Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
h_p, you have completely left out the effects that Saddam had on his country's prosperity... which was to approximately cut it to a tenth of what it had been, while building palaces and control for himself. This led to hundreds of thousands of deaths too.
|
True. But the Iraqi war has resulted in many unquantifiable deaths as well, so there is no way to incorporate them intelligently into our findings.
Saddam Hussein is one nasty SOB, whose selfish ambitions are paid for by the lives of the people of his country, and the blood of those who opposed him. Citizens of his country lost more freedoms under his reign than any other leader in their modern history. He was responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people, and sent hundreds of soldiers needlessly to their deaths. He stupidly invaded a sovereign nation, at the strenuous objection of the majority of the planet, motivated by his own agenda and on a foundation of lies. When the world responded negatively, he plowed in despite their warnings, and resulted in a net loss of life and comfort for Iraqis. Because of all this, the majority of countries worldwide agreed that the world would be a better place were he not in power.
Now, read the above paragraph again, but substitute "George W. Bush" where it says "Saddam Hussein." Like magic, it's all still accurate!
I'm not saying that Bush is
worse than Saddam, that would be silly. I'm not even saying that he's just as bad. But he
is unapologetically guilty of many of the same crimes against humanity, and the only difference is geography and perspective.
Imagine if 14,751 innocent Americans citizens were lost as "collateral damage" in a two year period, all because of the lies of America's leadership. Just about every intelligent American would hate the guts of those responsible, and rightly so. Consider that only about 3,000 Americans were killed in the WTC attacks. In Iraq,
over four times that many innocents have died so far, and it's not over yet.
So... are Iraqi lives are worth less than American lives, because they live on a different piece of dirt, and have a different culture? If not, then why be upset about 3,000 dead Americans and not about 14,000+ dead Iraqis? All men are created equal, right? And I'll bet the percentage of children is much higher in the Iraqi death toll than it was in the WTC, given the circumstances.
I considered myself middle-of-the-road politically before Bush and his war... in fact, I tended towards Republican candidates much of the time. But of course, Bush is the first presidential candidate from whom I feared the consequences of a second term. If he was
this destructive in his first term, what will he do when re-election is
not a concern, and he feels his actions have been endorsed by the American people? I hope to never witness the answer to that question.
Incidentally, Happy Monkey's link is very apt... Anyone who hasn't yet read it really should.