there appeared to be some plausibility to Bush’s saying that we invaded Iraq to overthrow an evil dictator.
But Bush was a proven liar twice before.
He was obviously hiding something.
And merely switching a tertiary red herring to the primary one doesn’t really mean anything.
Bush is still trying to hide something from the general world public: that he murderously invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights when Saddam in the fall of 2002 threatened to stop selling crude oil to America.
Bush would like nothing more than for the doubting of his red herring excuses for invading Iraq to go away.
But it won’t go away … until, he reasons, that one of the “objectives” is completed.
Thus the capture, trial and final punishment of Saddam, in Bush’s mind, will place to rest any speculation of why we invaded Iraq.
The “evil dictator” is gone. Mission accomplished.
Now he will simply refuse to discuss “why” we invaded Iraq, citing “mission accomplished, now let’s get Iraq back on its feet from Saddam’s brutal dictatorship that laid it so low”.
Sadly, however, many Americans will now follow Bush’s denial, making it their own.
They too really don’t want to hear the truth: that we murdered scores of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including over 150,000 civilians, 48% of whom were children with a median age of eight years old merely to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights so that we wouldn’t lose the irreplacable oil we had received for so many years from Iraq and then fall in to a devastating economic depression!
What American wants to live with that?!
But that is the truth of it.
So it’s kind of understandable that the American psyche is looking for anything that takes the world’s eyes off of the reality of what Bush did.
The final punishment of Saddam thus ends the “why” discussion in the minds of the self-deceptive.
But not in the minds of those who value the truth.
This matter will not rest until the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is told by the American excutive branch of government, I assure you.
Sooner or later, the truth always comes out.
Hopefully it will come out voluntarily, and not by the threat of an understandably venegeful Iraqi parent in downtown Manhattan … with a suitcase nuke in his hand.
Once again, It doesn’t matter if Bush approved of the execution or why Bush invaded Iraq. The execution itself was carried out by the democratic government of Iraq. That this government supports Al-Sadr and Iran is also a democratic decision. If Bush was looking for more support he probably would have let Saddam live and take him to the UN. It wasn’t up to him. Thus my point has not been nullified.
Yeah, WE murdered a lot of people. Have you personally? Are you in the military and have you been to Iraq? I personally have been to Iraq and probably will return again. The plain and simple truth is that those people are barbaric and fanatical beyond comprehension, their ethnic hatreds have been running deep for hundreds of years.
Democracy, American style, is merely another word for the truth of puppet capitalist regime.
The government presently in understandably unstable place in Iraq was not of, by and for Iraqis, but of by and for U.S. interests.
Like him or not, at least Saddam and his people were Iraqi.
And though he was bought and paid for by the U.S. in the name of retaining our share of Iraqi crude oil, at least we weren’t the ones directly murdering thousands in the process like we’re doing now – back then, we let “Pinocchio” Saddam do our murdering in the name of oil.
The truth of the matter is that we executed Saddam … as our illegal murderous invasion to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights intended.
No, that is what is known as an “unintended consequence”, at least that’s what Cheney, Rumsfeld and even the great Rove are telling us.
But, the obviousness of it and the history of Bush and the gang’s lie-telling on the matter of Iraq naturally tend to cast suspicion on the “unintended” nature of it.
Indeed, as long as there is sectarian unrest, there will be more U.S. troops to protect and ensure our share of Iraq’s crude oil.
And protecting our share of Iraq’s crude oil is, of course, the sole reason we invaded Iraq.
As if Saddam would have gone along with that.
As long as defiant Saddam lived, he not only posed a coupish threat, but he alone, as the person who told Bush that he was going to divert America’s share of Iraqi crude away from us as soon as the sanctions ended, and to whom Bush threatened him with invasion and death if he did so, would have been able to present that truthful testimony to the U.N. itself.
Bush would not have liked that, as the continued presentation of that truth would eventually force Bush to stop lying and admit to the truth of Saddam’s statement, truths that were in all the newspapers back then which powerful Bush denounced with the mere wave of the “conspiracy theory” epithet.
Oh yes, Bush had Saddam killed, all right.
Make no mistake about it.
Fantasies of naievity spring eternal.
At least in your mind, anyway.
But not in reality’s.
Yes, that is indeed what happened: we, the United States of America, murderously slaughtered Iraqi civilians with our bombs and missiles and troops in the process of stealing Iraq’s oil distribution rights.
Your present focus now is what is known as an “irrelevant diversion” from the truth.
It doesn’t matter who the henchmen are.
The truth of America’s murderous thieving invasion remains.
I am truly sorry that you had to be involved in that murderous horror.
Let’s hope that won’t be necessary.
Have you considered filing for conscientious objector status on the grounds as I’ve presented, that you are being used as a henchman in a murderous oil distribution rights heist and not as a true American soldier defending America against attack?
That would be the humane and moral thing to do.
And so they deserve for us to murder them?
Or that their deaths by our hands are really of meaningless consequence?
Sadly, you appear to typify the rationalization your military handlers have indoctrinated.
It’s much easier to kill … if the “animals” that you kill are of little value.
It’s also much easier to disguise such murder as “liberation” in the minds of those who have “learned” not to think ethically for themselves.