97b80db2   
   XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.british   
   XPost: soc.culture.iraq, soc.culture.hongkong, soc.culture.indian   
   XPost: soc.culture.pakistan   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   Why did so many Iraqis have to die just because we see Saddam as a   
   "monster"?   
      
   An Iraqi in exile Karl Sharro @KarlreMarks said:   
      
       The invasion of Iraq forced my entire family there to leave   
       permanently and I don't know when will I see it again. Sorry for   
       not cheering.   
      
   Who are we, Americans and British under Bush and Blair, to tell Karl   
   that he and his entire family should lose their home and their country   
   just because we said Saddam was a "monster"?   
      
   In article ,   
   bmoore@nyx.net  wrote:   
   >On Mar 19, 7:35 pm, acous...@panix.com (lo yeeOn) wrote:   
   >> Blair is still bluffing: "...how can you regret removing somebody who   
   >> was a monster, who created enormous carnage?"   
   >>   
   >> When you hear this kind of response, you begin to wonder how true any   
   >> single statement any of these warmongers have uttered in public can   
   >> be.   
   >   
   >Regardless, Saddam Hussein was indeed a monster. You're not really   
   >denying that, are you?   
      
   There is no "regardless"!  There is no excuse.  The problem, like   
   others have pointed out, is that we are presiding over this massive   
   killing and destruction in nation after nation, over and over again,   
   precisely because the evil grabbers of other nations' assets continue   
   to use this type of talk to stifle the dissent and the opposition and   
   allow the murderers to go free.   
      
   Regarding Saddam, what is the evidence for his alleged monsterhood?   
   Mr. Blair didn't say.  And that's a big problem for me.   
      
   And if you want to support that murderer, please provide enough facts   
   to substantiate your accusation against Saddam.  It is not sufficient   
   to ask rhetorical question when such a device is totally unacceptable,   
   you know!   
      
   Blair justified killing upwards of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis on   
   the grounds that Saddam was a "monster".   
      
   But monster for whom?   
      
   There are monsters for little girls and boys, as well as illiterates.   
   There are baba yagas for people from rural Russia!  They are all very   
   scary creatures to the people who fear them.   
      
   And there are 18 year-old monsters for mothers who lost their sons for   
   no reasons other than the psychosis in those individuals who caused   
   the suffering mothers eternal pain.   
      
   And the CCP are "monsters" for Da Lama and his handlers like Terpstra.   
      
   And finally, there are monsters for the warmonger politicians.   
      
   So, exactly what kind of monster is Saddam to you?   
      
   And should we go kill tens and tens of thousands more (and destroy   
   their homes also) just because we have a target who is one or another   
   of these different kinds of monsters?   
      
   Why should people have to die just because we have a monster we can   
   wag our little fingers (or our tails) at?   
      
   In our own country, some of us exterminated the native American   
   Indians and took their land, should we all now welcome some aliens to   
   come and exterminate us?   
      
   And our Civil War killed over a hundred thousand confederate soldiers   
   alone and have miles and miles of home deliberately burned down by Abe   
   Lincoln's generals in the South, should we call Abe a monster?   
      
   According to the wikipedia:   
      
     [The American Civil War] remains the deadliest war in American   
     history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 750,000 soldiers   
     and an undetermined number of civilian casualties. Historian John   
     Huddleston estimates the death toll at ten percent of all Northern   
     males 20-45 years old, and 30 percent of all Southern white males   
     aged 18-40.   
      
   Should we therefore be saying:   
      
     "Abe was indeed a monster. You're not really denying that, are you?"   
      
   If we have any sanity, we know that many accusations against Saddam   
   are taken out of context.  When G H W Bush urged the Iraqi Shiites to   
   rise up against Saddam, his army squashed them.  So, that makes him   
   any more a monster than George Herbert Walker himself?  (GHW had   
   already killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers in cold blood in the battle   
   field when they were in a hasty retreat!)   
      
   And just because Saddam crushed the rebellion does not me that he kept   
   killing the Shiite Iraqis.  In fact he did not.  He had a   
   rapproachment with them and lavished them with fancy new mosques.  It   
   was just the smart political thing to do.  There was no logic in him   
   not to try to keep as many of his constituencies happy as possible.   
   So, indeed Saddam was not atypical among leaders of nations with   
   ethnic strife in their hands.  I mean if China has so much trouble   
   with the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, Saddam Iraq's ethnic disharmony is   
   many folds worse.  And today's failed state of Iraq simply proves the   
   point.  And therefore, Saddam was a "monster" is really a question of   
   "monster" to whom?  Naturally, he has been to our warmonger leaders.   
   Unfortunately, quite a few of lowly citizens started wagging their   
   little fingers too.  The net result is the mass murderers go free and   
   the mass murders are repeated over and over again in nation after   
   nation.   
      
   GHW Bush is not talked about much, in light of what his son has done.   
   But he could be more of a monster than Abe Lincoln.  And if the Kurds   
   ran an assassination squad to kill the Iraqi leader, does one not   
   expect a reprisal, after all they weren't a John Hinckley or Sarah   
   Jane Moore?  They were a part of a long-running ethnic insurrection   
   that would cause the collapse of the otherwise stable and progressive   
   and secular society that existed in Iraq.  In the United States, our   
   government has never treated rebels kindly.  We killed the American   
   Indians at Wounded Knee in 1973 - long after we killed off most of   
   their ancestors in the centuries before.  And we attacked the black   
   activists in Philadelphia and burned down houses to terminate them.   
   We also firebombed David Koresh - for what?  They were deemed   
   "dangerous to the society" right?  That's exactly the same argument   
   Saddam had against the Kurds and that's exactly the same argument the   
   CCP is having with the Tibetans who vandalized shops and beat up and   
   killed innocent people.  So, why do we allow ourselves the freedom of   
   using forces against our own people in the name of security but have   
   to kill many Iraqis because of a little excuse against Saddam?   
      
   Why did so many Iraqis have to die just because we see Saddam as a   
   "monster"?   
      
   Iraqi in exile Karl Sharro @KarlreMarks just said:   
      
       The invasion of Iraq forced my entire family there to leave   
       permanently and I don't know when will I see it again. Sorry for   
       not cheering.   
      
   Who are we, Americans and British under Bush and Blair, to tell Karl   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)