[Originally written in January 2004]
I have been thinking about the Iraqi regime (Saddam) vs. what is going on in this country.
#1
Baathist regime had people tied up and thrown off of buildings (per video, reportedly from Iraq). Brooklyn Detention Center had people tied up and slammed into walls (per video).
Both cases were videotaped, the first one used to scare people (I presume) and in the second case, they wanted to hide it. Who knows if the people in Iraq were really guilty, but in the second case, the people slammed into walls were “guilty until proven innocent”. No one was charged with anything in the USA case, beyond visa violations.
Iraq cases surely resulted in more serious injuries. American cases only resulted in busted teeth and cracked ribs, I guess.
#2
Saddam invaded Kuwait to neutralize a serious military threat to Iraq and to free the Kuwaiti people from their evil dictator (per Iraqi bloggers – that’s what they were told).
Bush invaded Iraq because Iraq was a serious threat to the USA, might sell WMDs to terrorists, and to free the Iraqis from their brutal dictator. After no WMDs were found, Bush then said we were bringing them freedom and democracy (which I don’t believe any more than the threat to the USA part).
(Has Bush even thought of the fact that most Arabs hate the USA, and if given the choice, they will choose to boot the USA out of there?)
#3
USA secured the oil fields in Iraq, along with the oil ministry buildings, before anything else. Most of everything else, including nuclear materials, was looted. Iraq secured Kuwaiti palaces and the Bank of Kuwait (thinking there was gold there). I got this information from the book “The Threatening Storm” which was kinds hard to read since so much of it was wrong).
#4
Iraq tortured it’s citizens and captives.
USA shipped a Canadian to Syria to be tortured for them. No crime, no charges.
Were the Iraqis guilty of a crime? Who knows…. No open courts there. No open courts for POWs down at Guantanamo Bay, either.
[Update, October 2010: We now know that the US tortured at home, overseas, in secret prisons and black sites, and anywhere they could. Only low-level military were held accountable. The ones who make the tortures legal, the ones who ordered it, the ones who overlooked it or covered it up, were never charged with a crime for the torture they
caused.]
#5
Keeping political power
Saddam went into his political gathering (in 1979?) and had people pulled out and shot. He cried real tears while doing this, and again, it was video taped. Guess he was not afraid of the law catching up with him.
Bush administration did not like Wilson criticizing Bush, so they leaked the identity of a CIA agent to the press and slime ball Novak ran with it. That ended her career, and maybe compromised national security. Well, I guess Saddam wins this one… he ruined careers by ending lives. Don’t know if he compromised national security or not. But then, he did compromise the well-being of his people by taking them into unnecessary wars – and so did Bush!
Well, now, the real question is: are we better people by nature or genetics, or is our country set up so that really bad abusers will be identified and punished? Hard to say, considering our history over the last 200 years.
Here’s a quote from “The Threatening Storm”:
“Washington had worked so hard to ignore Saddam’s obvious flaws that it had essentially convinced itself that Saddam was little different from other brutal dictators with whom the United States had developed long and profitable relationships.”
Well, actually, I doubt Saddam is much different from other brutal dictators, but that is really not the point here… it is those “long and profitable relationships” that is the point. So, I guess 9/11 was a small payback for those “long and profitable relationships” with
other dictators? How hard do you think those folks in Washington have to work to ignore their own VERY obvious flaws? How long can we keep up this kind of policy? And what further paybacks will we see? And how long can the American public stay ignorant of this behavior? If they depend on TV news, my guess is forever.
Another quote from “The Threatening Storm”:
“The American military presence in the Persian Gulf is under pressure. The people of the region are generally unhappy with the presence of the US military forces in their countries. Some see it as a necessary evil; other condemns it as a form of imperialist occupation.”
Golly, I wonder what they think now that we are occupying Iraq? It is hard to read this book, it is so wrong. Next I am going to read “All the Shah’s Men” – which I hope is more accurate. It is about the US take over of Iran in 1953.
[Update, October 2010 – “All the Shah’s Men” was very accurate and worthwhile reading.]
I have been thinking about the Iraqi regime (Saddam) vs. what is going on in this country.
#1
Baathist regime had people tied up and thrown off of buildings (per video, reportedly from Iraq). Brooklyn Detention Center had people tied up and slammed into walls (per video).
Both cases were videotaped, the first one used to scare people (I presume) and in the second case, they wanted to hide it. Who knows if the people in Iraq were really guilty, but in the second case, the people slammed into walls were “guilty until proven innocent”. No one was charged with anything in the USA case, beyond visa violations.
Iraq cases surely resulted in more serious injuries. American cases only resulted in busted teeth and cracked ribs, I guess.
#2
Saddam invaded Kuwait to neutralize a serious military threat to Iraq and to free the Kuwaiti people from their evil dictator (per Iraqi bloggers – that’s what they were told).
Bush invaded Iraq because Iraq was a serious threat to the USA, might sell WMDs to terrorists, and to free the Iraqis from their brutal dictator. After no WMDs were found, Bush then said we were bringing them freedom and democracy (which I don’t believe any more than the threat to the USA part).
(Has Bush even thought of the fact that most Arabs hate the USA, and if given the choice, they will choose to boot the USA out of there?)
#3
USA secured the oil fields in Iraq, along with the oil ministry buildings, before anything else. Most of everything else, including nuclear materials, was looted. Iraq secured Kuwaiti palaces and the Bank of Kuwait (thinking there was gold there). I got this information from the book “The Threatening Storm” which was kinds hard to read since so much of it was wrong).
#4
Iraq tortured it’s citizens and captives.
USA shipped a Canadian to Syria to be tortured for them. No crime, no charges.
Were the Iraqis guilty of a crime? Who knows…. No open courts there. No open courts for POWs down at Guantanamo Bay, either.
[Update, October 2010: We now know that the US tortured at home, overseas, in secret prisons and black sites, and anywhere they could. Only low-level military were held accountable. The ones who make the tortures legal, the ones who ordered it, the ones who overlooked it or covered it up, were never charged with a crime for the torture they
caused.]
#5
Keeping political power
Saddam went into his political gathering (in 1979?) and had people pulled out and shot. He cried real tears while doing this, and again, it was video taped. Guess he was not afraid of the law catching up with him.
Bush administration did not like Wilson criticizing Bush, so they leaked the identity of a CIA agent to the press and slime ball Novak ran with it. That ended her career, and maybe compromised national security. Well, I guess Saddam wins this one… he ruined careers by ending lives. Don’t know if he compromised national security or not. But then, he did compromise the well-being of his people by taking them into unnecessary wars – and so did Bush!
Well, now, the real question is: are we better people by nature or genetics, or is our country set up so that really bad abusers will be identified and punished? Hard to say, considering our history over the last 200 years.
Here’s a quote from “The Threatening Storm”:
“Washington had worked so hard to ignore Saddam’s obvious flaws that it had essentially convinced itself that Saddam was little different from other brutal dictators with whom the United States had developed long and profitable relationships.”
Well, actually, I doubt Saddam is much different from other brutal dictators, but that is really not the point here… it is those “long and profitable relationships” that is the point. So, I guess 9/11 was a small payback for those “long and profitable relationships” with
other dictators? How hard do you think those folks in Washington have to work to ignore their own VERY obvious flaws? How long can we keep up this kind of policy? And what further paybacks will we see? And how long can the American public stay ignorant of this behavior? If they depend on TV news, my guess is forever.
Another quote from “The Threatening Storm”:
“The American military presence in the Persian Gulf is under pressure. The people of the region are generally unhappy with the presence of the US military forces in their countries. Some see it as a necessary evil; other condemns it as a form of imperialist occupation.”
Golly, I wonder what they think now that we are occupying Iraq? It is hard to read this book, it is so wrong. Next I am going to read “All the Shah’s Men” – which I hope is more accurate. It is about the US take over of Iran in 1953.
[Update, October 2010 – “All the Shah’s Men” was very accurate and worthwhile reading.]
No comments:
Post a Comment