US not right to invade say Iraqis Re: [extropy-chat] letter concerning presidential growth

[Samantha Atkins]

On Dec 15, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Joseph Bloch wrote:
> The irony here is, they would not be able to decide that, if we had  
> not overthrown Saddam Hussein. They would still be under the  
> jackboot of Saddam and his vicious sons. The rape rooms would still  
> be in operation. People would still be thrown living into plastic  
> shredders... head-first if the death was to be merciful.
>

As opposed to the jackboots of the US occupation forces?  Democracy  
cannot be imposed by force.  It is even more laughable to believe  
freedom can be opposed by removing freedom.

> They would not be able to decide anything, if the United States had  
> not acted. I find it a good thing that we did act, and Saddam is no  
> longer in power and able to terrorize his subjects.

As opposed to our terrorization and torture?   I hardly see that we  
have done a good deed here.  It is certainly not good that I am  
forced at gunpoint to support such state terrorism.

> Was it perfect in execution and aftermath? No, of course not, and  
> nobody is suggesting otherwise. Neither was World War II. But it is  
> better than the alternative.

No, it is not.  Iraq used to be one of the most secular of Arab  
countries.  Back before we cooked up enough agit-prop for the first  
Iraqi war.  Then we kept the place in constant economic turmoil for  
over a decade.  Then we blamed everything on Saddam, bombed hell out  
of the place  and set up occupation.  Now we are lecherously evil  
enough to claim we did it and are still doing it for the good of the   
Iraqi people!

  I couldn't be more disgusted or less proud to be an American.

- samantha