This is a breathtaking interview of George W. Bush talking about the absence of WMDs in Iraq after it was used to justify crossing the ocean to attack that country. He said that when it dawned on him that there really were no weapons, that he felt terrible, sick to his stomach, etc. However, he said it remained true that Saddam was very dangerous, and he still had the capacity to make weapons, and therefore it was right to get rid of him.
BUT, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE DEAD IRAQIS? THE ONES HE HAD TO KILL IN ORDER TO GET RID OF SADDAM HUSSEIN?
Bush didn't say one word about the dead Iraqis, and neither did his interviewer, Candy Crowley. She did bring up the thousands of young Americans who died, and she wondered why he didn't fire anyone over it.
WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR DEVALUING IRAQI LIVES? WHY DOES THE KILLING OF 5000 AMERICANS OUTWEIGH THE KILLING OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS?
It is it racism that causes us to mourn the lost lives of the slain Americans but not register the slightest degree of feeling for all the Iraqis we killed? And realize that we are talking about men, women, and children who just happened to be Iraqi.
Moreover, it was America who crossed the ocean to attack Iraq; not vice versa. There didn't have to be a war at all. Bush chose to start one. The truth is that all the deaths, of both Iraqis and Americans, are on him. And the question is not why he wasn't fired, but why he wasn't tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison for his crimes. We put people to death in this country for killing one person. George W. Bush killed over a million, and what he got was a rich pension and a lifetime of perks and privileges.
He finished by saying that someday some people are going to look back at what the US did in Iraq and say, "Thank God the United States believed in the universality of freedom."
Well, I guarantee you the family and loved ones of the million+ Bush killed in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't going to say that. They're going to say that they'd put up with Saddam Hussein or the Taliban for the rest of their lives if they could only have their loved ones back.
This is very simple. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO KILL ANYBODY. If it's an acute crisis, like a crazed gunman shooting people on a college campus, yes, you have the right to kill him. But, that is an emergency. You don't have a right to kill people in order to liberate them. You don't have the right to say, "The Iraqis will be better off without Saddam Hussein. So, if I have to kill a few in order to liberate the rest, it's worth it."
No! You can't answer that question! You can't even ask it. Why? Because: you're not God.
Look: Where does our moral obligation start? It starts not with liberating anybody or getting rid of dictators. It starts with making sure that we don't hurt anybody; that we don't kill anybody. The very idea that we think we are entitled to start a war in order to change a regime or replace a dictator is grotesquely evil. It is as monstrous as monstrous gets.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.