t r u t h o u t || Comments || My Response to Anti-War.com on Iraq Withdrawal

My Response to Anti-War.com on Iraq Withdrawal

------------------------------------------------------------

Well, for those who want to know how to get out of this focking mess, the answer is restore a "reformed" saddam and his bathhists, keeping enough american presence to avoid a civil war until he has reconstructed his police state and army, which he could do in several months of bloody conflict with the shiites and kurds all over again. then keep him on a short leash, which we could have done all along. ---but suspend your shock at the idea for a moment and consider that we have mostly all been brainwashed into believing he is a sadistic, evil person of unique proportions. and no one, not the liberals, not the conservatives, can see that he has no more blood on his hands than almost any of the other national leaders you might pick out in the world today if you look at the direct and indirect consequences of their actions. and now that even the simpletons seem to understand he was no threat to us, who would have gone after him just because he is supposedly so god-awful evil? the liberals say they wouldn't have. the liberatarians would not have anyway.
And consider also: who has killed more innocents, saddam or the allied invasion and occupation? but again, we have been brainwashed so easily into believing that this one clever little napoleon with bad taste in art is a supreme evil. good focking grief. in psychology, this might be transference; i don't know if it has a name in the social context, something like scapegoating, just get everyone to transfer their horror at 9/11 into hatred for saddam. very expedient politically. it hides our failures and gives everybody another focus. we sponsored torture and terror in latin america. we don't even hide the fact about torturing arabs anymore. we have starved millions with embargoes and sanctions of a dozen varieties. we wreck national economies with world banking. saddam's horrors pale in comparison to the violence wrought this century by the great powers. why cannot thinking people see that they have accepted a lie that his rule was intolerable?
I am convinced sadam hussein was surprised by the change in the game. here he was, supported for years by the west, given signals to attack neighbors, armed, etc, and then something shifted and he couldn't keep up with the new rules. i can almost picture him sending word to washington, Hey, what happened, what did i do? i thought we were ok. you let pakistan and india get the bomb. i was just kidding anyway. Hey, look, ok, i'll let up on the torture and sheet, ok? ---well, what happened was the neocons picked up on another chump to back and thought they could leverage a new balance of power and who cared about saddam, just another little stickmonkey to use and throw away. . .
The alternatives all end up with a shiite majority and likely another fundamentalist islamic state. remember the taliban in afghanistan? and adding to the iran bloc, why won't we see the dominoes really start falling?

In any event, it would not be possible for our politicians to swallow enough sheet to admit their own iniquity and put him back. so ask him who can be his puppet and then give that one a makeover and appoint him some kind of interim head with saddam behind him (secretly of course; we have a lot of experience in this kind of thing). Does anyone wonder why saddam is still alive? still untried and unconvicted? because we believe in jurisprudence? hardly. we have been drilling into his brain. we have been positing deals, offering ways out if he can deliver a useful product. ---even doctor frankenstein was focked up by the monster he created. or was the monster in his head? mary shelley knew the real deal. later, nick

by hhcajr on Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 01:24:36 PM EDT

: ------------------------------------------------------------

What happened, hhcajr,

is that Saddam decided to switch to Euros.
And in addition to that, Blix was almost finished. He said he needed only 30 more days. The more we
fussed about time, the shorter time he was willing to work in. It didn't occur to him at that point that
we needed to invade BEFORE he finished, because we KNEW there were no WMD.
So we "had" to jump in before either of those two things happened.
We were gonna get that oil.
We'd been eyeing it since we lost the Shah, I think.
Anybody know when we first became really interested in Iraq? Wasn't it when Our Man In Iran
got booted out?
I'm American. I have short term history recall.

by 4gaia (4gaia) on Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 09:23:43 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
: ------------------------------------------------------------

typo omission, sorry

evidently i am also keyboardically challenged.
meant to say, short term history recall loss.
if i remember correctly, that is....

by 4gaia (4gaia) on Thu Mar 10th, 2005 at 09:28:42 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

My Response to Anti-War.com on Iraq Withdrawal

Menu

Login