- Sep 25, 2002
- Reaction score
But, rather than his death, lets look at what most likely would be if he had been allowed to live:
Without the US invasion, the most probable reality is one where Saddam and his even more evil sons were still alive, still in power and still thumbing their noses at the US.
Well, we can be pretty sure that three members of the UN security council would have dropped all sanctions against him and set him back up in business. They would have done so because they would have profited from it. In fact, the sanctions were already full of holes and many people were dirty with his money.
At that point, can anyone name me something that he could not do that Osama Bin Laden could? Can anyone name me something that Hussein did not have that Osama did? Do you think that Osama is a threat? If Osama offered to stop attacking us, should we take his word?
As I see it, Hussein had more money and the resources of a nation at his disposal. Lets not forget he had powerful members of the security council running cover for him. He also showed a history of running bio- weapon programs involving things like smallpox. The second program he ran right under the noses of the UN inspectors and was only found out when his son- in- law defected.
We can't say with certainty what he would have done. Maybe he would not have noticed that whoever attacked the US with anthrax caused a lot of problems and got away without anyone knowing who did it. Despite the fact that he thought he could take on the US twice toe to toe, tried to kill a president and ran bio- weapon programs he would not have tried to do so himself. And even if he did, maybe we would have caught him despite our failure to catch the anthrax attacks and the 9-11 attacks. Maybe he would not have been able to move around smallpox in diplomatic bags and pay off people to spread something like that in America. But we also don't know if Osama would fail to keep his word if he promised not to attack us anymore. If you think Osama is a threat and should be pursued even with his lack of resources and such compared to Hussein, I do not see how you can think that Hussein was not.
But now we know Hussein is not a threat. Because he is worm food.
Bob Hubbard said:Put another way, man will not be truly civilized until the day that he can proclaim "I will not kill", and hold himself to it. As a race, not just an individual.
I see that you have taken as an absolute that there shall be no killings, unless in self defense, etc. Why? What is so bad about killing.
I am not joking around. I am asking you to exam your beliefs and see if they are all built on solid ground.
I have heard it said that we should not lower ourselves to the level of a murderer by killing him. Well, since holding someone against their will is a bad thing, does that mean we should not lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper by throwing them in jail? Why is holding someone against their will a good thing if they did it but killing a person is bad if they did it?
My view of things is that no one should do something to another that they would not want done to themselves. And if they choose to do so, then their rights are then void on that matter. So I have no right to go in and take something by force from another. But if someone does that, the police have the right to make them (i.e. by force) give it back without them lowering themselves to the same level.
Note that I am not even making a moral judgement on the acts. I am merely saying that if you want to exist with others, you have to deal with them as you would want to be treated in turn. If you do not, then no one else is obligated to respect the rights you ignore in others.
Hussein ordered a entire village killed, including the two year old I mentioned, because someone from it mad him mad. So I do not see the problem with an Iraqi judge giving the same type of order to have him hanged.