In its annual report of human rights conditions around the world, Amnesty
included the US alongside China, Russia, Columbia, Uzbekistan and others as
states that claim anti-terrorism to justify gross violations.
The BushCo response?
"Why isn't Amnesty helping to prosecute Saddam?"
Why?
Because it's a done deal. The guy is in prison and he's never getting out, we hope.
Personally, I wouldn't be upset if his sorry ass was dragged into the desert and fed to giant radioactive scorpions on pay-per view TV, but then again I feel that way about petty tyrants in general. Roll over, Mussolini.
If our case against Saddam is so weak that it cannot be prosecuted without help from AI, then maybe we shouldn't have invaded in the first place.
AI is concerned with exposing and ending current human rights violations- they are not in the kangaroo court business.
So the next time someone says " the world is better without Saddam in power", ask them HOW it's better.
Is it better for you?
It's better for Halliburton shareholders, including Dick Cheney.
It's way better for Exxon/Mobile.
It's better for Blackwater and others in the mercenary industry- many of the "contractors" you hear about are , in fact, heavily armed combat personnel and bodyguards.
The proper term for soldiers who fight for the highest bidder is MERCENARY.
It's not an honorable profession- it's a step up from assassin, but just barely.
Is it better for the Iraqi people?
Ask the dead ones first. We don't how many have died since we invaded because we don't care enough to count them.
Then ask the maimed. If they can talk.
Then ask the survivors.
Their answers will depend on who's listening and how many weapons the asker carries.
That much hasn't changed - it was like that under Saddam, the only difference being that the civilians used to know who they were supposed to be afraid of.
Now they are free to be afraid of everyone all the time because death can come from anywhere, anytime.
Hooray for freedom.
It's way better for the Iranian theocracy.
They can pretty much do as they please and we can't do shit about it because our military is in the toilet after 5 years of BushCo abuse. Iran would be very difficult to beat in a traditional ground war at this point- and nukes?
Using nukes is so insane and horrible I'm truly surprised BushCo hasn't dropped them already.
It's better for North Korea for the same reason. What exactly are we going to do to stop 'lil Kim?
Attack him with the National Guard?
China?
Man, China is like so totally digging the fact that we've squandered our power and treasure on a lousy bet like Iraqi freedom. There's a strong probability of a future, open conflict with China-limited and mutually coveted resources such as oil dictate this to be nearly inevitable- and the Chinese are not going to have a demoralized, strung-out and exhausted military.
We will.
We have lost our status as the global "Good Guys", which is such a grievous loss that we may never recover from it. Having the world on one's side is good thing.
We are going to regret losing that goodwill.
I mean , it's great to have the support of freedom-loving dictatorships like Uzbekistan, but is Uzbekistan going to help us defend Taiwan when that shit hits the windmill?
This catastrophic loss of international goodwill and repute is one of the worst things BushCo has done to us, but that's such a long list it's hard to say exactly where it falls.
Here's a list of all the GOOD things BushCo has done for America and the world:
There's...um...well...
er
um...
hmmm...
..er...and , well...
He caught a fish.
Clinton had billions of dollars in budget surpluses and ended the Kosovo conflict without losing a single American life in combat. It was pretty rough on the Balkan civilians, but it was successful from a military standpoint- unlike Iraq, which has fucked up everyone and everything except the war profiteers mentioned above.
Bush caught a fucking fish. Ya-Hoo.
Isn't it great having foreign policy dictated by a President who couldn't beat an autistic 5th grader in a game of Risk?
2 comments:
My husband recently told me of something he heard on NPR. It was some reporter (he's not good with names) who used to be in the White House press pool but has now opted to be an independent agent. He said there are things they hear in the WH but are forbidden to report because then they would lose access. But since he's a free agent now, he's spilling some beans. He said that the plan all along is to start a war in the middle east. Under the guise of creating a democracy, the Shiite majority would win control. Iran would be happy with that, but all the other neighboring countries are not. Saudi Arabia has already indicated that they will not tolerate a Shiite govt in Iraq, ditto Jordan. It's all sick if it's true.
It's true.
Post a Comment