Reply #12: well, now Saddam is gone--but we are still murdering Iraqis

[ima_sinnic]

--and why HIM, out of all the "tyrannical dictators" in the world?? It was okay with everybody when Hussein was abusing and murdering his own people as long as he also complied with U.S. interests/profits. Like Manuel Noriega, however, he started resisting U.S. directives--the impending pricing of oil in Eurodollars is prime example--and then he had to be gotten rid of, to be replaced with someone more compliant with U.S. interests (forget about Iraqi interests, they don't count).

He may have been a "brutal dictator" but he was IRAQ'S brutal dictator and they had the right to their own history. At some point they would have risen up against him, or not, whatever--just as we had the right to throw off England and did not have some other country butting in to write our history for us, design our flag, write our constitutiuon, etc.

Sorry, but the U.S. cannot afford to go around the world in its phony compassion replacing dictators that we once loved with new puppets, nor does it have the will to do so. (Starting wars to displace "dictators" is crap, by the way--an oxymoron.) A great example of the falsity of the "evil dictator" argument is the evil dictator of Uzbekistan, right up there now as one of Bush's best friends (since he committed some troops to our own atrocities in Iraq). The war apologists say it was to remove Saddam, a "brutal tyrant," yet remain mysteriously silent regarding the gazillion other brutes around the globe. So that argument doesn't fly and just shows the Bushistas to be total HYPOCRITES. EVERYTHING this administration does is for its own benefit, and NONE of it is for the benefit of the people of the world. That is a GIVEN.

And since when is our own flawed system so wonderful that we can shove it down the throats of the rest of the world? I mean, we have a "president" who did not even receive a majority of the popular vote. We have decaying schools, no health insurance or medical care for a vast proportion of the population, pregnant unmarried teenagers in huge numbers, mentally ill people with no safety net, etc. etc.

In the wake of 9-11 we should have been going after terrorist cells, which fall under the jurisdiction of no "country"--they are like our own Earth First! movement, which has no central HQ and no real leader. All this inexpressibly tragic, fraudulent and satanic war has done is create generation upon generation of virulently anti-American Middle Easterners, and a rabid dislike of Americans and the USA by most of the rest of the world. Do you really think, if Hussein were the Evil One and we so gallant, the rest of the world would despise us so? Are we that "misunderstood"?

As far as the oil-grab goes, I feel there is ample evidence to support the fact that control of ME oil is a prime motivator in this business. For starters I refer you to The Thirty Year Itch, by Robert Dreyfuss, in the March/April 2003 issue of Mother Jones:

"Three decades ago, in the throes of the energy crisis, Washington's hawks conceived of a strategy for US control of the Persian Gulf's oil. Now, with the same strategists firmly in control of the White House, the Bush administration is playing out their script for global dominance. . ."

--substantiated with documentation and maps--

(edited to fix link)